| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| PA Company: Teheran has info on Marine One vulnerability | |
| 2009-03-01 | |
| A Pennsylvania company that monitors peer-to-peer file-sharing networks discovered a potentially serious security breach involving President Obama's helicopter, Marine One, NBC affiliate WPXI in Pittsburgh reported. Sensitive information about Marine One was reportedly found by Tiversa employees at an IP address in Tehran. Tiversa CEO Bob Boback said a defense contractor in Bethesda, Md., had a file sharing program on one of their systems that contained highly sensitive blueprints for Marine One and financial information about the cost of the helicopter. "We found a file containing entire blueprints and avionics package for Marine One," Boback said. Boback said the issue most likely stemmed from someone downloading the file-sharing program without realizing the problems that could result. "When downloading one of these file-sharing programs, you are effectively allowing others around the world to access your hard drive," Boback told WPXI. "We found where this information came from. We know exactly what computer it came from. I'm sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job, but we know where it came from and we know where it went," Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, an adviser to Tiversa, told WPXI.
| |
| Posted by: |
| #14 Gareth Porter, the reporter, is an anti-war journalist of smelly repute. Whatever he writes or has written, from the Viet Nam days to the present, is done to forward a left wing agenda. |
| Posted by: balthazar 2009-03-01 21:20 |
| #13 PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > [Nuclear-WMD]TERROR FROM THE SEA: WARNING FRON INDIA'S NAVAL CHIEF [nuclear bombs smuggled aboard maritime containers = ocean vessels]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-03-01 20:31 |
| #12 Thumb drives Pappy, it's the bloody thumb drives that hates us! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-01 16:48 |
| #11 Why is there not a separate system for machines that convey classified information? That was the case in all the work areas I was in, including a civilian work area. NOTHING from the outside was supposed to be able to be used on the classified system. There wasn't even a physical connection to the Internet. Security has gone to hell in the last 20 years... |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-03-01 16:18 |
| #10 There is a reason you don't have bittorrent on your fucking work machines, dumbasses. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-03-01 12:32 |
| #9 From a former colleague. It's just a matter of time before Wesley Clark raises his visibility again as a replacement for SECDEF Gates as Secretary of Defense, General Petraeus retires and there's a major shake-up in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 Collision Course Perhaps this was inevitable. Gareth Porter of the Inter Press Service is reporting that President Obama and his CENTCOM Commander, General David Petraeus, are on a collision course over Iraq. Mr. Porter's recent scoop was reprinted by the World Tribune: CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision. Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama." You can almost hear the White House source chuckling as they relayed their version of events. It sounds vaguely reminiscent of Mr. Obama's "I won" comment, during a meeting with Congressional Republicans last week. As the new decider-in-chief, President Obama will chart our policy in Iraq (and other global hotspots). But dismissing the advice of senior generals is usually a bad idea, as Mr. Obama will eventually discover. If Gareth Porter is correct--and no one has come forward to dispute his version of events-- then President Obama is facing a potential revolt among his senior military advisers. Mobilizing public support is not something that flag officers particularly enjoy, given their collective distrust of the media-- the mechanism that will be used to (quietly) convey their dissatisfaction. More disturbingly, Mr. Obama's preferred withdrawal plan flies in the face of current realities in the Middle East. As Bret Stephens notes in today's WSJ, Iraq is becoming a U.S. bulwark in the Middle East. The gains achieved by the troop surge are holding, and Iraqi forces are assuming a lead role in securing the country. Last weekend's election was a stunning success, and a model for the Arab world. Still, the situation in Iraq is not irreversible, one reason that Mr. Gates, General Petraeus and General Odierno favor an extended American draw down. Mr. Stephens observes that American "pillars" in the Middle East have met the test of time. In some cases, the bulwark of yesteryear (think Iran) is today's despotic regime that threatens regional security. Other long-standing American allies, including Pakistan and Turkey) face an uncertain future, at best. In other words, the U.S. needs all the stable, friendly regimes it can find in the Middle East. But Mr. Obama seems more intent on placating his supporters on the liberal fringe, who've been clamoring for an American pullout since 2003. The President seems willing to risk progress paid for in blood and treasure to fulfill a campaign promise-- with less regard for what happens 17 months down the road. If this sounds familiar, it should. Just days into his presidency, Mr. Obama signed an executive order to shut down the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay by next year. Just where those suspects will be incarcerated (or face justice) has not been determined. Maybe the administration should change its mantra from "Change We Can Believe In," to "Don't Sweat the Details." *** ADDENDUM: We should also note that the Obama-Petraeus collision has a political component. General Petraeus's successful strategy in Iraq caused a fair amount of consternation for Obama and his fellow Democrats. Kicking and screaming, they had to finally admit that the troop surge worked, and was eminently preferable to their "cut and run" approach. With the Democrats now in the White House, they can finally tell General Petraeus to "shut up and color." The friction in the Oval Office is also a prelude to 2012. In some GOP circles, Petraeus is already being mentioned as a potential Senate or Vice-Presidential candidate in four years. By forcing a showdown over Iraq, Obama can tarnish the general's reputation, force him to resign, or even engineer a dismissal. Any of those scenarios would damage the general politically, a calculation that isn't lost on the White House. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-01 12:27 |
| #8 that idiot Wesley Clark Hey, don't be dissing Weasely! He is the hero of the (somewhat unfought) Battle of Pristina Airport. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-03-01 12:02 |
| #7 but we know where it came from and we know where it went This is unf***ing believable. Fine you know where it went the first time. Do you know where it went from there? Did someone dump it on a CD and make copies? Did they put it on a jump-drive and fly to Moscow? of Beijing? or Pyongyong? We have a troop of incompetent buffoons running things now!!!!! Sic Semper Tyrannis |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-03-01 11:54 |
| #6 Ditto Ski, he's once again talking out of his....4th point of contact. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-01 11:27 |
| #5 ...These guys are screwed. If Wesley Clark says the grass is green and the sky is blue, I'd send an NCO out to check, just to be sure. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-03-01 11:12 |
| #4 We found where this information came from. We know exactly what computer it came from. I'm sure that person is embarrassed and may even lose their job, MAY loose his job? May? This is bullshit. The person should be fired (at least) and blackballed from _any_ government or sensitive job in the future. This is simple, basic, network security folks. And no, I am not a security expert, didn't play one on TV and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night. Of course with that idiot Wesley Clark 'advising' them maybe they didn't know (or were told not to worry about) basic network security. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-03-01 11:09 |
| #3 but we know where it came from and we know where it went," Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, an adviser to Tiversa, told WPXI as usual, Mr. Ineffective overestimates himself |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-03-01 10:40 |
| #2 Was this info leaked in order to restore/expand the new and hugely bloated presidential helicopter project? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-03-01 10:21 |
| #1 I don't ee a problem here - "the one" already said he was going to make nicey-nice with the mad mullahs. Why would they want to hurt him? |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2009-03-01 10:18 |