SecDef shares US war Plan in Group chat

[Anonymous]

In addition to the security risk, I'm kind of appalled that these guys are the ones making these decisions. I think I always assumed there were actual military leaders making decisions that would then go up the chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

Not a tech person but I am in a Signal group. A few things. When I join Signal, I see all of my phone contacts who also have Signal. So I can message them there.

Even if Signal is secure, your phone isn't. If I were stopped at the airport and customs made me open my phone, they'd see it all.

And within the app, we have people joining and leaving on a regular basis, not necessarily with their real names. So who knows who's in there and what they see? I don't know if that author had his full name listed, or whether he was going by his initials and the group originator thought he was someone else. But it's easy to make mistakes. Like Hegseth could have "thought" he was texting to that group, but mistakenly texted to another Signal group. So he could have shared sensitive information with anyone in his larger circle.

And, again, even though Signal is secure, I can take screen shots of it and share. Even at my government job, where we are nobodies, there is a microsoft application on our phones that prevents us from copying and pasting data from secure government apps, and stops me from screen shotting anything off secure government apps. Signal doesn't have that.

Also, the entire purpose of its use is to operate outside of standard channels to avoid accountability. It’s written right in Mein Kamp…er, Project 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this gets Hegseth fired! Please. Please. Please. (DoD employee).

If you can say - are things really bad there with him in charge?

Not PP and not DoD but according to DoD friends there are already rampant rumors of him getting wasted in Europe and making embarrassing (but hopefully not dangerous) remarks.

[Anonymous]

This is why we need professionals in the White House. I work for a publicly traded company and every year we have to go through mandatory trainings about keeping company data safe. We are taught to be on alert and not share certain information online or in person (like new C-suite hires, new customer logos, etc). This is Business 101 type stuff.

These people are unprofessional and should not be trusted with national security matters. At a minimum, they should be forced to go through data and phishing trainings like the rest of us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

Anything on a commercial phone is unsecure.

This. The messages are encrypted in transit, which is great, but when they reach their destination they are only as secure as the device reading them. I'm pretty sure the phone of a journalist is not the most secure of platforms. If they had used a secure government TS system, said journalist would not have had access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

Because we’ve all read the chat. None of this could have happened had the conversation occurred in a secure manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition to the security risk, I'm kind of appalled that these guys are the ones making these decisions. I think I always assumed there were actual military leaders making decisions that would then go up the chain.

“Yo dude, let’s attack.”

“Well we could wait.”

“Nah.”

“It’s not in alignment, but I’ll defer because you guys are rad.”

“💪🏻🔥🇺🇸”

“Duuude!”

[Anonymous]

Good summary here by Garrett Graff, one of the best reporters on national security ever.
https://www.doomsdayscenario.co/p/six-short-thoughts-on-the-most-insane-trump-story-of-all-time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we need professionals in the White House. I work for a publicly traded company and every year we have to go through mandatory trainings about keeping company data safe. We are taught to be on alert and not share certain information online or in person (like new C-suite hires, new customer logos, etc). This is Business 101 type stuff.

These people are unprofessional and should not be trusted with national security matters. At a minimum, they should be forced to go through data and phishing trainings like the rest of us!

A little late for that don'tchya think?

[Anonymous]

I know he's a journalist, but reporting on such an event where he was an actor, albeit a silent one, must be incredibly hard. You have to sift out your own emotions and reactions to tell the story, but I imagine the shock and disbelief was hard to step away from.

Anyway, clown show. It's going to cost so much to fix this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we need professionals in the White House. I work for a publicly traded company and every year we have to go through mandatory trainings about keeping company data safe. We are taught to be on alert and not share certain information online or in person (like new C-suite hires, new customer logos, etc). This is Business 101 type stuff.

Everyone in government knows this, too, and does the same kind of training. Everyone with a security clearance is doing refresher training at least once a year (and I’m looking forward to the new module that reiterates exactly what an “approved information system” is, and how your personal phone isn’t it, no really, stop it, we’ve already told you this so many times). That doesn’t stop the people at the top—particularly when they have the morals and judgment of the Fox News talking heads they used to be—from deciding it doesn’t apply to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

I can’t speak to the security, but using Signal gets around a potential FOIA.

That is one part. Also, every single person involved in this has a secure, encrypted phone for classified use only. There are approved communication protocols and signal is not one of them. They use it so that they can delete the messages that are supposed to be permanent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

I can’t speak to the security, but using Signal gets around a potential FOIA.

That is one part. Also, every single person involved in this has a secure, encrypted phone for classified use only. There are approved communication protocols and signal is not one of them. They use it so that they can delete the messages that are supposed to be permanent

And these are all things that MAGA voters don’t understand about how professional feds are and how many rules they have to follow. If they understood any of this, they would be less easily manipulated into thinking a bunch of immature reckless yahoos should do these jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know he's a journalist, but reporting on such an event where he was an actor, albeit a silent one, must be incredibly hard. You have to sift out your own emotions and reactions to tell the story, but I imagine the shock and disbelief was hard to step away from.

Anyway, clown show. It's going to cost so much to fix this mess.

He goes into it a bit on the Atlantic’s podcast about it yesterday. Short and interesting listen. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ticket-politics-from-the-atlantic/id1258635512?i=1000700679000

[Anonymous]

As seen on Threads:

People are now referring to Pete Hegseth as “WhiskiLeaks.”