Trump’s Defense Secretary Accidentally Texted War Plans to The Atlantic: ‘I Didn’t Think It Could Be Real,’ Editor Says

[NxNW]

Hillary screwed up six ways to Sunday. Even the FBI admitted that. And she did it on purpose not by accident.

She was found100% innocent of committing a crime.

As has been proven the site used is encrypted and you would have no clue about what was said among the people who are ALLOWED to see it.

Except when your entire phone is copied.

The screw up was not the fact they used this site.

It was illegal to use that site, because it was an attempt to keep the conversation off the books and not be archived as government records. A common tactic by Republicans.

The screw up was someone accide tally including the journalist. And THAT, no one has defended.

Except the Trump administration.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

My understanding is that they were using their personal phones.

But if they weren't...why did someone have a journalist in the contact list of his government phone?

This is why they should be using separate phones.

Right now, I'm using a phone with two SIM cards to have two separate lines, and that's still not secure enough because they share contacts.

Right now I'm using a phone made in The People's Republic of China that uses a proprietary Chinese operating system that is 32% compatible with android and I can’t get the Webcam to shut off. Never had a problem other than the keyboard being in Kanji every time it remotely restarts.

 

[NxNW]

But here is where I think we went wrong: After bin Laden was killed, Obama immediately went public with it. I wouldn't have done that, and I'm sure there was a lot of cringing going on in the IC the night of that announcement. If the US had said nothing--if Obama had kept the matter secret for just a while longer--it would have provided another intelligence bonus as we listened to the chatter in the aftermath.

I doubt they could have kept it quiet. It would have leaked pretty quickly.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I doubt they could have kept it quiet. It would have leaked pretty quickly.

It's not like half the team left the Navy right after it happened and wrote books about it. As well as Warrior Princess.

 

[JosephZ]

Help me out - texts that reveal:

1. No names
2. no targets
3. no locations
4. no units
5. no routes
6. no sources
7. no methods

What war plans were discussed - because if you leave all those out - it's really not much of a plan.

Israeli officials furious that Signal group chat exposed intelligence, sources say

Israeli officials are furious over the Signal chat leak involving senior Trump administration officials because it included sensitive intelligence Israel provided to the U.S. from a human intelligence source in Yemen, CBS News has learned.

While the Signal chat messages published by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic this week may not have compromised the effectiveness of the airstrike, given the publication's restraint on releasing the information, it did compromise a human source who provided the intelligence to the Israelis, who then provided it to the U.S. for targeting, a senior American intelligence official and a source with knowledge of the Israelis' ire told CBS News. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters.

 

[Always in His Presence]

While the Signal chat messages published by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic this week may not have compromised the effectiveness of the airstrike, given the publication's restraint on releasing the information, it did compromise a human source who provided the intelligence to the Israelis,

Who? Certainly the person's name was released - that is how he got compromised.

From the link:

According to Goldberg's report, one of Hegseth's messages said:

"Trigger Based" F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)​

The senior American intelligence official told CBS News that in this context, "Trigger Based" refers to an operation that is contingent upon a specific condition or event — essentially, a go or no-go decision to launch an airstrike based on confirmation of the target's presence.​

​

Mentions no one - not the target nor the human source - or even the country.

​

"No locations. No sources & methods. No WAR PLANS," Waltz wrote on X on Wednesday. "Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent."​

​

But the sources who spoke to CBS News say Israeli intelligence is angry that the intelligence they provided to the U.S. was revealed. It's unclear what the fallout will be, if any, between the U.S. and Israel over the situation.​

What intelligence - point it out - show where Israel was mentioned - or for that matter any nation.

Also keep in mind the FACT that the app itself was not compromised - but some ding dong added someone who should have not been on it.


Anyone asking how he got the reporters number?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Israeli officials furious that Signal group chat exposed intelligence, sources say

Israeli officials are furious over the Signal chat leak involving senior Trump administration officials because it included sensitive intelligence Israel provided to the U.S. from a human intelligence source in Yemen, CBS News has learned.

While the Signal chat messages published by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic this week may not have compromised the effectiveness of the airstrike, given the publication's restraint on releasing the information, it did compromise a human source who provided the intelligence to the Israelis, who then provided it to the U.S. for targeting, a senior American intelligence official and a source with knowledge of the Israelis' ire told CBS News. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters.

Throw them a couple bucks, that usually settles them down.

 

[SimplyMe]

Has anyone brought up that Hegseth's wife has allegedly "tagged along" to meetings where Classified information was discussed with NATO allies? Perhaps yet another reason that our allies are having issues trusting us, and another reason Hegseth should be removed from office?

 

[rjs330]

The group was assembled for the purpose of coordination...which Waltz indicates in his first post (underline added):

Michael Waltz
Team – establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.
Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.

Just as I said. What do you think coordination of people involved with the Houthis means? It means talking about the operation which includes something things about the mission itself. This make perfect sense. I know you desperately want to find something terribly wrong besides the journalist invitation, but you aren't other than in your own biased interpretations.

Signal is only secure as the phone on which it resides. How many of the 18 participants on this call were using their personal phones? [we don't know, but that should be investigated.

Is that what the app declares? Their encryption is only secure on government phones? Signal is recognized as a secure app for everyone.

Signal Private Messenger Review

Governement phones are not all completely secured from all attempts to hack. They are not some sort of vault that are perfectly safe.

**At any point, any one of the participants could have said: "Let's move this conversation to a secure channel"

But they did. They eventually moved to away from the app.

His lack of judgement speaks for itself.

Nothing in his messages indicate he is acting like a teenager. Only in your biased mind. It's already been listed as to what was not contained within his messages. Especially among his own operational group.

 

[RDKirk]

I doubt they could have kept it quiet. It would have leaked pretty quickly.

In my intel career, was on teams providing ground intelligence to special forces five times. They never told us what the actual mission was, nor even that it was a special forces mission. But, being intel, we weren't stupid. We know what kind of intelligence supports a small ground operation when they ask for it, and we know whether or not we have standard operating forces smack dab in the middle of country X.

But of those five times, there was only one time that we ever knew the outcome of the mission. That was because we had been following that particular "mission objective" as an intelligence objective of our own, so we noticed when he wound up dead. Otherwise, there was never any available information on that mission or any other I helped support. Not only did nothing ever reach the press, we were never even given any more information about them. We gave them the packages, they said, "Thank you, bye."

So, I think it could have taken at least a weak, maybe longer, before Pakistan would have revealed that Osama bin Laden had taken refuge in Pakistan...which they'd always denied. And it's a good bet they'd have said nothing.

 

[RDKirk]

Israeli officials furious that Signal group chat exposed intelligence, sources say

Israeli officials are furious over the Signal chat leak involving senior Trump administration officials because it included sensitive intelligence Israel provided to the U.S. from a human intelligence source in Yemen, CBS News has learned.

While the Signal chat messages published by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic this week may not have compromised the effectiveness of the airstrike, given the publication's restraint on releasing the information, it did compromise a human source who provided the intelligence to the Israelis, who then provided it to the U.S. for targeting, a senior American intelligence official and a source with knowledge of the Israelis' ire told CBS News. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters.

There you go.

Yes, it frequently happens that if they know you know, they know how you know.

 

[RDKirk]

Who? Certainly the person's name was released - that is how he got compromised.

From the link:

According to Goldberg's report, one of Hegseth's messages said:

The senior American intelligence official told CBS News that in this context, "Trigger Based" refers to an operation that is contingent upon a specific condition or event — essentially, a go or no-go decision to launch an airstrike based on confirmation of the target's presence.​

​

Mentions no one - not the target nor the human source - or even the country.

​

"No locations. No sources & methods. No WAR PLANS," Waltz wrote on X on Wednesday. "Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent."​

​

But the sources who spoke to CBS News say Israeli intelligence is angry that the intelligence they provided to the U.S. was revealed. It's unclear what the fallout will be, if any, between the U.S. and Israel over the situation.​

What intelligence - point it out - show where Israel was mentioned - or for that matter any nation.

It frequently happens that if they know what you know, they can determine how you know it.

Also keep in mind the FACT that the app itself was not compromised - but some ding dong added someone who should have not been on it.


Anyone asking how he got the reporters number?

That's a compromise of an inherent weakness in the application.

 

[wing2000]

It was Wong who put the group together and mixed up the initials JG with someone else who's initials are JG

...and Waltz, as the authority who created the meeting for coordination purposes, should have taken an accounting by everyone present. I mean, hello, those of us who host meetings on a daily basis always check who is present (or not).

 

[wing2000]

Just as I said. What do you think coordination of people involved with the Houthis means? It means talking about the operation which includes something things about the mission itself.

No, it does not. It means coordinating the participants to meet in other venues and to be prepared to address certain topics. Setting schedules and agendas is much different than dicussiong policy and actual operations.


Team – establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.
Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.

Notice the reference to the earlier meeting in the "sit room" and action items....

Is that what the app declares? Their encryption is only secure on government phones? Signal is recognized as a secure app for everyone.

That's what security professionals declare. Phones are regularly hacked via their OS. Don't believe me, do some research.

Signal Private Messenger Review

Governement phones are not all completely secured from all attempts to hack. They are not some sort of vault that are perfectly safe.

Government phones are less risky than using personal phone.

 

[rjs330]

That's a compromise of an inherent weakness in the application.

I think most secure applications would have a similar issue. It's possible for the wrong person to be invited to an in person meeting. It's a problem anykne could have for any meeting on line or not.

That's not an excuse. And that doesn't mean it was okay or that no one should be held accountable for the mistake. But thats the only mistake that happened during this thing. One person screwed up. Apparently it was Wong. Wong should be held accountable.

 

[rjs330]

No, it does not. It means coordinating the participants to meet in other venues and to be prepared to address certain topics. Setting schedules and agendas is much different than dicussiong policy and actual operations.

So you say. But the principals involved decided differently. By the way they did have other meetings later. But you are meeting at the same time as an operation is going on. And they elected to have some discussions about it. These are all high level people and they most certainly can decide what to do and what to discuss while they are together.

Team – establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours.

They made the decision to discuss what they did. Which was fine considering who was SUPPOSED to be in the group. High level people with clearance can talk about whatever they want and are AUTHORIZED to do so.

Government phones are less risky than using personal phone.

But they can be hacked correct? Of course they can.

That's what security professionals declare. Phones are regularly hacked via their OS. Don't believe me, do some research.

Doesn't change the fact that Signal is a very secure app with encryption. These kinds of apps have security to get into. Just because you hack someone phone doesn't mean you can get into every app.

 

[RDKirk]

I think most secure applications would have a similar issue. It's possible for the wrong person to be invited to an in person meeting. It's a problem anykne could have for any meeting on line or not.

That's not an excuse. And that doesn't mean it was okay or that no one should be held accountable for the mistake. But thats the only mistake that happened during this thing. One person screwed up. Apparently it was Wong. Wong should be held accountable.

Let me back up:

The the most basic inherent weakness of the application is that it is run on personal off-the-shelf phones.

If I go all the way back to "my day," nothing was off-the-shelf. Operating systems were secured proprietary, even the plugs and jacks were secured proprietary. There was no physical way to connect any secured devices to any unsecured devices. And everything was US made, down to the very last resistor.

That started to change with off-the-shelf devices being used as a price-cutting measure in the 90s.

But at least, all the devices had to be government-issued. That meant there could be layered security measures installed, such as locking the device to specific applications, preventing "side-loading" unapproved applications, and using only government carrier networks. Something like that could have prevented this situation.

Using personal phones is just a set-up for security failures. Merely having end-to-end encryption within the application is not enough.

But I know what the deal is. @Maori Aussie mentioned it in post #355.

They're trying to make things as convenient as possible for high-level officials. They don't want high-level officials to go to any trouble handling a separate device or learning a second application. So, security is sacrificed for the sake of convenience.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That's a compromise of an inherent weakness in the application.

The ability to add someone to a conversation is a compromise of an inherent weakness? good grief

 

[rjs330]

They're trying to make things as convenient as possible for high-level officials. They don't want high-level officials to go to any trouble handling a separate device or learning a second application. So, security is sacrificed for the sake of convenience.

Yes I am sure that is the case. And has probably been so for a bit. And we are all entitled to think the old ways were better. But times are a changing and not everything is better. But it is authorized if the highest officials say so.

And unless there is a law that requires all officials to use a government phone there is nothing wrong with what they are doing and it is a matter of opinion.

I'll be honest. I would prefer all of these government officials use highly secured nearly unhackable phones with wall to wall best encryption possible. But I'm not running things and never have. And my opinion is just that.

 

[RDKirk]

The ability to add someone to a conversation is a compromise of an inherent weakness? good grief

Actually, it is. That's literally a deliberate back-door, and all back doors are inherent weaknesses.