It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An interview with a hacker (Says Anti gravity is real!)

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
No government computers, military or otherwise, that have secret or higher info, are connected to the internet. It's still against the law to hack into unclassified networks too though. Don't draw too many conclusions about "anti gravity" being proved or disproved by this guy being in trouble.
Any tampering with government computers is highly frowned upon, and will be prosecuted to the fullest degree.



sip

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chicken on a Stick
What's up Pyros! I see there is a fellow Cryptographer in the house!! LoL. I like it when subjects like this come up, because this is my slice of the pie. I am a Cryptographic/Computer System Controller in the Air Force. (3C2X1), working on SIPRNET (secret), and SCINET (top secret).

Pyros hit it on the head with eveything he said, but the code he is talking about is not a traffic encryption code, it is a TEK, Traffic Encryption Key. This is a dynamically generated encryption key which is built by two halves of classified keying material. No two TEKs are used simultaneously.

This person would not be able to pull this off, as the level and type of encryption and devices being used would not allow it. For one, like he said, there is proprietary COMSEC which it not used more than once, at the same time for different levels of classifaction, and of which the type, date of expiration and level of encryption are all classified themselves. The devices which are primparily used to secure these networks are readily available for purchase, since they are unclass, but the keys which are used to build secure calls are not. He could not have done this, because of the COMSEC factor, and the fact that one of these devices costs in the tens of thousands of dollars.


Also, do you think that even if it were 1024, 2048, or even higher that would matter? NO. It is not all based on the number if bit encryption. There are encryption methods that are also themselves classified.

There comes another point. When dealing with this type of info (my guess about the anit-grav, not confirming nor denying anothing LOL), there is more than just logical separation of the networks. When dealing with the high level stuff, there is all mentioned above PLUS physical separation as well. There are many networks running parallel to the Internet that you are using to access this website, which you are oblivious to.

Sure NIPRNET (unclass) is going to get hacked once in a while, IT'S MICROSOFT PEOPLE.

The NSA has boasted that nothing SIPRNET or higher has been hacked in the past 30 years. Kind of a bold statement, don't you think?

The only way this would be possible is if someone on the inside transferred classified material onto an unclass system. This would also be difficult in itself as for TPI (two person integrity). This is for TOP SECRET and above that states that you have to have two people with the need to know, and same clearance, working on whatever they are doing, and watching each other.

Well, this is getting kinda long. Better cut it off now!

Peace.


Just out of curiosty. SIPRNET and SCINET just uses standard TCP/IP layer with this TEK applied. I'm assuming it's a library similar to OpenSSL?
I understand if you're cannot reveal any info.

sip



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
No government computers, military or otherwise, that have secret or higher info, are connected to the internet. It's still against the law to hack into unclassified networks too though. Don't draw too many conclusions about "anti gravity" being proved or disproved by this guy being in trouble.
Any tampering with government computers is highly frowned upon, and will be prosecuted to the fullest degree.


Exactly, anyone with any computer knowledge would know this. This guy is just trying to draw on anti-american sentiment to keep from rotting in prison.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
No government computers, military or otherwise, that have secret or higher info, are connected to the internet.


Bold claim and i wonder where you got the idea from. How are these systems supposed to ensure data integrity in case of a nuclear war scenario if they are stored in facilities that can not be accessed by network?


It's still against the law to hack into unclassified networks too though.


It's pretty obvious?


Don't draw too many conclusions about "anti gravity" being proved or disproved by this guy being in trouble.


I don't think any serious investigators would but thanks for the great advice.


Any tampering with government computers is highly frowned upon, and will be prosecuted to the fullest degree.


Depends on who you are really as the Chinese, Russians and others routinely steal large volumes of data.... So it's basically a case of if they have the power to actually do something about those who steal as they do in this case.

***********************************


Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Exactly, anyone with any computer knowledge would know this.


Well i have 'some' knowledge of computers and i don't see how it's obvious so maybe you would like to consider using some more specific claims here?


This guy is just trying to draw on anti-american sentiment to keep from rotting in prison.


And here i thought the 'anti-American sentiment' card were going out of fashion in adult discussion.

Stellar

[edit on 17-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
you can get the IP addresses of lots of military bases and including the Pentagon. from there its game on for the hacker. there is a thread on ATS that has a lot of these ip addresses i check most of them out and yet they belong to these bases.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Just to put my 2 pence worth in here (for what its worth)...

... I've watched a couple of videos done by Gary and he says that he gained access by first hacking an unprotected system and gaining access to the system administrator account. The system he hacked was supposed to be a "trusted" system which then gave him access to the more secure networks he alledgedly found the information on...

...I have spoken to a few people in the know and they told me that what he described was techicnally feasable but without knowing the systems in details they couldnt say for sure...

..Gary states that he located a picture of a UFO that appeared to him to be in earth orbit and some references to "non-terrestrial officers", although he says that he can't remember any specifics...

...When asked by one interviewer (cant remember the name off-hand) if he found any other information that he could use to bargan with he declined to answer..

...Gary also states that the US Gov are attempting to extradite him for causing damage to all the networks he hacked...he denies this saying that he caused no damage whatsoever and was only looking around. He also says that he didn't download any information...

While I'm sure that he's not telling the whole story the account given of him not working alone and having inside help is one I have not heard before... an interesting twist to another good story..

There are a number of hits for this on google video:
Gary Videos

Also his web site, Free Gary is here

Hope this is of help to the discussion.

BnB



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedangler
you can get the IP addresses of lots of military bases and including the Pentagon. from there its game on for the hacker. there is a thread on ATS that has a lot of these ip addresses i check most of them out and yet they belong to these bases.


You may be able to get IP addresses for NIPR, which is the unclassified net, but SIPR and higher aren't on the same network, so it's impossible to hack into from a commercial line.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Bold claim and i wonder where you got the idea from. How are these systems supposed to ensure data integrity in case of a nuclear war scenario if they are stored in facilities that can not be accessed by network?


It's still against the law to hack into unclassified networks too though.


It's pretty obvious?


Don't draw too many conclusions about "anti gravity" being proved or disproved by this guy being in trouble.


I don't think any serious investigators would but thanks for the great advice.



Bold claim? How is the truth a bold claim? NIPR and SIPR networks are completely separate, with no access to SIPR from commercial(i.e. NIPR) lines. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my rear, like some around here do. I speak from experience. The snide tone could be done without too.


sip

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by thedangler
you can get the IP addresses of lots of military bases and including the Pentagon. from there its game on for the hacker. there is a thread on ATS that has a lot of these ip addresses i check most of them out and yet they belong to these bases.


You may be able to get IP addresses for NIPR, which is the unclassified net, but SIPR and higher aren't on the same network, so it's impossible to hack into from a commercial line.


Actually I think you're half right, but you can find SIPRNET hosts via google. Any .mil site under SIPRNET is down as .smil afaik.
Abit of googling and you can discover documents with contact email addresses for hosts within SIPRNET. Whether you can actually access them is another story.

sip



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You may can see that something has a SMIL address, but you can't link to it from a commercial line. They are separate networks entirely(hardware, not software). You'd have to hack from a SIPR terminal, and with the systems in place now, you're identity would be known as you have to have your CAC card installed in the reader, to even log on to a computer NIPR or SIPR.


sip

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You may can see that something has a SMIL address, but you can't link to it from a commercial line. They are separate networks entirely(hardware, not software). You'd have to hack from a SIPR terminal, and with the systems in place now, you're identity would be known as you have to have your CAC card installed in the reader, to even log on to a computer NIPR or SIPR.


When you say SIPR terminal, I'm assuming you mean just a normal PC connect to SIPRNET, with a CAC card reader? No other specialised equipment?

sip



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Well a SIPR terminal has a SIPR line that it's attached to(it can't connect to NIPR lines). It has a SIPR hard disk that recognizes the computer it belongs to(you can't mix and match drives). The CAC card reader knows who the operator is based on the chip and PIN, so the IT folks know who's using what terminal(NIPR or SIPR, or higher).


sip

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Well a SIPR terminal has a SIPR line that it's attached to(it can't connect to NIPR lines). It has a SIPR hard disk that recognizes the computer it belongs to(you can't mix and match drives). The CAC card reader knows who the operator is based on the chip and PIN, so the IT folks know who's using what terminal(NIPR or SIPR, or higher).


Would the SIPR essentially be TCP/IP layer with a Secure library wrapped around it? Something like OpenSSL?

sip



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Bold claim? How is the truth a bold claim?


The truth may be but how is what your saying related to the truth?


NIPR and SIPR networks are completely separate, with no access to SIPR from commercial(i.e. NIPR) lines.


They are NOT completely seperate and saying so wont change the fact that that the data crosses the same networks and is thus subject to interception.


The SIPRNet (Secret [formerly Secure] Internet Protocol Router Network) is a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) by packet switching over the TCP/IP protocols in a "completely secure" environment. It also provides services such as hypertext documents and electronic mail. In other words, the SIPRNet is the DoD’s classified version of the civilian Internet together with its counterpart, the Top Secret and SCI Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, JWICS.

Except for existing within a secure environment, the SIPRNet is virtually indistinguishable from the Internet to the user. Its chief visible difference is the domain name system, with almost all sites being under '.smil.mil' or '.sgov.gov' . Among its many features, computers cleared for SIPRNet access connect to the network via secure dial-up or LAN connections, access web pages written in standard HTML using a standard web browser, can upload and download files via FTP connections, and can send or receive email messages through SMTP services using email programs such as Microsoft Outlook. All data transmitted on SIPRNet between secure facilities must be encrypted by approved NSA encryption systems. While the public Internet can be used to transmit encrypted SIPRNet packets ("SIPR over NIPR"), no access is permitted between the two networks.

en.wikipedia.org...


How is that possible or something that you can be so very sure about?


The health of the U.S. commercial space and telecommunications industry is critically important to the computerized, globalized U.S. economy, but also directly to the U.S. military. The Department of Defense now uses commercial satellite systems to cover about 60 percent of its satellite communications needs, and that dependence is growing.
50 Military use of commercial assets is unlikely to significantly decline, in part due to the high costs of building and operating military-dedicated satellites.

Of course, it must be pointed out that some U.S. firms will no doubt benefit from any new U.S. programs to develop space-based weaponry — particularly the large defense contractors already involved in military space programs. Nonetheless, there remains reason to be concerned about the affect on other companies more involved in the commercial use of space. And since there are, and will remain, direct benefits to the military of maintaining a strong and competitive commercial space and telecommunications industry, the possibility that the deployment of weapons in space or a policy of aggressive targeting of satellites (and subsequent government regulatory restraints) may have negative industrial implications must be more fully explored.

www.cdi.org...



But analysts, executives and even officials in the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget.
One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been about the need to better secure U.S. spacecraft.
The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule.
One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth.
“It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.”
Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but also in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs.
“The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said.

www.defensenews.com...



I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my rear, like some around here do. I speak from experience.


And you think i made it all up?


The snide tone could be done without too.


You can stop whenever you want.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
"While the public Internet can be used to transmit encrypted SIPRNet packets ("SIPR over NIPR"), no access is permitted between the two networks. "

You might want to read your Wikipedia quotes a little more thoroughly, before making assertions as fact. You might also consider that folks who work with NIPR/SIPR systems might could be considered a reliable subject matter expert vs. Wikipedia/Google/etc...

SIPR doesn't use commercial internet lines. If you don't have access to a SIPR computer w/ SIPR hard drive(these are in secure locations, and the drives aren't kept in the computers when not in use-), an account(and valid CAC- oh and by the way you have to sign for the hard disk from the security custodian), you're simply not going to hack in from your home computer(or even a government computer not on the SIPR network. PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.


[edit on 27-12-2006 by GT100FV]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   
then why is our government going to kill him GT?



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
"While the public Internet can be used to transmit encrypted SIPRNet packets ("SIPR over NIPR"), no access is permitted between the two networks. "


So that means that they do not want to allow access but what does that have to do with their ability to prevent it?


You might want to read your Wikipedia quotes a little more thoroughly, before making assertions as fact.


I did so what exactly is your point?


You might also consider that folks who work with NIPR/SIPR systems might could be considered a reliable subject matter expert vs. Wikipedia/Google/etc...


Yeah! They smart, us dumb; duh etc. If you consider yourself unable to investigate complex matters feel free not to take part but do not tell me what is 'too complex' to evaluate by using open source material .


SIPR doesn't use commercial Internet lines. If you don't have access to a SIPR computer w/ SIPR hard drive(these are in secure locations, and the drives aren't kept in the computers when not in use-), an account(and valid CAC- oh and by the way you have to sign for the hard disk from the security custodian), you're simply not going to hack in from your home computer(or even a government computer not on the SIPR network.


What do you mean it does not use commercial communication channels? Now it's your turn to go back and read the source material!


PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION.


I suggest you go back to whoever pays you and ask for more money as this 'discussion' might take some time or tell me why they public admit that encryption and security suffers for lack of bandwith.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
"So that means that they do not want to allow access but what does that have to do with their ability to prevent it? "

The NIPR and SIPR are separated by hardware not software. The bandwidth issue you quoted was in reference to the satellites the Air Force was using. Even if the info about anti gravity is true, it would have been classified at a higher level than SIPR, meaning on an even more secure network, definitely not accessible from a home computer. I've yet to hear it explained how the encryption would have been overcome, even if we assume there were no hardware issues with hacking into the secure network.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
then why is our government going to kill him GT?


Because they want the secret recipe for Kool Aid back.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
quote: You might want to read your Wikipedia quotes a little more thoroughly, before making assertions as fact.


I did so what exactly is your point?

My point was that in the article you quoted it said that the 2 networks were separate, and that was the quote that I posted earlier.


quote: You might also consider that folks who work with NIPR/SIPR systems might could be considered a reliable subject matter expert vs. Wikipedia/Google/etc...


Yeah! They smart, us dumb; duh etc. If you consider yourself unable to investigate complex matters feel free not to take part but do not tell me what is 'too complex' to evaluate by using open source material .

What I consider is that personal experience carries more weight, than assumptions based on open source browsing on the internet. For example let's say you make widgets for a living(and have a lot of experience with widgets), then you have someone trying to tell you about widgets that has never seen a widget, but has read about them on the internet. And furthermore this person is trying to inform you that you are incorrect about your information on widgets, because they have read about them.
What would your feelings be regarding the opinion of this widget debunker?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join