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

Azathoth, Lanton...... why do you guys have to be so hostile? Do you guys know for CERTAIN that this could not happen? No you don't. Let's just say "What If" it HAS happened. Just because it's your opinion that it hasn't happened doesn't mean you are "all knowing" about said subject. Just a thought.

-Quin

Originally posted by mrjenka
No problem Lanton, I have NOTHING to prove to YOU or ANYONE else. I am not going to jepordize my career and livelyhood for the sake of satisfying some people on an internet board. If I was able to, I would show you pictures, documents etc... Obviously, I can't, therefore I my statement stands. What is so unbelievable about someone working for the U.S. goverment? You guys would be surprised how many people "in the know" read this site on a regular bases and make posts. And the reason why we do not disclose what we do and who we work for is due to the same response I recieved from you Lanton. Have nice day.

Really? Well if that's the case, then i'm guessing the NSA monitors this forum too, and i'm guessing it's able to track the IPs of posters that stick out like sore-thumbs (people like you).

So know the NSA's got your ISP, knows which ISP your with, your internet bill (which gives them your name and ID no.), which means they know where you live and your life history (including your medical history). If you really were with the DIA, you would've kept your mouth shut.

You really should not pass comment on things you know nothing about.

You need to read the site that he has. He saw lots of things on his "Travels" go read up on it.

As for hacking, of course computers will be wired to a network, maybe not directly, but how do you think they store information on anything?UFOs, USOs etc. And also pass information between each other. This is 2006, they are not using typewriters!

Come on guys think out of the box a little.

And hacking does not constitute finding National Secrets in 5 minutes online

Originally posted by danielbarnett4037
You really should not pass comment on things you know nothing about.

You need to read the site that he has. He saw lots of things on his "Travels" go read up on it.

As for hacking, of course computers will be wired to a network, maybe not directly, but how do you think they store information on anything?UFOs, USOs etc. And also pass information between each other. This is 2006, they are not using typewriters!

Come on guys think out of the box a little.

And hacking does not constitute finding National Secrets in 5 minutes online

I don't see any evidence to back up what he said he saw...so we've just got to take his word for it, is that what you're saying?

the evidence is the fact that the U.S are trying to extradite him and jail him for probably the rest of his natural life.

Theyre not too worried about anything he saw, as most people wouldnt even believe him if he did!

You really need to focus on what you believe in. Theres not much evidence to support anything these days. Do you believe in God? Jesus? No evidence at all for these 2 to exist. People still believe though.

I prefer to look at the facts and make my own decision. I.E how was the earth created? With the facts oin the table im swaying towards Science and not religion.

As for Gary, the facts are there that he got into these computers, so we cant argue that point. The only point left to argue is what he actually saw.

Somehow I think both sides are dishing out a load of horsecrap to disguise whatever really might have happend. The biggest problem is the lack of hard technical details about what happened in the attacks. McKinnon talks about running Netstat and batch files, which are bottom of the barrel jargon words, for someone who has pwnz0red half the government it seems kind of odd to be talking about such things and not stuff like undocumented buffer overflows in Solaris or BSD.

His claims of doing no damage also indicate a lack of knowledge, or at least a touch of ignorance in that any unauthorized penetration to a system causes damage in that a full forensic investigation must happen to ensure there are no lingering backdoors left in or other such things, then the system must be taken offline and completely rebuilt in terms of software load and all the while the man-hours are clicking by. The fact is if he did compromise the number of systems claimed (sensitive or otherwise) it probably cost a hefty bit to bring them all back to operating conditions, in which case I don't think 70 years in the clink is unreasonable; his actions probably cost many people alot of extra hours to make right again so why not get that back from him?

Contrary to what some of you have been saying, classified government computer systems are connected directly to the internet, and classified traffic does pass back and forth in this medium 24/7. Do a web search on SIPRNet.

These signals can and do get intercepted - that is a fact of life. However.....these signals are heavily encrypted by the most powerful COMSEC devices (KG-194's, TACLANEs, etc.) and are invulnerable to decryption. 128-bit and 256-bit encryption is "commercial" grade encryption of a simplistic nature, which is vulnerable to brute-force techniques. (although - no one has openly admitted being able to factor a 128-bit key with any success in anything less than a 1-year processing window). NSA-approved military grade encryption protects these signals, and only the compromise of the effective key would place the system in jeopardy.

I hate to do this cause it looks like nitpicking but the so-called 'invulnerable to decryption' algos are not pefect and not flawless, therefore they cannot be invulnerable no matter how much someone wants to believe it. Having a huge keysize of say 1024 or 2048 or even larger 4096 (which is slow as can be) doesn't mean its going to be uncrackable. The algos are written by humans and we are all prone to error therefore in every such invulnerable algo there probably flaws which will eventually present themselves after enough scrutiny and render the algo useless. The point is nothing is totallly safe, so to enterain such a mindset is dangerous in terms of security.

Originally posted by alternateheaven
I hate to do this cause it looks like nitpicking but the so-called 'invulnerable to decryption' algos are not pefect and not flawless, therefore they cannot be invulnerable no matter how much someone wants to believe it. Having a huge keysize of say 1024 or 2048 or even larger 4096 (which is slow as can be) doesn't mean its going to be uncrackable. The algos are written by humans and we are all prone to error therefore in every such invulnerable algo there probably flaws which will eventually present themselves after enough scrutiny and render the algo useless. The point is nothing is totallly safe, so to enterain such a mindset is dangerous in terms of security.

You appear to be fixated on the concept that complex encryption keys simply involve more integers to create longer and more complex keys. That is not how modern cryptographic systems work. Not since during the Vietnam War has that been the case. Modern cryptography uses many novel techniques and processes, above and beyond simplex key complexity.

For example, one process commonly used today by numberous systems is the generation of a discreet electronic key, or traffic encryption code, each time a secure communication is generated and transmitted. This encryption code only exists in electronic format, is only known between the two discreet encryptors, and is destroyed at the termination of the communication session. Since this code did not exist prior to the communication session and disappears immediately thereafter, it is highly unlikely that an enemy would be able to obtain the code and then decrypt the signal. And even if an enemy were to successfully pull that off, they woul only be limited to the information contained within that one, signle communication session. This type of system has been in use for over thirty years, and NSA has yet to report a signle credible example of a successful intercept of this system.

In fact, I personally once heard (at a security seminar) an ex-Soviet Intelligence Official repeatedly cite the effectiveness of this system - how the KGB and GRU could not break its encryption. It was only the fact that "lazy Amercian officials" refused to take the time to go into their safe, retrieve the key, insert it into their phone, and then engage the "secure voice" system that allowed the Soviet ELINT teams to continue to obtain useful intelligence over open telephone circuits.

perhaps you should do a liitle more reading up on gary mckinnon and his 'hacking' claims. truth is that most of the time he was too stoned to remember what he had done.

so claiming he was looking for and found proof of ufo's, anti-gravity technology etc is all well and good but - where is it then? did he make copies of this 'proof' and distribute it across the planet? did he stash it away somewhere in case 'they' came for him? or did he just sit at his pc day & night with his coffee and his joint, using a few ready-made 'hacking' proggies like sub7 and backdoor-g to see if he can get into nasa or somewhere else with the secrets of the universe on their networks?

you see, there are 'hackers' and 'hackers'. there's kiddie-script proggy hacking and real 'hacking' (the majority of which occurs with hands-on access to a pc btw). he was an unemployed systems administrator who knew a little more about pcs than your average 12 year old. he was even caught when he used his own email address to download the remote access program 'remotelyanywhere'. how bright is that?

the us gov are only kicking up a stink about it to scare off other potential 'hackers', because they are a real pain when you run a business or organisation - believe me, because i used to sit opposite the network administrator in my last job

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.

Google this joke I mean guy.
He used his own email address!!!!
yea ok. i think umm most 13 year olds know NOT to do that!

So know the NSA's got your ISP, knows which ISP your with, your internet bill (which gives them your name and ID no.), which means they know where you live and your life history (including your medical history). If you really were with the DIA, you would've kept your mouth shut.

I live in Willow Grove, Pa. I use Comcast Cable. Although I have a T1 connection also. I am not sure who your reffering to as "they" but "they" know EVERYTHING about you anyway. Why is it SO hard to believe someone works for a branch of our government? I am an intelligence analyst, does that mean anything to you?

Originally posted by mrjenka

So know the NSA's got your ISP, knows which ISP your with, your internet bill (which gives them your name and ID no.), which means they know where you live and your life history (including your medical history). If you really were with the DIA, you would've kept your mouth shut.

I live in Willow Grove, Pa. I use Comcast Cable. Although I have a T1 connection also. I am not sure who your reffering to as "they" but "they" know EVERYTHING about you anyway. Why is it SO hard to believe someone works for a branch of our government? I am an intelligence analyst, does that mean anything to you?

You say you're an intelligence analyst working for the government..doesn't mean you are though.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Lanton]

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Lanton]

You guys should stop arguing over who works for what... does anyone remember what the topic of this thread is? Regardless of where you work or who you are, you're made up of blood, bones and skin... you have a brain, eyes and ears... no one here is more believable than anyone else until proven otherwise. So far the only credible source we have to date with a Name, a job, and an interview... is the hacker and the information he provided us.. keep that in mind.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by dgoodpasture]

dgoodpasture is bang on!
But I can understand why people are getting upset with this child, MrJenka talking rubbish! Unless that is, we are to believe that a US Air Force Colonel has the time and desire to post on a conspiracy forum,
and that a US Air Force Colonel cannot spell "personell" , "possibable", "implamented", "pretaining" (not even a word, unless he meant pertaining!! lol) "jepordize" , "bases" (meaning basis), "recieved" and on and on, and that a US Air Force Colonel would not consider discussion on here unprofessional. If you are an US Air Force Colonel then you are an embarrassment to your rank, your military and your country!
MrJenka there are two ways to deal with you, ignore your useless ramblings or feel insulted that you think we are not intelligent enough to see through your petty attempt to make yourself feel like the big man. In the UK I would say you had little man syndrome. You may need to look up the meaning of syndrome, i'll point you to a good dictionary if you ask.

Sorry to all of the responsible posters on here about the rant! Back on topic. I believe this guy may have gained some low security data but talk of space fleets etc is rubbish.

Cheers

Robbie

Originally posted by dgoodpasture
You guys should stop arguing over who works for what... does anyone remember what the topic of this thread is? Regardless of where you work or who you are, you're made up of blood, bones and skin... you have a brain, eyes and ears... no one here is more believable than anyone else until proven otherwise. So far the only credible source we have to date with a Name, a job, and an interview... is the hacker and the information he provided us.. keep that in mind.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by dgoodpasture]

It makes a farce of the forums if you've got people coming onto these forums claiming they're working for the DIA, or CIA or NSA when they're not in a position to prove that they are.

That's about exactly what I said Don't worry.. I'm not against anyone. I'm just for the facts... and only stating them. Now I'm outta here! Just thought I'd try and get this discussion back on track and get all the goop outta the eyes. Peace, you may go back to enjoying your discussion about the hacker and what he said.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by dgoodpasture]

Another example of how nasty this place can be and how heavily infiltrated it is by members of whatever agency is interested posing as normal posters.

Gary Mckinnon is a genuine guy and this has been rumbling on for a while.

Is it possible he hacked into something he shouldn't have?

Of course it is...

End of

Originally posted by Hammer of God
Another example of how nasty this place can be and how heavily infiltrated it is by members of whatever agency is interested posing as normal posters.

Gary Mckinnon is a genuine guy and this has been rumbling on for a while.

Is it possible he hacked into something he shouldn't have?

Of course it is...

End of

1. There's no evidence that the various posters who frequent this forum are from the agencies that they claim they are
2. It's possible that he hacked into something he shouldn't have...but i don't see any evidence that he did in fact do what he claims he did