Any Half-Decent Hacker Could Break Into Mar-a-Lago (alternet.org) 327
MrCreosote writes: Properties owned and run by the Trump Organization, including places where Trump spends much of his time and has hosted foreign leaders, are a network security nightmare. From a report via ProPublica (co-published with Gizmodo): "We parked a 17-foot motor boat in a lagoon about 800 feet from the back lawn of The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and pointed a 2-foot wireless antenna that resembled a potato gun toward the club. Within a minute, we spotted three weakly encrypted Wi-Fi networks. We could have hacked them in less than five minutes, but we refrained. A few days later, we drove through the grounds of the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with the same antenna and aimed it at the clubhouse. We identified two open Wi-Fi networks that anyone could join without a password. We resisted the temptation. We have also visited two of President Donald Trump's other family-run retreats, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and a golf club in Sterling, Virginia. Our inspections found weak and open Wi-Fi networks, wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information. The risks posed by the lax security, experts say, go well beyond simple digital snooping. Sophisticated attackers could take advantage of vulnerabilities in the Wi-Fi networks to take over devices like computers or smart phones and use them to record conversations involving anyone on the premises."
Working as intended (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, indeed. What they detected were honeypots.
Re: (Score:2)
What they detected were honeypots
Miss Russia and who else?
Re: (Score:3)
Miss Russia
That's the honey, but where's the pot?
Re: Working as intended (Score:3)
Jeff Sessions made sure there was none of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Working as intended (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would a hacker need to break in though? All you need to do is just talk with Trump to get classified info.
Heaven forbid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Heaven forbid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's the destruction of evidence after getting caught.
There's no evidence that Trump made secret recordings much less destroyed them.
Re: Heaven forbid (Score:3, Informative)
he's talking about Mrs. Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
he's talking about Mrs. Clinton.
This topic is about Trump, who is being investigated for obstruction of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Heaven forbid (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the admitted Fast and Furious initiative?
Like the admitted IRS Targeting?
Like the admitted and provable lie that Benghazi was because of a video?
Like the admitted falsehood that "the cops acted stupidly"?
Like the admitted inappropriate conversation of the former President and husband of a subject of FBI investigation having a private meeting with the head of the FBI in a private jet hours before the FBI decides that despite significant findings of negligence that the investigation is not even being handed over to prosecutors?
Sorry, but the "manufactured" scandals all bore fruit. There was just a total lack of will by the press to report it let alone pursue it and instead used every opportunity to excuse it simply because it ran counter to their own political interests. The lack of public pressure that resulted allowed Democrats to quietly move along with little consequence. And apparently you bought into their bullshit hook, line and sinker.
Re: (Score:3)
Like the admitted IRS Targeting?
This is the one I'd like to see investigated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think there's any evidence that President Obama obstructed justice in any of those investigations. For the "cops acted stupidly" - Obama personally apologized to the cop involved and even went out to lunch with him.
On Benghazi - again no obstructed justice and the Republican Party carried out no less than 7 investigations and found nothing (and if you're thinking only 7 - that's actually more house/senate investigations than 9/11 got).
I mean most of that stuff - the Justice department investigated a
Re: (Score:3)
See this is the difference between me and many. I call bullshit and hypocrisy where I see it, not just where it suits my political position. And in this particular cas
Re: (Score:3)
They couldn't get traction because they were investigating the (at the time) current administration and soon-to-be Queen. A certain someone at the FBI said as much.
And now you're all crying about how it's not right for Trump's administration to investigate Trump's campaign's alleged ties to Russia and alleged interference (i.e., revealing some truths about Hillary). So now we have a special independent investigation going on. Yet Clinton under Obama's administration never got that level of unbridled scru
Re: (Score:3)
Mr Nixon is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
[...] then threaten to shoot people when its pointed out.
I'm using a named account. You still haven't filed a compliant with the authorities after three months of repeating this false accusation on Slashdot. My attorney is waiting to hear from you.
Re: (Score:3)
Having the Justice Department try the President for treason (or any other criminal charge) is like a Vice President in a corporation firing the CEO. The Vice President can take whatever issues he has with the CEO's conduct to the Board of Direc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When the police comes into your house with a warrant I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to lock certain rooms and bar them from going in there. THEY decide what is "personal" and what is "evidence" - not you. In fact if you DO tell them "please don't look in that drawer" that is the FIRST place they're going to look.
The deleted personal emails were personal only because we have Hillary's word for it... and the toilet at the crackhouse is running not because someone flushed some drugs down there but someon
Wow. You da man. Accessing a public network! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now. Show me that you were able to do more than break into the equivalent of Starbucks public network.
Do you not think the actual problem is Trump's private retreat has security the equivalent of a starbucks?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. You hit the problem. What does that have to do with open access points?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mar-a-lago is the "Southern White House", according to Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An open wifi router doesn't matter when Orange Julius is blabbing codeword-level secrets in a bugged Oval Office and appoints foreign agents to his cabinet?
Did I guess right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mar-a-lago is a resort.
So is Camp David. Which one is more secure for national security?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow. You da man. Accessing a public network! (Score:5, Informative)
This is analogous to Trump owning the Waldorf Hotel and having a suite there and someone hacking the hotel's public network. Big deal. Again, that's the equivalent of hacking a Starbucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
" If he is doing presidential work there, do you not think it should be on a secure network, maybe separate to the one everyone else is using" Bingo. Why is the President of the United States doing sensitive work at a public golf resort? Shouldn't that be done at a secure facility of some sort? What does that have to do with open wifi access points?
Because he's a fucking idiot and spends basically every weekend there. Do you honestly think the country only gets run while he's in the oval office?
Re: (Score:3)
There is?
I don't get how it is appropriate to install a Federal secure network at a golf resort. But I guess I am not a security expert.
Re: (Score:2)
Now. Show me that you were able to do more than break into the equivalent of Starbucks public network.
The point of the report was to show the state of security regarding locations where the President of the United States often conducts official business.
By comparison, who gives a flying fuck about Starbucks hotspots and spying on arguments over avocado toast recipes between two hipster douchebags.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee. See any problem here? What does that have to do with open access points at a public resort?
You would think... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You would secure a public network?
Yes. At this moment I'm on the express bus and using wifi, which requires that I agree to the terms of access. No agreement, no access. That's different from a wide open access point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I earn $55k doing IT support in Silicon Valley and I don't see the difference.
Only a douchebag would brag about making proverty wages in Silicon Valley. :p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a golfer wanted to send confidential information back to his office then he would use a VPN, just like he does in any public space.
Re your scenario - that would only be possible when they are strolling through the public areas - i'm pretty sure the Secret Service of both the US and J
Re:You would think... (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole story screams spin to me, by simple omission of critical details and wording. Humans tend to fill in the blanks with their imaginations. Note that the article states only that they "found 3 weakly encrypted WLANs". Not a word on what other WLANs they may have found (or maybe couldn't detect). So why assume the 3 that they mentioned that they found are the **only** 3 WLANs that they actually found? This article is likely a half-truth, made to create a particular impression. "Hey, we detected 5 WLANs at Mar-a-lago, but look, 3 of them are a security joke! Let's harp on that. " People are going way out of their way to bash Trump with glee, so this seems not at all improbable.
They don't say anything like, "all of the WLANs we found were insecure", or even, "all three WLANS we could detect were insecure", nor do they say, "3 out of the 4 WLANS we found were weakly encrypted" either. This is vague-speak.
Obviously, there are going to be a few normal consumer grade WLANs there, it's a freaking public resort, first and foremost. It's also possible that Trump doesn't use the wireless at all if he's conducting business there, it seems likely his WH security people would recommend using cabled LAN only. He may not be that tech saavy, but the staff should be.
Open wifi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Open wifi (Score:3)
People connect they're phones to public WiFi hotspots. Their phones have cameras and microphones. Checkmate!
(Seriously, though, I'm just as confused as you. There's no reason to think these places would put security systems on the public WiFi network.)
Re: (Score:3)
There is open wifi everywhere. Most businesses that host customers have them. Mar-a-lago is a country club. What does webcams and microphones have to do with Wifi? What planet do you live on?
Mar-a-lago isn't just a country club anymore though is it. Open networks aside, they probably just gobble up whatever they can of whatever connects to them. The rest of the piss poor security at the president's personal retreat filled with a bunch of the richest and most powerful people in the country though? It's a wonder the security is anything less than water tight. Would the same standards be acceptable at the white house? It's just another home office after all. Unless the whole thing is one giant hon
Re:Open wifi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russians, Chinese, Arabs want to know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
do not worry, they already know from many months ago...
Re:Russians, Chinese, Arabs want to know (Score:5, Funny)
Why would the Russians care? They get invited to the White House to receive the classified information they want - no need for hacking.
You resisted the temptation? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, you know that violating the CFAA has draconian penalties and you want some stupid script kiddie to take the risk for you....
Is secure hotel wifi possible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most hotels in the US now seem to provide wifi. In my experience it is secured by either an easily available password or a login page. Many guests expect easy to use wifi.
In such circumstances is it possible to have secure wifi?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. WPA2 provides isolation between users, for example, so you can't simply wireshark everyone else's traffic. WEP is broken and doesn't provide adequate isolation any more.
If their APs/routers are using WEP, chances are they are out of date and vulnerable to other attacks. If someone can get into the router, they can change things like the default gateway, DNS settings or maybe tunnel traffic through their own VPN.
I'm surprised that the security services have not helped them to secure their systems, consi
HACK THE PLANET! (Score:2)
Public WiFi (Score:2)
Re: Public WiFi (Score:2, Flamebait)
Given that Camp David isn't a public resort or golf course or whatever, probably none. How far below room temperature is your IQ?
Try this when Trump is there... (Score:3)
I have a feeling you will be intercepted and detained if you try this during a Trump visit.
The exclusion zone for boats, cars and aircraft is pretty invasive and I believe their choice of locations would be off limits.
Then there is the whole, what did you actually hack into? A lightly defended public WiFi network where the WEP key is on a sign in the lobby? Heck, even the Point of Sale and reservations systems? How's that an issue for national security? It's not like we don't already know when Trump is there and when he's not... What else you got? The ability to charge Trump's room for some pay-per-view movie? Yea that might embarrass him I guess...
All they had to do was walk in (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
and read the sign that says "This month's WiFi Password is GOLF". It's a country club. They assume you belong there, unless you don't look like you belong there. What is the point of securing a network that has a publicly available password?
The point is probably that Trump is at Mar a Lago at least once a month and has already been reported having policy discussions out in the open in public. If someone were to get into the network and compromise a few machines to use as listening or recording devices, they might find something out a good 6 hours before Trump tweets it. That's a significant security risk.
And that is different..... (Score:2)
This would be different from a majority of the companies and some government networks... how? Security has always been an after thought for most companies as it is deemed too expensive. Maybe the hacking will escalate the costs to a point that they will start paying attention to it a little more.
Re: And that is different..... (Score:2)
It's different because these places are open to the general public, and they want to provide amenities like WiFi access and printers to people they haven't screened. They *want* some of their systems to be easy to access. That doesn't mean they use those systems for anything proprietary or confidential.
Okay, so what ? (Score:4, Insightful)
They went all James Bond on folks and pointed their " hacker-antenna " at the building and found weak or unprotected access points.
And ?
Guest access is typically open access which would explain the latter pretty quickly.
Weak access could be any number of networks, but not necessarily one that would be useful to anyone.
I swear, the media is going full Autistic when it comes to trying to destroy EVERYTHING that is Donald Trump. If the information is negative, or can be spun into a negative light, they are making sure the entire world hears about it. 24/7 Regardless if there is any truth to it or not.
Lots and lots of rumors, " secret sources ", and whatnot, but not a shred of concrete evidence.
WTF has happened to journalistic integrity ?
Misleading Headline (Score:3)
"Any Half-Decent Hacker Could Break Into Pretty Much Any Hotel, Coffee Shop or Car Dealership In The Country Because Their Networks Are Set Up By Someone Who Has No Clue About Security."
FTFY
Here, there and everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope nobody here thinks that this is a Trump-exclusive. He's in really good company, the more exclusive and elitist a club or establishment, the more likely their non-physical security sucks big time. Why? Same reason as everywhere, nobody who could sensibly demand it knows jack shit about it, so why bother throwing money at it? Worse, securing something invariably cuts into its usability. I'm actually surprised those access points had any kind of security. None of the oh-so-important people complained yet that they're too stupid to configure their toy to connect? Oh, sorry, let me rephrase it: None of them complained yet that you idiots cannot configure your computer thingie right so their expensive and highly intelligent device can connect to it? Because MY thing was expensive and it's very high tech, so if it doesn't work, it OBVIOUSLY has to be that you're too stupid to configure YOUR end!
This is basically why security sucks in such places. Not the physical, mind you. But IT security usually is a mess. And as long as there are computer illiterates who dictate what has to be and what must not be, this also will not change.
A long way down.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This comment will be a long way down the page. At time of writing, there are several comments above all modded to 4/5 saying "hotels have open wifi". Well done.
Did no one read "wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information" ? Clearly the mods didn't read it any more than the commenters.
Whilst I agree it's a bit of a thin piece, the places where the president goes for 'private stuff' matter. If he's doing a press day talking to kids in school or whatever, then there's no benefit hacking a printer to listen in to what he says. However, when he's hosting someone and playing a friendly round of golf and hanging out in the clubhouse as if the two of them are just two guys and not heads of state - then all of a sudden stuff like open wifi and hackable printers and servers starts to matter a lot more. I have no idea if all that stuff gets switched off when the place gets 'secured' though - knowing that would have made this article a lot more useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are they discussing sensitive matters in insecure environments? Because they're fucking clown shoes. They think it's ok to just break out sensitive intelligence documents [nytimes.com] in the middle of a crowded dining room at a hotel. Trump's personal body guard can't figure out how to use a fucking Manila folder [washingtonpost.com] to keep the Secretary of Defense's phone number private.
Open door security (Score:2)
Just like an unlocked door does not constitute poor security, unless it takes you to a room full of swag or information you should not see. Merely finding some APs (that could simply have been APs on someone's phone) does not make a story.
Private clubs are cheap as fuck (Score:5, Interesting)
I've done work for two "exclusive" old-money country clubs in my city and both of them are cheap as hell. The members have all the money in the world when it comes to the damn golf course, but IT is dead last on spending.
One of the clubs had to resort to screwing framed pictures to the wall in some areas of the club because members had been caught "borrowing" pictures to display at home. The expensive floral arrangements had to be hidden until after the regular ladies' bridge game because the "ladies" would either take the arrangements completely or create a "take home" arrangement with a big chunk of the flowers. Food, booze, cans of pop, etc. have to be kept under lock and key or under the watch of an employee, at both clubs members were caught literally loading their trunk with cases of stuff.
Members routinely call up and challenge their food and beverage bills, demanding that drink orders and entire meals be refunded because of errors in billing or complaints about the quality of the food. The AR employee tells me that one member in particular demands refunds every month, picking out the most expensive meals on her bill and claiming "these meals were unsatisfactory and I won't pay for them."
IT spending of course suffers. When we put together upgrade proposals (for amounts totaling maybe $20-30k), we occasionally have to meet with board members who present "Google shopping" lists of prices from unknown vendors (likely selling grey market or unlabeled refurbs) and explain why our prices "are so high."
It is no surprise to me that club IT sucks, because club management sucks and members don't want to pay for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How does it mean anything? This is a public network.
If it was just some golf club it wouldn't. This isn't just some golf club anymore though is it. The open ones might be public but that's not to say anything about all the other security issues identified.
Re:ridiculous story is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is itself a rather glaring misdirection, giving limited information in the context of it being all inclusive of the resort's security posture. It's like saying that because every reputable hotel in the world has freely accessible wifi that all hotel chains are easily hackable to their core. This is a hack job of a "report" done with blatantly biased slant and omission of detail.
This is the equivalent of saying that because there are 1000's of US Government websites that face the public domain on port 80 that the federal government as a whole is ripe for intrusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ridiculous story is ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:5, Informative)
They did not connect to the unprotected networks (i.e. networks that are open, by design). They also did not connect to the weakly protected networks (which would have been illegal, but their point was that hackers and foreign governments could easily access them).
Re: (Score:3)
So they didn't access a network so they didn't know what it contains. What's the threat again?
I'm currently sitting in a hotel posting this. The WiFi has WEP encryption. WEP of all things. Hack away, you can't get me. I'm not even on the damn thing. The 4G I get is faster.
For all we know it's a frigging honeypot. Until anyone connects to it and downloads Trump's naked selfies this article is all alarmist title and nothing of substance.
Re: (Score:3)
They did not connect...
Then how did they determine that the "back-end databases contain[ed] sensitive information?" Either they broke your CFAA, or this is speculation.
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Because information that would not be sensitive if it relates to an average person or business is sensitive when it relates to the office of the President of the United States.
Things like location and movements of regular people are merely a privacy concern, not a security concern, but movements of people who work for or are meeting with the President of the United States are important secrets. Whatever backend services are connected to the hotspots, they contain sensitive information relating to national security! That's true even if it is just for off-hours internet access. Just having people connected in some way to the office of the President walking in range of a hotspot with electronics in their pocket could be a risk, even if they aren't "connecting" intentionally to any network.
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumb news organization admits it broke the law!
Did they? I don't know the specifics of the law in regards to WiFi, but this seems(according to the first half of TFS) no different than someone turning on their laptop in the parking lot of a hotel and noticing that the hotel is one network that they could potentially log onto w/o encryption.
That being said, if that's all they did, then it also doesn't prove one way or the other how secure it is. Most resorts and such have public WiFi. Many don't require any log on at all. As long as all they can do is access the internet and no internal systems, it's working as intended. I've stayed in places that also have unsecured printers outside of the regular network for guests to use.
Our inspections found weak and open Wi-Fi networks, wireless printers without passwords, servers with outdated and vulnerable software, and unencrypted login pages to back-end databases containing sensitive information.
Open WiFi and printers are to be expected for guests to use, as long as they are on a separate network from anything that's not intended to be public. The rest of this statement contradicts the previous statement of:
We resisted the temptation.
Either they did log onto the network and were doing some snooping (in which case they may have broken the law), or they didn't and made this up.
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
We resisted the temptation.
Either they did log onto the network and were doing some snooping (in which case they may have broken the law), or they didn't and made this up.
Or, another thing they could have done, is idly listen to the network, and notice that there was printer communication on the network.
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Most resorts and such have public WiFi.
Most resorts are not used by the President of the United States to conduct his business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason he has international meetings and talks about air strikes in between the main course and dessert in the completely open and unvetted surroundings of the maralago public dining room.
Because he's a venal moron who wants government money to come directly to him.
Re:Incoming law enforcement (Score:5, Informative)
Because he's an arrogant prick who thinks that he can do whatever he wants without consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is the President of the United States conducting business at a public resort?
For PR, because he owns it.
Also, most of the foreign workers that accompany delegations are used to corruption and they know to be seen spending lots of money at the President's business. Nobody has to ask for anything, or ask to get anything. It isn't a bribe, it is just curry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Far worse than that (Score:3, Interesting)
"We parked a 17-foot motor boat in a lagoon about 800 feet from the back lawn of The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and pointed a 2-foot wireless antenna that resembled a potato gun toward the club."
All joking aside, this is an excellent way to get shot. Do not point anything that looks like a 2 foot cannon at the secret service.
Re:Crappy pentest is crappy (Score:5, Informative)
1. Was this done with written permission from the network owner? If not, you opened yourself up to legal action by the network owner if they choose to pursue it.
Listening to SSID broadcast is hardly illegal.