The Feds Cracked El Chapo's Encrypted Comms Network By Flipping His System Admin (gizmodo.com) 111
With signs that the New York trial of notorious Mexican drug lord and alleged mass murderer Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman is entering its end phase, prosecutors on Tuesday played copies of what they said were audio recordings of Guzman the FBI obtained "after they infiltrated his encrypted messaging system" with the help of Colombian and former cartel systems engineer Cristian Rodriguez, Reuters reported. Gizmodo reports: As has been previously reported by Vice, Colombian drug lord Jorge Cifuentes testified that Rodriguez had forgot to renew a license key critical to the communications network of Guzman's Sinaloa Cartel in September 2010, forcing cartel leaders to temporarily rely on conventional cell phones. Cifuentes told the court he considered Rodriguez "an irresponsible person" who had compromised their security, with a terse phone call played by prosecutors showing Cifuentes warned the subordinate he was in "charge of the system always working."
But on Tuesday it was revealed that the FBI had lured Rodriguez into a meeting with an agent posing as a potential customer much earlier, in February 2010, according to a report in the New York Times. Later, they flipped Rodriguez, having him transfer servers from Canada to the Netherlands in a move masked as an upgrade. During that process, Rodriguez slipped investigators the network's encryption keys. The communications system ran over Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), with only cartel members able to access it. Getting through its encryption gave authorities access to roughly 1,500 of Guzman's and other cartel members' calls from April 2011 to January 2012, the Times wrote, with FBI agents able to identify ones placed by the drug lord by "comparing the high-pitched, nasal voice on the calls with other recordings of the kingpin, including a video interview he gave to Rolling Stone in October 2015."
But on Tuesday it was revealed that the FBI had lured Rodriguez into a meeting with an agent posing as a potential customer much earlier, in February 2010, according to a report in the New York Times. Later, they flipped Rodriguez, having him transfer servers from Canada to the Netherlands in a move masked as an upgrade. During that process, Rodriguez slipped investigators the network's encryption keys. The communications system ran over Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), with only cartel members able to access it. Getting through its encryption gave authorities access to roughly 1,500 of Guzman's and other cartel members' calls from April 2011 to January 2012, the Times wrote, with FBI agents able to identify ones placed by the drug lord by "comparing the high-pitched, nasal voice on the calls with other recordings of the kingpin, including a video interview he gave to Rolling Stone in October 2015."
Biggest security vuln (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In every organization, there's always someone who has too much access. And there's not really a good way to avoid it.
Indeed. If the possibility of a horrible violent death for you and your family does not keep you loyal nothing will.
Re:Biggest security vuln (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. If the possibility of a horrible violent death for you and your family does not keep you loyal nothing will.
Especially now knowing that the FBI will rat out their informers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In today's dodgy legal system being honest can be a liability. when dealing with the authorities, do so anonymously.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're being seriously looked at by FBI for a criminal offense, you've fucked up by proximity already whether guilty or innocent. That said, they aren't going to go out of their way to rope innocent people for petty shit.
There are edge cases where Federal law is draconian and requires them to investigate trivial shit, Aaron Swartz etc, but that's obviously a different issue than LEO abuse of power, that's a legislative/judicial artifact rather than an FBI discretion.
Being honest is never a liability unl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"The FBI is far more professional and less likely to go after anyone not guilty of a crime than local police."
that's utter bullshit. I dealt with the FBI several months ago for a post made on facebook saying "If I remember correctly, there has been case law where a person was held not guilty for using lethal force to defend their mining claim."
And Newmont Mining Corp, the treacherous fucks that they are, instantly had the Feds at my front fucking door to harass and intimidate me.
So I'd suggest you shut your
Re: (Score:2)
In today's episode of "things that never happened"...
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI is far more professional and less likely to...
I was expecting you to say "DOX THEIR INFORMANTS" because, you know, thats what you were trying to refute.
Meanwhile, TFA is about the FBI DOXing one of their informants.
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to lie to them then YOU messed up, moron.
This is exactly the problem except the FBI gets to decide what are lies. Silence does not give them anything to work with.
Re: (Score:2)
Now every criminal group of any size knows what the FBI and any police that work with the FBI will be looking for.
Decades of useful method lost to a few days of police publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Decades of useful method lost to a few days of police publicity.
The same thing happened when the CIA publicly bragged about nailing OBL by tracking Al Qaeda's cell phones. They all went dark within minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
The West knew of the satellite phones. The US media had seen the satellite phones. The satellite phone use had been reported on.
The fear about a satellite phone been part of tracking was not new.
The real new fear was the use of the US mil to follow the network down with a real time missile strike.
Chechnya was the real new mil fear re news a satellite phone was getting tracked and a direct missile strike resulted.
So the net
Re: (Score:2)
Best decryption (Score:2)
Nothing beats thermorectal cryptanalysis.
Re: (Score:2)
And that someone is always a sysadmin (Score:2)
Not just "someone", but the sysadmin. The guy who actually enters the commands to give the boss access to stuff can use the same commands to give himself access. Don't hire shady people for those roles, and don't shortchange them on pay so they need a few bucks from someone else.
Re:And that someone is always a sysadmin (Score:4, Funny)
underpaying, to keep the commoners common (Score:5, Insightful)
A long time ago I worked as a security sysadmin for a well known Wall Street company. As part of my work I was given access to the master passwords for ALL the financial systems.
At the same time, they paid me so little (by Manhattan standards) that I had to live with two roommates. So obviously I was living far below a comfortable middle class lifestyle. While holding the master keys to a system that processed billions of dollars a day...
As it happens, I was young, and I'm an honest man from a good family. So I did nothing dishonorable. But WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?
Just goes to show that most rich folks are inbred half-wits who would be flipping burgers at McDonald's if they'd been born commoners like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
In every organization, there's always someone who has too much access. And there's not really a good way to avoid it.
I agree with the first sentence, not so much with the second.
It is absolutely possible to divide responsibilities so that no single person has deep access. The larger the number of people who must collude in order to destroy your security, the stronger your actual security is.
The problem is that security is rarely a high priority, and few organizations bother to do the analysis to decide whether they have any single points of failure. Apparently, even incredibly well-funded crime syndicates fail at this
Re: (Score:2)
Every system no matter how well built has at least one point of failure. It may not be exploitable in any practical way, but it does exist.
I'm talking about single points of failure. And I disagree with your statement. Do you have any evidence to support it?
FBI and encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
This shows that the FBI doesn't need to force key escrow or any other form of weakened encryption on the public.
If they really want the crypto keys, they can get them.
Re: (Score:2)
The US gov reads along in real time with all messages sent as they get all the keys.
Re: FBI and encryption (Score:2)
Ignorance breeds paranoia.
always, always pay lots of $$$ to your sysadmins! (Score:3)
chingados consultants, man! (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, Jesus H. Christo - it is goddamned *tough* to find competent IT support. If they can't do it with automatic weapons and methamphetamine torture parties, what hope do the rest of us have?
Re:chingados consultants, man! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, Jesus H. Christo - it is goddamned *tough* to find competent IT support. If they can't do it with automatic weapons and methamphetamine torture parties, what hope do the rest of us have?
Offer a good wage and free skills training and you can find lots of competent IT people. Be a cheap bastard and shun people because of their age and you get what you get.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think a drug cartel works any different than the average corporation? Having a budget of millions just for brib... political donations don't mean that you waste more than a dime on the guy running your IT.
Re: chingados consultants, man! (Score:2)
They never tried ALL the alternatives, e.g.outsourcing, and so on.
Not that I was waiting for the phone to ring, or anything like that. Just saying, that's all.
RIP System Admin (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they announce that?
1) The FBI didn't announce anything.
2) The sysadmin is a criminal that assisted El Chapo. (no sympathy for the Devil's assistant)
3) It makes for a good story.
Re:RIP System Admin (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely the dude got him and his family emigrated to America and in witness protection. Dreams come true - no longer living in the hole he came from, living in the US provided for by government funds.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I'm sure none of the 1500 drug lords and cartel members he ratted on bears him any grudge, they're known to be a forgiving and kind-hearted folk who don't take loyalty all that seriously. Poor too, so it's unlikely any have the resources to track him down and arrange for him to die painfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would the announce that?
Likely to override defense accusations of illegal wiretapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Obligatory (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're an idiot.
If you don't see how the referenced xkcd is relevant to a compromised sysadmin, I doubt your qualifications to evaluate idiocy.
How to survive that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Witness Protection. Unlike the movies, it generally doesn't result in people getting killed after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Witness Protection.
It works for non US residents? That an odd way to get a green card!
Re: How to survive that? (Score:1)
They will just him and his family another name, move him to like Montana or whatever, and that will be that. Hopefully they give him enough cash to make turning on the bad guy actually profitable instead of just "enjoy this harsh cold pseudosiberia" or whatever.
Re: How to survive that? (Score:5, Funny)
The only shop in the village that can support a middle class lifestyle doing working class electronics repair work.
Re: (Score:2)
Face to face messages for the long term strategic planning.
Re: (Score:2)
From the QOTD below: ""Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller"
I guess he's opted for the daring adventure.
Re: (Score:3)
License key, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascinating that this kind of organization trusts proprietary software. Too easy to sneak in back doors.
But I guess if this shop were well run the headlines wouldn't be what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so you have a choice of running the org as well as the systems and likely making mistakes that will leave your systems open, or spending all your time keeping up-to-date on all the CVEs and keeping your systems nice and secure, leaving no time to run your cartel.
I suppose you could delegate the running of the cartel to a subordinate, but that leaves you at the risk of being screwed over by those under you. This applies to every part - don't trust the people in the warehouse, do it yourself. The Sinal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, the FBI compromised the sysadmin. I don't give a fuck if you use open source software, but if your sys admin is compromised by a "hostile" actor, then you're fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
They knew the NSA and GCHQ had total control over all emerging crypto computer systems.
The Soviet Union had two option. Stay with a one time pad system and transport new codes all over the world using humans. Slow and not good for the vast numbers of longer messages
Upgrade to a new computer system and allow communication at a mil/gov level like a normal nation.
But have the NSA/GCHQ be part of all further crypto communications.
The Soviet Union had to
Re: (Score:2)
The USSR did develop their own encryption standards (e.g. GOST), don't know what you are talking about.
However in the 50's nobody used computer networks to transfer encrypted data so I _really_ don't know what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
That failed when the NSA and GCHQ could read along with the communications sent.
Lots of nations had fast new methods to move transfer lots of encrypted data.
All kinds of innovations to Teleprinters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Security 101 (Score:2)
Your biggest security problem is always the human factor.
This is why you keep the wife and kids of your sysadmin in a safe place.
So what you're saying is... (Score:1)
They didn't crack anything at all, but rather got someone to hand over the private keys.
That's not cracking. Just sayin'
The lesson here (Score:2)
Security (Score:2)
So the system was so secure that it did not use public-key encryption between clients and had no provisions for perfect forward secrecy?
Re: Why go to such lengths? (Score:2)
Drug lords are rich. The rich have civil rights.
Re: (Score:1)
It's because the War on Drugs is simply a facade to justify all the spending. Lots of Americans are getting extremely wealthy off of the WoD, and as with all big government programs, their goal is to self perpetuate, not solve whatever problem was used to sell it to the public.
If they actually did what they were supposed to do and just iced all the drug kingpins and dealers, they'd win the WoD and there wouldn't be a need for any more billions of dollars funneled into all of their family businesses.
Re: Why go to such lengths? (Score:2)
Because most of them actually believe in following the law, and the rest don't really want to go to jail. All it would take would be for one of these assassins to be prosecuted successfully enough to give up his superiors, and suddenly the whole system comes tumbling down.