Al-Qaeda "Intranet" Goes Dark After Leak

Infern0

Banned
Al-Qaeda "Intranet" Goes Dark After Leak (Updated)

By Noah Shachtman October 09, 2007 | 3:50:00 PMCategories: Cloak and Dagger, Info War, Terror Tech


For years, the private terror-hunters at the SITE Institute have been infiltrating jihadist chat rooms, and spying on the extremists congregating online. Now, the group its digital cover has been blown -- and Al-Qaeda online communications channels have gone dark -- thanks to a ham-handed move by the Bush administration, it seems. "Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," SITE's Rita Katz told the Washington Post.
aq_page.jpg

[SITE] obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month... Around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, Katz sent both [National Counterterrorism Center #2 Michael] Leiter and [White House Counsel Fred] Fielding an e-mail with a link to a private SITE Web page containing the video and an English transcript. "Please understand the necessity for secrecy," Katz wrote in her e-mail. "We ask you not to distribute... [as] it could harm our investigations."
Exactly what happened next is unclear. But within minutes of Katz's e-mail to the White House, government-registered computers began downloading the video from SITE's server, according to a log of file transfers. The records show dozens of downloads over the next three hours from computers with addresses registered to defense and intelligence agencies.
By midafternoon, several television news networks reported obtaining copies of the transcript. A copy posted around 3 p.m. on Fox News's Web site referred to SITE and included page markers identical to those used by the group. "This confirms that the U.S. government was responsible for the leak of this document," Katz wrote in an e-mail to Leiter at 5 p.m.
Al-Qaeda supporters, now alerted to the intrusion into their secret network, put up new obstacles that prevented SITE from gaining the kind of access it had obtained in the past, according to Katz.
I think it bears repeating at this moment that Fielding's boss, one George W. Bush, last year accused reporters of compromising national security because they discussed a bogus roadside bomb countermeasure. Will the President come down as hard on his own staff, if it turns out they leaked something much more serious?

As we've noted before, today's jihadists don't just use the Internet, occasionally. "They don't exist without the Web," says Naval Postgraduate School professor John Arquilla. Everything from recruiting to training to propaganda is handled online. According to the New York Sun, the video disclosure effectively shut down the window into those activities.
One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system... [the] network of Web sites serves not only as the distribution system for the videos produced by Al Qaeda's production company, As-Sahab, but also as the equivalent of a corporate intranet, dealing with such mundane matters as expense reporting and clerical memos to mid- and lower-level Qaeda operatives throughout the world.
While intranets are usually based on servers in a discrete physical location, Obelisk is a series of sites all over the Web, often with fake names, in some cases sites that are not even known by their proprietors to have been hacked by Al Qaeda...
By Friday evening, one of the key sets of sites in the Obelisk network, the Ekhlaas forum, was back on line. The Ekhlaas forum is a password-protected message board used by Qaeda for recruitment, propaganda dissemination, and as one of the entrance ways into Obelisk for those operatives whose user names are granted permission. Many of the other Obelisk sites are now offline and presumably moved to new secret locations on the World Wide Web.
Ben Venzke, who runs IntelCenter, a (sorta) SITE rivals, says his "sources, methods and techniques... to collect terrorist video material remain intact."
However, the continued public release of videos before terrorist groups officially release them has been making it progressively more difficult to collect video material early in the dissemination process. While IntelCenter does release material publicly it only does so after an evaluation is made to insure that sources and methods are protected and a careful weighing of the benefits versus costs. The single driving factor behind this decision process is what best serves the work of the overall counterterrorism community with the most important objective being the prevention of attacks and removal of threats.
It is not just about getting the video first. It is about having the proper methods and procedures in place to make sure that the appropriate intel gets to where it needs to go in the IC and elsewhere in order to support ongoing counterterrorism operations. Simply getting the video first but not having the professional knowledge and responsibilities to know what to do with it can not only result in the loss of valuable intelligence but it can actually harm ongoing activities within the official counterterrorism commmunity, as has happened time and time again when private citizens and organizations outside of the IC play in fields where they lack the depth and experience.
While much attention in the public arena is paid to getting videos first, this is actually a much smaller part of the work that is done within the official counterterrorism community. Work on videos continues weeks after their release and involves many facets of analytical and other efforts. While any jump start one can get is of benefit, a few hours when taken in the overall context of weeks of work is relatively insignificant.
UPDATE: Shockingly, the Bushies are denying the whole thing.


http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/httpwwwwashingt.html


*slow clapping*
 
oh course not. the way i see it, you force the enemy to change the way they conduct business. they are disrupted. they no longer have means to do the business they did before.

you guys see this as a war only on the ground. consider this as taking out an entire terror cell on the ground, only this one is in cyberspace.

think multi-dimensional, asymmetric warfare.

this isn't a disaster so much for us as it is for them. their cyber structure has been crippled.
 
Thank you TI. I must admit, that I don't have a deep understanding of the way that these systems operate, or how they maintain their security from the outside world.

Never the less I feel that we have lost a very important way of monitoring their activities. Much like as if the Axis had been told we were breaking their Enigma and Purple codes during WWII.
 
no it hasn't.....nothing has bee crippled. we just cant spy in on it.

they have moved it, they still have all they equipment....and they have to do is remake the sites at new addresses.....and when they do get up and running again....we have to find them and infiltrate them before we can gain the use of that intelligence again.


it's a **** up, pure and simple
 
"At this point, we don't think there was a leak from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or the National Counterterrorism Center," Feinstein said.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, responding to a description of the leak in yesterday's editions of The Washington Post, told reporters that "this was a cause of concern that the information was leaked. And I would have to refer to the DNI's office in regards to any possible investigation into that leak."
Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, expressed concern about the leak in a news conference, saying the government needs the cooperation of private individuals and companies in stopping terrorist groups.
SITE is one of several small, commercial intelligence firms that specialize in intercepting al-Qaeda's internet communications, often by clandestine means. SITE founder Rita Katz told The Post that her company covertly obtained an early copy of a bin Laden video message in early September, then shared the video with senior administration officials on Sept. 7 on the condition that it not be distributed or made public before its official release.
Soon afterward, the video was downloaded by dozens of computers registered to government agencies. Within hours, SITE's copy of the video was leaked to television news networks and broadcast worldwide.
SITE provides copies of videos and other al-Qaeda material to subscribers, which include intelligence agencies, private companies and news organizations. SITE has acknowledged alerting clients that it had obtained the bin Laden video and would release it when safe to do so. During this period, SITE also negotiated with at least two television networks that were interested in obtaining the video once cleared for release, but it reached no deal before the video was leaked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902055.html
 
I'd really like to go with TI. i hope he know a lot more than me on the subject. As it happens that would not be difficult. I'm still struggling with down-loading.


---------------------------------
Give me liberty or give me death.
 
no it hasn't.....nothing has bee crippled. we just cant spy in on it.
they have moved it, they still have all they equipment....and they have to do is remake the sites at new addresses.....and when they do get up and running again....we have to find them and infiltrate them before we can gain the use of that intelligence again.
it's a **** up, pure and simple

As I said earlier, this is not my forte, and my understanding is minimal.

Surely there is more to it than just setting up on new sites on different servers with new addresses. I am sure that our eggheads have ways of conducting traffic analysis that would allow them to find new sites within days if not hours.

I would have thought that the greatest damage would have been that we have now confirmed the fact that we have moles within their system and that we have access to their innermost workings. The loss of the "system" being of secondary concern.

It's all new to me.
 
Oooh Senojekips, you are lifting my spirits. Maybe TI is right. That'll do for me, feel better already.



-------------------------------
Give me liberty or give me death.
 
Like I said Del Boy, I'm completely in the dark as to how this will affect our intelligence gathering capability. At first glance it certainly appears to be a disaster of huge proportions, I just can't see that the loss of a good source of information can't be a disaster.

With them having now been made aware that we were within their system, is going to make them a lot more paranoid about their security in future.

Mind you, I also have no idea of what our boffins can do and what tools they have at their disposal to find and re-insert themselves into any new network.
 
First, Infern0, trust me on this subject. If Redleg thought that the forum was being hacked, what would he do? Would he simply turn off the server? Maybe... would he delete this site.. No :cen: ing way. Could he call it www.military-quotesandstuff.com and just reload it elsewhere? Way to much infrastructure already established. Would he take it offline and figure out his vulnerabilites?

If you had a car that kept on getting broken into, would you keep driving it, or would you take it to a mechanic?

Remember, you must think in a virtual world.
 
First, Infern0, trust me on this subject. If Redleg thought that the forum was being hacked, what would he do? Would he simply turn off the server? Maybe... would he delete this site.. No :cen: ing way. Could he call it www.military-quotesandstuff.com and just reload it elsewhere? Way to much infrastructure already established. Would he take it offline and figure out his vulnerabilites?

If you had a car that kept on getting broken into, would you keep driving it, or would you take it to a mechanic?

Remember, you must think in a virtual world.


all well and good....but surely it would've been better that their cover hadn't have been blown?
 
only time will tell, but i think that it is naive to think that that one port was not only ours, but other countries, only way into their cyber network. I just think it is hard to believe that.
 
I'm not trying too hard to understand, as no doubt what we can see is only what "they" want, or allow us to see, but I feel that it would be a really interesting field to be working in.

I reckon that you would need a brain like a gunny sack full of wet spaghetti.
 
this is true old boy. some of these young kids have some MAD Skills when it comes to computers. and it doesn't matter what country you come from
 
Back
Top