This appears to be a snowjob against Snowden, and BS -- Look at the language:
1. Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say
2. Edward Snowden accessed some secret national security documents by assuming the electronic identities of top NSA officials
3. forensic investigation has included trying to figure out which higher level officials Snowden impersonated
4. if an employee was on vacation while the on-line version of the employee was downloading a classified document, it might indicate that someone assumed the employee’s identity
5. NSA has already identified several instances where Snowden borrowed someone else’s user profile to access documents
6. “The damage, on a scale of 1 to 10, is a 12,” said a former intelligence official.
7. The NSA declined to comment <--- WTF, then who are the above sources?
[Edit: I wanted to add a little bit of clarity here: the language used is very vague and references things that could never possible be confirmed: sources say, "might indicate", "has identified" --- This story is like a bunch of paragraphs typed out, randomly put into a hat then shaken onto the floor into the pattern of the story. It is not a decisive, cohesive piece of information -- then it is ended saying that the NSA has no comment.
THe TITLE is "NSA finds Snowden hijacked officials’ logins" NSA FINDS....
So, if the NSA doesn't comment - and the "analysis by NBC" and the NSA declines to comment are all used -- then NOTHING in this piece can be believed.
Even if the entire premise is true - this is hands down the worst framing of the information, supposedly factual, one could imagine!
---
In my informed IT professional opinion, they are using this to brand him a hacker - and they make a bunch of "what if" type claims. Then they slide into a confirmed report. Then they claim the damage is off the scale (12 on a scale of 1-10)
This is a completely MISO built PR piece for the NSA.
As administrator on any system (administrator in Windows, and Root in *nix) one will have access to whatever you want.
Whilst at lockheed, I had admin rights to every machine and document in my realm - I would have had no need to "impersonate" any other lockheed employee...
The mistake here is if NSA was using the same root passwords/keys across entire tiers of machines. In that case - call it criminal negligence on the part of whomever architected that disaster.
My thoughts exactly, they are setting him up for CFAA charges either to pile up on him or so they can drop espionage taking away the reasons for Russia's asylum.
But, yes - it is pretty clear that they have the MSM on their freaking sqwak-box right now against Snowden.
Funny how it was also revealed that they (the UK) were lying about being "leaked" info from Snowden to the "Independent" -- where Snowden came out and said he never communicated to them anything, and the "leak" was a lie and information that Snowden was specifically avoiding getting out because it was too pointed at actual personnel...
This info needs to KEEP COMING -- as we need to get to a tipping point where change is a reality.
The "budget PDF" referenced "media exploitation" and my first thought was manipulating the mainstream media into basically reporting what they wanted and if some of the taxpayer funds given to the NSA goes into the pockets of various reporters and journalists.
Maybe the "media exploitation" is what you mentioned in your original post; in effect, "NSA officials", "sources inside the NSA", etc. all "anonymously" making off-the-record comments to journalists.
If the biggest story in the history of the NSA is that some college drop-out "genius" was able to exfiltrate 20,000 docs from the NSA - and the biggest key argument they have against the guy, to prove that he were some "hacker" who was impersonating people to gain access to said files -- how is it that "NBC" is revealing this with "sources say" "an official" etc...
Don't you think that the most critical point to the credibility of the NSA is to come out and state via an official means - that they have electronic logs of this activity?
Digital forensics are binary: Either you have a digital trace of actions taken, or you do not. Period.
Either they can determine 100% that Snowden logged into station X as person Y to grab file Z -- or they do not.
THe language used in this article is textbook MISO/Psyop PR.
"Oh, an official source with knowledge of the incident has said.." -- cool, I guess they have it figured out then, huh! I shouldn't dare question that. But if I do: "We can't comment" "we cannot reveal the details of an ongoing investigation" etc...
1. Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say
2. Edward Snowden accessed some secret national security documents by assuming the electronic identities of top NSA officials
3. forensic investigation has included trying to figure out which higher level officials Snowden impersonated
4. if an employee was on vacation while the on-line version of the employee was downloading a classified document, it might indicate that someone assumed the employee’s identity
5. NSA has already identified several instances where Snowden borrowed someone else’s user profile to access documents
6. “The damage, on a scale of 1 to 10, is a 12,” said a former intelligence official.
7. The NSA declined to comment <--- WTF, then who are the above sources?
[Edit: I wanted to add a little bit of clarity here: the language used is very vague and references things that could never possible be confirmed: sources say, "might indicate", "has identified" --- This story is like a bunch of paragraphs typed out, randomly put into a hat then shaken onto the floor into the pattern of the story. It is not a decisive, cohesive piece of information -- then it is ended saying that the NSA has no comment.
THe TITLE is "NSA finds Snowden hijacked officials’ logins" NSA FINDS....
So, if the NSA doesn't comment - and the "analysis by NBC" and the NSA declines to comment are all used -- then NOTHING in this piece can be believed.
Even if the entire premise is true - this is hands down the worst framing of the information, supposedly factual, one could imagine!
---
In my informed IT professional opinion, they are using this to brand him a hacker - and they make a bunch of "what if" type claims. Then they slide into a confirmed report. Then they claim the damage is off the scale (12 on a scale of 1-10)
This is a completely MISO built PR piece for the NSA.
As administrator on any system (administrator in Windows, and Root in *nix) one will have access to whatever you want.
Whilst at lockheed, I had admin rights to every machine and document in my realm - I would have had no need to "impersonate" any other lockheed employee...
The mistake here is if NSA was using the same root passwords/keys across entire tiers of machines. In that case - call it criminal negligence on the part of whomever architected that disaster.