Former U.S. Government Officials File Civil Lawsuit to Avoid Extradition to the U.S.
Former U.S. government officials facing criminal charges have filed a civil suit in hopes of avoiding extradition to the U.S. to face charges of hacking the government’s computers last year.
[link] In the latest bombshell story in the saga of the “missing” CIA files, a former U. intelligence operative is making a court-martial plea to the charges of hacking for foreign intelligence agencies and the U. Congress, according to a new book by investigative reporters. Army officer, John “Mac” McCall, Jr. , worked with the former U. Embassy official to provide information to an Israeli intelligence organization that was also seeking information about CIA activities. The allegations by McCall, who faces more than 50 criminal counts and a potential sentence of more than 5 years in prison, come as the U. government is struggling to track down more than 400 million documents that the CIA has locked away since the agency was given an order to destroy all of the data after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The allegations stem from a meeting in 2000 between McCall and the Israeli Foreign Ministry official. McCall, who was then stationed at the U. Embassy in Tel Aviv, is alleged to have provided classified information to an Israeli intelligence official that was used to obtain intelligence from Israeli defense ministries and other agencies that was not shared with others. The information that McCall provided, said Israeli officials, was the very same kind that the U. national security agency was looking for. McCall has also admitted to some of his actions in court, where he faces charges including theft, unclassified foreign intelligence gathering, and failure to report to the CIA. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden have all criticized McCall’s actions, and U. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has expressed concern that additional charges are going to be brought because of the possible impact of the McCall case. [Link] A statement issued by McCall’s defense attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said, “John McCall has already taken full responsibility for his actions. His defense team has reviewed the facts of the matter and fully expects any convictions to be the result of a fair trial. ” There has been no response to the allegations made by McCall.
Deferred prosecution agreement with three former intelligence operatives.
This document contains classified information, and is restricted to persons who may lawfully possess access to classified information. Please notify us if any personal information is received that should not be classified.
The United States Department of State’s Office of the Secretary of State issued today a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Formerly Intelligence Obtained Agrees and Stipulations of an Informant with the Governments of Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The Department also issued a Notice of the Agreement which specifies the terms and conditions for compliance.
The United States issued a Notice of Agreement with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan on behalf of the Department of State to cooperate with the governments of these countries to help them combat terrorism.
The Department of State is working to resolve these matters through a bilateral resolution with the governments of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and may engage additional countries to achieve these results.
Secretary Rusk today signed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Governments of Ethiopia, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia for five individuals alleged to have engaged in intelligence-related activity before entering the United States. To date, the Department has determined to apply a 30-day suspension of removal and no-show provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) with respect to these individuals. The Department is requesting the suspension of removal to be suspended for 120 days, ending on June 28, 2015.
Assume no responsibility for persons who make false claims against these individuals for immigration purposes.
KARMA vs. Accuvant
Karma is a security enhancement that exploits an old bug in the Unix operating system to bypass a security feature called “lock()”. Accuvant is a modification of a file called BULKFILE in the kernel to perform malicious tricks on various devices. It may be possible to detect KARMA and ACCUvant based on a comparison of their signature and a signature generated by the BULKFILE code itself. I describe these modifications in this paper.
The KARMA and ACCUvant attacks are both based on the operating system’s (Unix) “lock()” feature.
The lock() feature is designed to prevent programs from altering file locks. This usually results in a loss of data by the program. It was designed to prevent read-write locks and, specifically, all data write locks to file locks.
However, there are operating systems that do use file locks for various purposes, such as implementing file-sharing systems.
KARMA is a KARMA (kernel-assisted Robustness) attack, whereby a user-level program is tricked into modifying the file BULKFILE, without changing the file lock that it has a lock on (a read/write lock). To execute this program, a KARMA program needs to lock the file BULKFILE and then alter BULKFILE without changing the lock that it has a lock on.
This function is not in the BULKFILE, but it is called from inside the lock function. The locking function is a read-write function that has its address taken by the lock function. The locking function sets the return value in the file lock’s return register to the value of the file lock’s offset register (since this offset register is not volatile) and then the lock function returns to the caller.
Baier-Adams-Gericke DPA. Computer Security.
Abstract: This paper describes a problem in the domain of computer security in which a target is represented by a collection of objects which together represent the target (the “target concept”) and one or more of these objects are represented by an abstract object called a “solution” (“sol”). To solve the problem, the s in a given solution needs to be modified in such a way as to make it equivalent to the target concept. One example of such a problem is the finding of a target for a given target.
In this paper we begin by introducing the problem and considering, among other things, some of the main techniques of finding solutions in this domain. In particular, we consider a decision procedure which uses a set of different representations of the target, one for each one of the representations, and which is called the “representative representation”.
Then, we describe the technique called the “target selection”. This technique works by making sure that the selected solution is the same one for any given target. The technique is intended to select a solution (the “target”) by comparing how different the target and solutions found and to select a solution by taking the solution closest to or closest to the target. The next section discusses the process of finding a solution, which is called the “solution search”.
Next, we describe the technique called the “representative selection”, which is intended to select a representation of the target such that a solution is found that is close to or closest to the target. This technique is intended to select a representation of the target by comparing how different the target and representation and to select the representation by taking the representation closest to or closest to the target. In this section we discuss the process of finding a representation, which is called the “representation search”.
We describe the problem of finding a representation of the target by making use of the representative representation, and we discuss the technique called the “representation comparison”, which is intended to compare a representation to the target and select the best one.