Re: War on Terrorism Highlights FBI's Computer Woes

From:
Date: 07/30/02 

Date: 30 Jul 2002 14:49:40 -0700

Jim Patrick <jpatrick+replyto@shentel.net> wrote in message news:<4dlaku8eoro4egd4mdebh6ihcde5ggbcdv@4ax.com>...
> In comp.security.misc, GATES IS SATAN wrote:
>
> >I agree with what you're saying but refuse to believe it has sunk to
> >such depths. You can bet those field offices are wired to the
> >mainframe with broadband, ...
>
> Broadband? Bwahahaha!!

If I used the wrong terminology here I apologize, but what's so funny
about that? You think the field offices are only using dial-up? I
didn't say T1 lines.

> >.....doesn't take much more than a Pentium II 200
> >to do that and Outlook Express can handle jpeg. ....
>
> You're right in one way to wrong in another. No, this was an example
> of security architecture. Under no circumstances would you ever use
> Outlook Express to e-mail suspects' photos to someone else; and I
> doubt that JPEG is the standard archive format.

Although I've never done it (and I won't use Outlook at all) I'm sure
any jpeg file could be encrypted and delivered over Outlook or
Express, doesn't seem very difficult to me.

> The real question in
> the example given is why they didn't just fax it.

EXACTLY, it puts the entire article's validity in doubt.
 
> >.....I have no doubt money
> >was diverted (it always is) but to say their systems haven't been
> >updated since '93 or '95 is ludicrous. ....
>
> Again, the problem is that "their systems" covers too much ground.
> The FBI has upgraded and modernized a number of their operations
> centers, but "their systems" also include everyday field agents --the
> real foundation of the agency-- and it's pretty obvious they've gotten
> little or no computer upgrade, training, or support.

What I mean by "systems" are their desktops and their LAN's (firewall,
routing, servers, etc.). And how much training does it take to use
the mouse to hit the "Send" button?
 
> >....This article IMO was designed
> >to create support for the vague "foundations" the FBI now intends to
> >build. Big Brother is right around the corner and I'd rather they
> >didn't get the money to build him at all.
>
> IMO it would take very little _money_ to revamp the entire system.
> There's several major subsystems:
> Datasets
> --Open facts (convictions, warrants, stolen property, etc.),
> --Known-but-restricted facts (fingerprints),
> --Unknowns and allegations (backgrounds, investigations)
> Query Systems
> --public
> --law enforcement
> --internal
> Communications like email
> Overlying this is the security system, restricting public access to
> investigations, verifying endpoints, and securing the communication
> itself. As background, all the above, except email, was in place and
> very functional by the late 1970's.

Again, EXACTLY. Very little real dollars (if any) to bring their
network up-to-date because most (if not all) of it is already there,
not the millions and millions they want for their coveted BBS
infrastructure.
 
> I'd disagree that the article was designed the way you see it, though
> it's obvious some of the FBI's statements were designed for that.

That's okay, good discuss though...

> OTOH I reluctantly agree that, given enough money, and that's exactly
> what the current administration would build with it.

You know it, now it's time to get our friends and neighbors to see it
too.