How do you change the perception?

[BILL]

Islamic Forum devoted to hacking:

Partial contents: ( links removed )

# Section applications programmes encrypted encryption special versions special
# مــــنــــتـــدى اخــــتــــراق الايــــمـــيـــل Forum penetrate email
#

* قـسـم خــــاص لأســئــلـــة الأعــضـــاء واسـتـفـسـاراـتـهـم حـــول الاخـــتـــراق A special section of questions and requests for information about members penetration

# مــــنــــتــــدى اخــــتـــراق الاجـــهـــزة Forum penetrating devices
#

* قـسـم خــــاص لأســئــلـــة الأعــضـــاء واسـتـفـسـاراـتـهـم حـــول الاخـــتـــراق A special section of questions and requests for information about members penetration
* الـبـرامـج الـــمــشـــفــرة والــحـــصـــريــة Encrypted programmes and exclusive

# مــــنـــتــــدى اخـــتـــراق الــمـــواقع والـــمــنـــتـــديـــات Forum penetrate sites and forums
#

* قـسـم خــــاص لأســئــلـــة الأعــضـــاء واسـتـفـسـاراـتـهـم حـــول الاخـــتـــراق A special section of questions and requests for information about members penetration
* ::Local Root Exploit :: :: Local Root Exploit::

# قــســـم أخـــتــــراق شــبــكـــات الــويــرلــــس & LAN Section penetrate networks Aloyrls & LAN
# مــنـــتــدى انـــــجــــازات الـــهـــكر Forum achievements Alhecr
#

* قسم أدوات و اندكسات الاختراق Tools section and penetration Andquisat
* مكتبة الثغرات Library gaps

# مـــنــــتـــــدى اخـــــتــــراق الـــــجــــوال Forum mobile penetration
# مـــنـــتـــدى اخــــتــــراق الـــمحـــادثـــة Forum penetrate conversation
# منتدى تعليم الهكر Education Forum Alhecr
# قسم الدورات الاحترافية Section professional courses
# قسم تعليم الاختراق بالفيديو Education Section breakthrough video
# قسم E-book Section E-book
#

* قسم الطلبات Section applications

# مـــنــــتـــــدى الـــــفـــايــــروســــات Forum VIRUSES


The West has an advantage, in technological abilities, an attempt to close this gap, with forums like this.

Bill



From hacked site:


.

[Aurelian]

I want to dip my toe into this pool in a very limited way. I am a Navy Reserve CPO and have some interest in this field. My take is that perception management is but one part of an overall strategy to bring down the West. They use a distributed open source warefare model that the West will find very difficult to emulate. We seem to be at a point where we cannot go beyond looking to a central authority (Government Agencies like EPA, the Supreme Court, Operations that require deniability, etc) to adjudicate problems, authorize "hunting liscenses" and so forth. This will necissarily make any attempt to create a flexible, dynamic IW effort lugubrious and prone to, at best, defensive measures.

IW including cyber warfare will exist in an area the US has been reluctant to involve itsel in such as plausible deniability, independent and interdependent teams with alot of independence and seizing control through bots of many platforms. This is a threat we currently face and will face more in the future (see Russian Business Network).

I do not think we can manage perception but can manage the strength of the message getting out about what the jihadis really are about, their threat to us and how they manage our perceptions of them. If you take my first statement about open source warfare and apply it to perception management to me combined civilian network and DOD efforts may work. Using the German General Staff concept of "Marching Orders" that of giving general goals to be met and leaving the meeting of them to the teams. However, if we do not get beyond the central authority model I don't think we will have much success. I think the USAF new IW command will fizzle and fizzle badly because of this problem.

I welcome your comments and the opportunity to at least get my muddled thoughts on this subject in some kind of order.

[BILL]

Excellent analysis:

Yes as I understand it, it requires an order/ok from Bush to take down a server, and that kind of offensive is forming, ON THEIR SIDE, I could be wrong, and hope I am.

There doesn't seem to be any rules for engagement for Gov, MIL, NAV, etc.?

The civilian sector lacks organization, direction and instruction..
AND FUNDING, This effort currently runs us about $12,000 out of pocket, all work is pro-bono.

While it is not my intention to tell anybody how to do this, we wanted to show what the civilians have done and are doing.

A Russian hacking team just announced placing keyloggers on some terrorist PC's. And exposed the Porno visits of the Jaddiees.

Civilians provide deniability but run the risk of prosecution without a letter of Marq, all our limits are governed by, directed by CI paradigm, nothing illegal, of course we have the potential of developing those capabilities, but the risk of prosecution constrains us.

If al Qaeda can manage perception, I think USA is also capable of same.
They have managed to convince the Ummah that all the insurgent DEAD, is GOOD....Martyrs. Dying = winning. ???

The value of OSINT may not be fully appreciated.


Our OSINT picked up the "Arabic Hacker" Trainer.
Some civilian sectors are well versed in OSINT, Competitive Intelligence rely on it.

Off the top of my head, some of the fundamental methods we use, in general.


Basic: Up todate bio info , facts, etc, culled from OSINT and filed.

Analyzing if Target is in deception mode.

These usually will become apparent as a linear, in depth paradigm is developed, and as the incident/action/writing deviates from the paradigm. Lies will appear as a spike on the paradigm model, the question becomes 'is it a paradigm shift' or 'deception'. the test is the future, the News/blogs/forums.Did it happen like the target says or not, paradigm shift indicator if it checks out, or possible deception if its false. The value is you know something different is going on, and can analyze it.

Of course we deal with public reports related to the target.

One can track 'talk' vs 'actions', And develop a pattern. Major changes in the pattern can point to paradigm shifts which can be useful in forecasting.

One can track what they say they are going to do vs what happens ( check the news a month later see if it happened; or the appropriate time frame ). Looking for patterns which can reveal deception, or if 'it ' continues a shift indicator.

Collecting Geographic Intel ( everything about a Geographic area/state/town ) also can reveal links/connections.


Eventually you have a Paradigm for the target, a history, understanding, knowledge of target and idiosyncrasies.

With our paradigm we start to measure action, statements, reports against the paradigm.

We call this Paradigm Intelligence. A long form of inductive reasoning, confirmed by repetition.
Then we we check items against the Paradigm mostly deductive reasoning/logic.

Ontological problem with ' Paradigm Intel ' is its seminal fault "Just because you can forecast actions doesn't mean you understand whats going on." ( Example: Ptolemy and his theory of the planets, Earth-centered Ptolemaic system, LOOPING Planets. He could forecast position of the planets, but his understanding of the system was very wrong.)

While you forecast with Paradigm Intel, one can have multiple hypothesis of the cause of the "action at a distance",

Utilizing this method it is possible to get a look inside a closed cell.( This link will give you some background and context, On that page click on the "Internet Anthropologist Link, we were able to peak into the USA and Taliban closed cells/Paradigm, both attempting to deceive the other ).

Paradigm Intel is good a developing alternate hypothesis, and testing them.
A useful tool in the arena of forecasting asymmetrical threats in war.

CONTEXT and Cultural familiarity: Can be definitive also.
Patki news services tend to down play number of Taliban or al Qaeda killed and over state the number of Patki troops dead. Often they will state total number deaths, with no break down between insurgent and government troops. And the tend to use the word "dead " rather than "killed". As one denotes facts, dead, while the other denotes actions, killed.Patki news semantics are very exacting and aim for neutrality as they consider all killed on both sides as Pakistanis first and government or insurgents second.
There is a taste of killing your enemy without offending their/our culture.
If the KIA are related to as "Killed" This can be a message the ummah hear that others may miss.
The use of the term "Killed" instead of "dead" is meant to be offensive to the ones killled in this instance.
Coupling OSINT with sub-rosa investigations and social engineering also give an options for checking details.


We set up a baby feed for the "cyber troops", everything they need, and fully customizable, by user on anything. The feeds are supplied by 1,000 spider bots per Trooper, using as many or few as they need, that search the Internet 24/7 and feed it to the troop, so they have a real time ( Internet ) knowledge ( News, blogs,forums,groups,docs,excel, all translated ) of their arena.

Knowledge in depth, historical and current.

And sets up a frame work for a 'social change engine' and propaganda ops.

A Question we had to address was how to run propaganda with out interfering with any 'OFFICIAL' Ops.
We found a solution on a Pakti forum:
Our efforts have been guided by Pakti Intelligence manual .
"Psychological warfare is an art adopted to defeat the enemy's will to fight. It predominantly aims to win the battle before it starts. It is aimed at convincing the enemy that:-
( Our operations have been designed around these three concepts )
a. Your equipment and war assets are obsolete. ck5 shoulder fired rocket, martyr maker
b. You are being commanded by inefficient commanders. new leader of al Qaeda.
c. Your basic human rights are being suppressed." suicide bombers dance, for al Qaeda

One person on a forum can affect morale of the Jahiddi community. We have.

This is "our" version of a "Info War" cyber Troop,
And we have been running this for around a Year,

Our concept includes other "cyber troops" that are not 'Info war' oriented but performing other duties.

Its one concept of a Cyber Warrior..

Bill & Gerald

[Ken White]

If you'd keep your posts a little shorter and concentrate on one topic at a time while not using the various styles and sizes of type, you might encourage more responses. Your posts are sort of hard to follow due to length, mixed subject matter and erratic type fonts.

Take care,
Ken

[BILL]

"Al-Qaida's MySpace": How Suicide Bombers Are Being Recruited Online

By Evan Kohlmann

This morning, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point released the second issue of its Sentinel journal, including my new piece on "Al-Qaida's MySpace"--which tracks a growing number of case studies in which users on extremist Internet forums such as Al-Ekhlaas have been vanishing off the forums, only to suddenly re-appear later as suicide bombers in the service of Al-Qaida in Iraq. The report includes both testimonials gathered from the forums themselves, and never-before-seen evidence uncovered during the British investigation of "Irhaby 007" (a.k.a. Younis Tsouli). Tsouli's former headquarters on the web--the Muntada al-Ansar forum--was a major center for such online terrorist recruiting. In August 2005, a senior Muntada al-Ansar administrator broke the “good news” to fellow users about a “meeting of Ansar forum members” inside Iraq:....

"This story is fascinating and emotional because it is closely linked to… the Ansar forum… One of our brothers who was a member on the Ansar forum and was originally from a country adjacent to Iraq decided to leave and fight in the cause of Allah. Allah made it possible for him to meet with an additional five brothers from other countries who had all come to fight in the cause of Allah… Later, after talking with one another, they all realized that they were fellow users on the Ansar forum, and that made them very happy. They began crying and their love for Allah increased… I also inform you that one of the brothers who is a member on the Ansar forum will soon rejoin his beloved comrades in the land of jihad and martyrdom, the land of Mesopotamia, and he will also participate in a suicide operation."

SOURCE:

100 Jahiddies on Facebook

Bill

I think this thread demonstrates how we adopted Competitive Intelligence methods over the past year to Counter Intel.
And hope it is usefull, we are user friendly and available.

[BILL]

New Jahidiie encryption program.
and
We have the Computer IP forTaliban webmaster, Adil Watanmal (aka Murchal), and location.

B

[BILL]

Would like your input/thoughts.


Ddan has an interesting post on the subject: here

What to do with the terrorist web sites?

It is a involoved paradigm, and we are picking our way through the potential mine field.

Some argue to leave them up for the Intel production.
And that some Intel may be lost if they are shut down.

Dan speaks of a tipping point.

I am also looking at a tipping point.
A different tipping point.

Consoider for a moment if ALL terrorist sites were taken down,
one swipe world wide?

That would have a significant impact on recruiting, and generating home grown terrorist, and many other benefits.

Each time a site is shut down, they loose part of their audience,
and loose data and creditability.
Not to mention the security they must build and maintain to set up a new site,
and the psysic energy and the blow to morale, consider loosing your own Blog.
The wasted time setting it back up knowing it will be shut back down again.
and loss of command and control, and com links.
If they email members of the new site then they are also notifying us.
We are hidden in their lists.

We have passwords to most sites, and back doors and mine them for links, urls and members
and copy the entire site before shut down. And are working to make these copies
available to the FEDS, we know they probally have copies already, but in case we take down one that don't have a copy for , we do have the copy. We have the man power to avail our selves
of these capabilities with Company "C".

Company "C" allows me to move from Intel collection and reporting to developing actionable Intel for the FEDS, and planning operations and prosecuting the GWOT with in legal limits.
In an area that needs service.

We also give the FEDS prior notice before we take down a site, and are willing to sign secrecy
agreements on any sites they want to remain up.

Of course it can be argued that this drives them to the Dark web.
Which limits their public recruitment and command and control to the Ummah.
And reduces the number of sites.

And we have moles working in many of these dark sites.
If you have a dark site it limits your recruitment and public influence.
And command and control to a very limited cadre.

The estimates we have seen estimate there are 4,000 terrorist web sites.

We recently took down a little known hub for propaganda distribution.
Thousands of vids very little text.

The number of terror sites hosted by American Companys could be drastically cut
by a few prosecutions under current laws, as it stands now their is no down side
to hosting a terror site other than Bad PR when they are caught, and then they
claim they didn't know. . Violation authority cited:
And many hosts just ignore the complaints, currently without
any prosecutions the law is with out teeth.
Company "C" is looking for an Attorney to file complaints against the
hosts for violation the laws, we can supply the complainant and evidence.

Drive them to web sites in terror supporting countrys and
you open the possibility of direct attacks on servers by USA military.
Under the color of law and war.

We think this is a workable solution to the 4,000 terror web sites
and maintain copies of sites for further study.

Bill

[Aurelian]

Thanks for the reply Bill. One correction I would like to make is that the General Staff concept is Saddle Orders not Marching Orders. No coffee no wakee.

[selil]

Bill your concepts of cyber warfare are about 20 years out of date. Cyber-warfare is a sexed up term to refer to a "terrain". Much like land warfare, or naval warfare, or air warfare. Computers are tools used for good purposes and bad purposes much the same as tanks and trucks. Metaphorical analysis of cyber warfare will only carry you so far and the over use of the term rather than realistic terms only prejudices people against the topic.

There is terrorism, it occurs through a variety of devices and techniques, and some of those devices are communications and computer networks. Information warfare uses computers much like it uses mass media but they are not inextricably linked. Command, control, communication, and coordination using information technology (C4IT) can be simplified as "computer mediated". What is missing from your posts (and I must admit the variety of fonts and incoherence of the posts makes them nearly unreadable) is a basic understanding of commodity computing and computer convergence. These two basic concepts enlighten and inform the conflict scholar about how computers are used and why they are used.

A simple understanding of convergence and commodity tools might help. The ubiquitous refrigerator allowed for fresh foods and longer time in transit for foods. This created a more nutritious and higher value food source for soldiers. Those armies that had access and the resources to use refrigeration had a tactical advantage over their adversaries. Yet we never coined or used the term refrigeration warfare. When high value information technology assets were converged into military supply trains along with refrigeration capability the just in time supply line became a reality for food stuffs. Yet again we did not define war based on just in time inventory or it's convergence with refrigeration.

C4IT is a converging communication paradigm that is both a tactical tool as well as a strategic terrain.

[BILL]

Thank you for your reply.

Bill your concepts of cyber warfare are about 20 years out of date.

I am glad to hear that, somebody is 20 yrs ahead of us. That pleases me.

Cyber-warfare is a sexed up term to refer to a "terrain".

YES, exactly, we now have the Navy, Air force, Army to handle those "terrains", where are the "cyber forces", In this Terrain USA seems to be MIA.


Much like land warfare, or naval warfare, or air warfare. Computers are tools used for good purposes and bad purposes much the same as tanks and trucks. Metaphorical analysis of cyber warfare will only carry you so far and the over use of the term rather than realistic terms only prejudices people against the topic.

We have tried to demonstrate the practical application of our concept of a "cyber troop", I think the Theory is still being worked out.
They are at war with the USA on the Internet, we reacted.

There is terrorism, it occurs through a variety of devices and techniques, and some of those devices are communications and computer networks. Information warfare uses computers much like it uses mass media but they are not inextricably linked. Command, control, communication, and coordination using information technology (C4IT) can be simplified as "computer mediated". What is missing from your posts (and I must admit the variety of fonts and incoherence of the posts makes them nearly unreadable, some replys have been culled form our Internal docs.I will try and watch it, Thanks) is a basic understanding of commodity computing and computer convergence. These two basic concepts enlighten and inform the conflict scholar about how computers are used and why they are used.

A simple understanding of convergence and commodity tools might help. The ubiquitous refrigerator allowed for fresh foods and longer time in transit for foods. This created a more nutritious and higher value food source for soldiers. Those armies that had access and the resources to use refrigeration had a tactical advantage over their adversaries. Yet we never coined or used the term refrigeration warfare. When high value information technology assets were converged into military supply trains along with refrigeration capability the just in time supply line became a reality for food stuffs. Yet again we did not define war based on just in time inventory or it's convergence with refrigeration.

But we were not fighting on refrigeration trains, we are fighting on the Internet. I think it is a terrain deserving of troops.

C4IT is a converging communication paradigm that is both a tactical tool as well as a strategic terrain. I agree.

USA has run this type of paradigm before, and the result was the Air Force, separated from the Army.
The sooner the USA spins off a "cyber force" the sooner USA will dominate that Terrain also.

All Armed Forces will need to maintain a "cyber" capability dedicated to use of their service.

Bill

[jcustis]

All Armed Forces will need to maintain a "cyber" capability dedicated to use of their service.

I have read a number of good theories and explanations here at the Council, as well as a number of far-fetched propositions, and that by far is the worst I have seen in some time.

BILL, we have enough of a challenge keeping our equipment and TTPs up to date, and now you expect each of the services to maintain a "cyber" warfare capability? Since you did not define the boundaries of that capability, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean a dedicated element of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who do nothing but focus on youtube-centric warfare with opponents who are conducting assymetric attacks against us (pushing their own internet IO, service denial attacks, and generic hacking).

Why does each service need its own force? Please offer some sort of force laydown to convince me that this is a good thing.

It took the Marine Corps a few years to come into the fold of NMCI, and guess what? It works for crap most of the time and actually restrains our productivity to a degree. Staying current with the technology leaps every six months is not a job I would wish on anybody, especially since the program is guaranteed to teeter on the whim of budget constraints every year.

[BILL]

The Strategy Page describes how China assembled a force few have heard about. In idyllic 1990s, the Chinese Defense Ministry established a research organization called the "NET Force" geared towards conducting information warfare. NET Force was soon joined by an irregular civilian militia; the "Red Hackers Union" (RHU). "Starting in the late 1990s, China assembled what has now become 30,000 Ministry of Public Security employees manning the Golden Shield Project (also known as The Great Firewall of China), and monitor Internet use throughout the country."

Excellent points: Hard Questions.
Here is a start: Not comprehensive but a taste.

I have read a number of good theories and explanations here at the Council, as well as a number of far-fetched propositions, and that by far is the worst I have seen in some time.

BILL, we have enough of a challenge keeping our equipment and TTPs up to date, and now you expect each of the services to maintain a "cyber" warfare capability? Since you did not define the boundaries of that capability, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean a dedicated element of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who do nothing but focus on youtube-centric warfare with opponents who are conducting assymetric attacks against us (pushing their own internet IO, service denial attacks, and generic hacking).

Why does each service need its own force? Please offer some sort of force laydown to convince me that this is a good thing.

Consider the reasons you keep TTPs up todate. The same concepts, motives apply.

Also:
This is an arena in your theater of operations, "they" are using to great effect, some guy in a cave, Sets the Internet Paradigm.
And USA does not dominate this terrain.
I think each Force should be represented in each terrain they are being fought in.

Force Protection. Recent example, on Arabic forum posted "his" brother was starting a sniper cell in "X" small Iraq city, we made appropriate notifications the same day the post was made.

Closed cell penetration, forecasting possible.

and
If you win their "hearts and minds" you don't have to shoot them.
And they won't be shooting at you. KIA reduction.

Force Multiplier: In "Jawbreaker" they utilized no OSINT capabilities, and were using 10 year ? outdated maps they found at the American Embassy.

After Bhuttos attack, Pakistan Army was doing PR that "it wasn't them", and going on the defensive, and offering shopping lists of possible perps, while civilian blogs were posting al Qaeda claimed credit and link references.
The P Army could have been on the offensive instead of the defense with a good OSINT arm. Lack of info just made them look suspect.

It took the Marine Corps a few years to come into the fold of NMCI, and guess what? It works for crap most of the time and actually restrains our productivity to a degree.

I feel your right I have seen all the services represented in our Blog logs except for the Marines.

Staying current with the technology leaps every six months is not a job I would wish on anybody,

Great point, I hadn't thought about, we follow a few venture capitalist news letters that list all the new "social tools" and OSINT techniques and applications, although they don't always recognize those uses. The "Baby Feed" includes These news letters and the data they need to stay on top or up to date. We made our Blog 'cell phone friendly'
in 30 min. through new site they invested in ( Whole new demographic ).


especially since the program is guaranteed to teeter on the whim of budget constraints every year.

Yes at the start of WWII USA had very limited number of tanks, scary.
It will take time to prove its RIO, ( return on Investment ).
It has already lead to al Qaeda's back door, thru tracking webmasters, arrests, and hard drive recovery's.

I think the 'cyber warroir' gives you a new gun, force, Knowledge vector to guide Kinetic force.
A new terrain to destroy enemy initiatives, counter lies, propaganda, spin, track and target.
Bill