Slashdot Log In
Los Alamos Security Infiltrated By Reporter
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Feb 25, 2003 01:50 PM
from the and-you-were-expecting-what dept.
from the and-you-were-expecting-what dept.
morcheeba writes "Wired reported Noah Shachtman gives a first-hand account of his entry into a high-security area at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Yes, there are pictures. It seems that the birthplace of the atom bomb is being guarded by string, backed up by guards with empty holsters. There's a little more info on Noah's Defense Tech website."
Related Stories
[+]
IT: US Military 'Hacked' by Emails 141 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Two of the US Military's most important science labs were apparently 'hacked'. Phishing mail was sent to a pair of research labs, where trojan programs allowed interlopers access to the otherwise secure networks. One of the sites was the infamous Los Alamos, which has been discussed many times here at Slashdot for its string of security breaches. 'Los Alamos has a checkered security history, having suffered a sequence of embarrassing breaches in recent years. In August of this year, it was revealed that the lab had released sensitive nuclear research data by email, while in 2006 a drug dealer was allegedly found with a USB stick containing data on nuclear weapons tests. "This appears to be a new low, even drug dealers can get classified information out of Los Alamos," Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), said at the time. Two years earlier, the lab was accused of having lost hard disks.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Borders (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Borders (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Borders (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, this reporter took a glorified hiking tour of the region, but missed most of the beautiful landscape of the area.
Parent
Trespassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
They do, but who would report it?
Here [triggur.org] is a tour of a 'top secret' nuclear missile silo from some people with too much time on their hands.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
That was great. What I was waiting for, though was:
You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
For the second, do you know how much publicity would come of trying to prosecute a reporter for reporting the truth? This story will fade away into the background in a day or two if they just ignore it, or release a noncommittal statement. A few heads will quietly roll among the security staff and that will be it.
If they try to prosecute it becomes a story of how an incompetent government is incapable of protecting any nation secrets while AT THE SAME TIME trying to impinge on the Freedom of the Press clause in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights will never get amended because the freaks on the Left would rather die than see freedom of speech/assembly/the press impinged upon, and the freaks on the Right would rather die than see the Right to Bear Arms/Freedom of Religion touched.
On top of all this, this country's leaders are cravenly attached to opinion polls, and opnion polls are VERY strongly influenced by the press, which means that ANY government official is going to be VERY careful before trying to stick it to a member of the press.
Heh. Not exactly the short answer.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Informative)
Watch. He will be prosecuted, and any journalists that try to make a fuss about it will be shown the secure facilities and then be reminded that trying to break into a government facility is a bad idea, regardless. The reporter will be shown to be the fool that he is.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a page describing LANL, and includes a map [globalsecurity.org]. Notice the scale of the map and how huge an area LANL covers. Notice that TA-33 is one of the most remote facilities.
And here is a pdf in two parts (part one [atomictraveler.com] and part two [atomictraveler.com]) that describes every tech area, and includes maps. The description and map of TA-33 is in part one.
Looking at the detail of the area of TA-33 near Highway 4 (because there's a whole bunch of TA-33 away from the highway!), I see dozens of buildings. Clearly, the writer couldn't have approached either of the two buildings that are designated as being in the "hazard category" because they are well within the perimeter of TA-33 and along the main roadway that serves the cluster of buildings at that northern portion of TA-33. He tries to make it sound as if the whole of TA-33--a huge area covering a range of terrain--is or should be guarded with high-level perimeter security and that, once he crossed the perimeter into TA-33, he was "in". But this is just silly. Buildings within technical areas have their own security, and the most senstitive buildings have the most intense security. He walked up to a "silver building" that was near the roadway. Big deal! That means nothing.
You and all the other people here who don't know anything about LANL are being misled by this writer who is preying upon your preconceived ideas about what such an installation is like. LANL is not like what most people imagine. There are lower and higher level security areas. There are areas that are essentially completely insecure. It covers a huge amount of territory, in some cases seemingly intermingled with the town.
I have nothing but contempt for this writer because he took a stupid risk for a trivial payoff. If he believed that the labs were insecure in this way, then he should have researched what the most sensitive buildings were, and attempted to enter them. As it is, his account reads like someone who was driving around, saw that the fence ended, and decided to snoop in the name of journalism. Then, afterwards, he contacted some "sources" and used their claim that TA-33 involved "black-op" stuff to make it seem like the one little portion of it he tresspassed upon was itself important.
He doesn't provide a map, doesn't provide a description of TA-33, doesn't tell you how much area TA-33 covers, doesn't tell you how many different buildings there are. He provides no context from which the ignorant reader can evaluate his claims of discovering a serious security lapse. He does, however, through insinuation and omission, strongly imply that he's done something extraordinary. But he hasn't.
Breaking the law in this manner should be punished regardless. Nevertheless, I'd be willing to applaud his efforts and courage if he was actually doing something worthwhile and noble. Instead, he's grandstanding and being stupid about it, to boot. He deserves to be thrown in jail just for being such a pathetic example of a journalist.
Parent
No Criminal Intent (Score:5, Insightful)
Walking across someone's lawn is not criminal. Reporters trespass on government property in order to cause embarrassment; and their documentation and disclosure of their actions proves this.
We would be in a world of shit if journalists were prevented from embarrassing our government.
Parent
Re:No Criminal Intent (Score:5, Informative)
For example, you kill someone - a criminal act. If it is shown that you didn't intend to kill them (for example, that your brakes failed), you have no criminal intent.
Some types of crimes require intent, others don't. So, while you won't be convicted of murder i n the above case, if it is shown that you were aware the brakes were defective and that you neglected to do anything about it, you will probably be convicted of manslaughter. :-(
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
A precedent was established quite a few years ago when they failed to convict a well known reporter. Whenever witnesses went down the lineup, they were never able to positively I.D. Mr. Kent because he kept taking his glasses off.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think he'll see jailtime. At most he will get a suspended sentence. Otherwise, other journalist will raise hell.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:4, Informative)
The report was heavily biased BTW, for Political Reasons.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, mostly because the Reporters without Borders people think that the press should be above the law. To quote the report:
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
Why some people think that reporters should be able to disregard the law is beyond me.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
This one actually is bad. Journalism is about getting the truth, and the truth is often stifled by threats to the people who have it. By keeping sources secret, the journalists help the truth to get out while protecting those involved.
Parent
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok... let's say I'm a reporter. I get a call from a Son-of-Sam-like serial killer or a drug kingpin. Since many serial killers do it to make headlines, he wants an interview. Being a reporter and also wanting to make headlines, I accept. The cops read the interview and want to know everything about the guy. I refuse to tell them.
Please explain to me how I am not both legally and morally responsible for my actions? These people will go off and kill in the future and I did nothing to stop them.
There's a difference between reporting something that's politically sensitive and being irresponsible. When Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson advocated strong freedom of the press over 200 years ago, they had the former in mind. Reporters are supposed to use the truth to enlighten and protect people. Unfortunately, many reporters aren't after the truth these days; they're after the big stories and the prestige they bring. This is absolutely NOT in the spirit of the law.
Parent
Not a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We didn't fence all 43 square miles," said lab spokeswoman Nancy Ambrosiano. "But if you're near an area that matters, you can't get in."
He didn't find anything important, he went into a historical building. It's not as if he was able to go hug a nuke, he was able to get into a old run down facility.
Great, I can also sneak into any old abandoned warehouse, perhaps one that was really important a few years ago.. but it's still not ground breaking. If it was important, I'm sure this bumbling reporter wouldn't have stumbled into the place.
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, all that said. Security for employees at those facilities can many times be pretty lax.
Parent
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this guy got near anything of importance.
Parent
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to see an investigation by someone not under lab management. Once that's completed, if they don't find that security was crap, I'll feel better about it. Until then, it seems to be that the healthy attitude is one of caution.
Parent
Re:Not a big deal. (Score:5, Funny)
Actual nukes are kept in compounds surrounded by two 16ft razor wire chain link fences under constant watch by guards in watch towers and security cameras. I've always wondered if the space between those fences was mined...
Parent
Re:Not a big deal to us, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you consider Pakistan to be a scientific/technical powerhouse? South Africa built a couple of bombs to prove they could, and then promptly became the only country to acquire the capacity and then destroy it.
The problem isn't that it's that enormously hard to do, it's that it's pretty hard to do in secret. The whole international weapons control works pretty well. Look at Iraq.
Parent
Evolution in Action (Score:5, Funny)
There is absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from just walking in and, *sniffle*, exploring and *wheeze*, doing whatever they *cough, hack, choke*, gawddamn, I feel like crap today. Better go have a lie down before I write the rest of this article. *glurgle*
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
All we need is a bunch of UN arms inspectors touring the US looking for nukes in the presidential palaces and such security issues will soon be fixed!
Re:And in other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, if Baghdad's purported subway system -- which was never used for subways but is instead used to hustle WMDs from one part of the city to the other, avoiding all the Corona-eyes-in-the-sky-satellites and all weapons inspectors -- is enough to stymie the *entire globe*, then shouldn't we be taking lessons from these assholes about how to secure our ops and nukes from a bunch of understaffed, underpaid terrorist cells who live eight-to-a-room in Ma McChesney's Motel Six off Insterstate 80?
Parent
My favorite part... (Score:5, Funny)
It turns out that my basement is actually a top-secret area for Los Alamos National Labs too. My sources from the lab told me so.
See (Score:5, Funny)
Not as easy as it looks (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Exactly News... (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgive me, but having grown up in Los Alamos, I could have told ya that. Sheesh. Kids in Los Alamos have been a pest for LANLites for years. The security isn't the best for many areas.
Additionally, a few years ago, a peace activitist walked into the lobby of the plutonium processing plant (iirc) to pray for peace. This was in a supposed Cross-This-Line-and-We-Shoot-to-Kill area. Funny that. He certainly didn't get riddled. Good thing he didn't carry, say, a whole lot of plastic explosives with the intent of being a suicide bomber, huh?
Finally, even during the Cold War, one of the guys that worked in a sensitive area wore a hat with a KGB symbol on it. He wore it walking in and out as a joke with his coworkers. They, the guards, never even inquired about it. While it was a joke, and the guards might have gotten in on it, a large part of what made it funny was that the guards never even batted an eye.
Mission Ineptitude (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article, it turns out this boob managed to infiltrate a "Top-Secret" storage shed for illicit camping gear. There are probably thousands of facilities around the country that house classified facilities that you could still walk into the lobby of and claim to have infiltrated. You can drive onto many military bases around the country, untill you get to the defenses that protect anything important. Shachtman is trully a l33t j00rnul15t.
Nothing new to see here... (Score:5, Interesting)
So a guy with a camera hops a fense in the middle of a radioactive desert, and snaps a few pics of some ominous-looking signs near said fence. Big friggin' deal. Just like those photos of Area 51. Who cares? Did he try to go any deeper? Has he asked or thought about why that section was so accessible?
I used to work in a large engine manufacturing plant, that was built during WWII. The sprawl was almost incomprhensible, and even more so when you realized there were caverns underneath the entire complex. Not much went on down there in the late 90's, and most of it was unlit.. nobody really had any business going thru there. Nonetheless, I wandered around one day, and found a room full of dusty forgotten file cabinets, filled with, among other things, the full and complete HR records of people who had worked for the comapny and since died, long before I was even born. Birthdates, positions held, SSNs, all that. Another cabinet had some old drawings, and who knows what else I could have found. Some would see this was a huge deal (I guess leaving all sorts of personnel records around IS pretty stupid), but come on!
One floor above, and barely 100 yards away was a maximum-security area for prototype testing and research. I only got to go back there with escorts ranking up with the plant manager.
Yeah, I probably would have gotten in deep doodoo if I'd been caught snooping in the caverns, but the real areas of interest were protected. I'm sure that goes on in Los Alamos and evereywhere else. At least I HOPE so!
This is nothing new... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was insecure even during WWII (Score:5, Informative)
I remember an anecdote (in Richard Feynman's Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, I think) that Los Alamos's security was pretty lax even during the Manhattan Project. Apparently there were a few places in the gate where local Indians were occasionally let through by the scientists and workers to watch movies and hang out.
If I'm not mistaken, Los Alamos is also where Feynman got his reputation for lockpicking, since he taught himself how to break into the safes where classified documents were stored and prove to the higher-ups that security wasn't as tight as they'd wanted to believe.
The point. (Score:5, Interesting)
The government is making this huge deal out of how security conscious they are right now. That being the case, they should be a bit more careful about random people walking around their supposedly secure facility.
No he didn't get inside any occupied building, but I'm sure there is a decent amount of stuff lying around down there that the everyday joe shouldn't have access to. Not to mention the damage a decent sized bomb could do, even nearby. Both ANFO (Here) [tisi.go.th] and Nitroglycerine are synthesizable from relatively common ingredients. A quick moving truck with a hefty payload could do massive damage. If _I_ can think of this crap THEY should damn well be thinking about it.
Oh yea, they'll never prosecute this guy. Freedom of the Press, remember? It applies to more than just the right to print papers. If they tried to prosecute him, they'd just draw more bad press.
(Heres the link in case my HTML is screwy: http://www.tisi.go.th/notif_th/fulltext/t00_370.pd f)
Happens in Virginia all the time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact #1: 80% of all militay base property is landscaping and wildlife areas. The other 10% is protected to the level of needed security.
Fact #2: Without having insider knowledge of where on a military installation sensitive material is located you don't have a chance of hell of finding it wandering around - Much less penetrating any real security unimpeded.
Fact #3: Security doen't mean 100% access control. It merely means protecting assets to the degree needed to make it tough for the bad guys.
Re:Happens in Virginia all the time... (Score:5, Funny)
And I think it's the remaining 10% that we need to worry about
Parent
It reminds me... (Score:5, Funny)
Then another commercial in the next break comes on. 'Watch as we show you a nuclear reactor, closer to your home than you probably think!' And it showed a picture of the nuclear engineering building at the local university. I burst into laughter. That reactor was hardly 'secret', it is a well advertised reactor, a very puny one. I toured it about 4 years ago....
Then the final commercial.... 'we'll show you our hidden camera investigation where our undercover reporter infiltrates security and gets into the reactor room!' And it showed a picture of something I could understand a layman mistaking for the reactor, but it certainly was not the reactor.
During the broadcast they made a big point of how they were able to see labs and classrooms, and then unveiled their 'killer' footage. The camera man, obviously excited, walks all around for a long time taking every possible shot he can of what *he* thought was a reactor, but it was just a cooling device not related to the reactor at all. About five minutes after the broadcast, they announce a correction, that they had learned that it wasn't a reactor, and that the place housing the reactor wasn't accessible, but still the thought this stuff was dangerous in the hands of terrorists because it said 'high voltage...'
The news always botches this stuff up. How many times have you seen news reports on a technology you are intimately familiar with and laughed your ass off at the inaccuracies?
call me crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like he was disappointed (Score:5, Interesting)
This same author also wrote an article [wired.com] about the shabby conditions at one of the unclassified Los Alamos sites. It's interesting that the physicist that he was interviewing did not complain about the working conditions. So why did the author make a big deal about it?
After reading both articles, my impression is that the author was expecting the entire Los Alamos complex to be some type of high tech super-secure facility, and when his expectations were not met he decided to write a couple articles blasting the place.
Quality journalism? I think not.
Not much different than most mil bases (Score:5, Informative)
One person walking around and getting into an office building is almost certainly no problem (depending on the alert level).
But to get to the 'good stuff' you have to go through an incredible number of steps. And there is *no way* to access anything really sensitive without quite a few people knowing and challenging you.
Exaggerated (Score:5, Informative)
This is much ado about nothing.
Don't get me wrong. There is plenty to criticize about security at Los Alamos. But the article is akin to bragging that you got into the "johnny on the spot" outhouse in an used section under construction on the outskirts of a military base.
I will admit that they ought to be more secure about letting people *out* of facilities though. I used to work late and the guards left at 6 and there was only a unidirectional turnstile "guarding" the place. While there were other measures to retain building security, I could have walked out with lots of stuff had I wanted to. If I wanted to get in at night I'd just call the Pro Force and they'd let me into the building, no questions asked, so long as I had a security badge.
However lets also be honest. Most of the stuff labelled "top secret" really isn't terribly significant. The stuff that is important has a *lot* more security on it. For instance our really important servers and stuff were in sealed rooms and then inside rather large safes in those rooms. And only a few people had the passwords. We had all sorts of restrictions for cable length to avoid hacking via E&M signals. We had pretty amazing encryption devices. And the really important areas had amazing security. The weakest link, as always, tends to be the employees and not these sorts of things.
There are problems, but what this story discusses aren't they.
Re:Worthless. (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, he completely misrepresents what the Lab facilities are like. LANL is not one big, monolithic facility sitting on a single plot of land. It's got a main area, right in town (the "front gate" he refers to), and then lots of little facilities scattered all over the area. They are individually secured.
Getting in the "front gate" is no big deal because, you know, visitors are allowed in. (Unlike Sandia in Albuquerque, which is much harder to get into. But it's a single contiguous site situated within an Air Force base.)
The one facility that easily the most sensitive is the plutonium refinement facility--yes, LANL still has a reactor and refines and stores some plutonium. That area is surrounded by several staggered perimeter fences, with mines between them, dogs, guards, and "helicopter landing denial cables" strung all over the area, for good measure.
Then, if you've ever been in any of the facilities, you'll find that there are armed guards stationed at entraces to sensitive areas within buildings. When I was in high school, and went on a tour of LANL as part of its "High School Senior Science Day", a friend of mine innocently walked down a corridor to a vending machine and was immediately physically hoisted in the air and carried back to the rest of the group by two armed guards.
Furthermore, constantly patrolling the area of the Lab, including parts of town and neighboring areas that border the labs, are MPs in Jeeps with M-16s prominently displayed.
LANL is a sprawling facility built upon finger-like mesas and in deep canyons spread over a huge area. LANL-owned land is fenced off, but for these remote facilities--like those along NM 4--are individually secured. And not all facilities are equal. Some are not that sensitive. There are a lot of relatively insecure facilities at LANL, because they do a lot more research than just weapons research. I had numerous friends who did coop work there while they were in college, and only one of them actually needed a security clearance to do her work.
LANL is, more than Livermore, and certainly more than Sandia and Oak Ridge, a very "civilian-esque" lab. They do weapons design work there, and those areas, along with the plutonium facility, you can be sure are heavily secured.
Finally, this author was an idiot. He was lucky that he tried to approach a facility that apparently isn't that sensitive. He's lucky he didn't get shot. They will shoot you. And you can bet that there will be criminal charges filed against him for this. Imbecile.
Parent
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you *look* like you belong there, getting in isn't a problem.
This is actually true. I've spent some time working in secure military facilities in the UK, and on my first few days I wondered around looking lost. I was regularly challenged, and had to show my badge (which I was wearing in a visible location anyway). In places like this you are required to challenge anyone who is not displaying their pass openly, and can by in trouble if you fail to do so.
A few weeks later I went for to the canteen in another part of the site, then to the personnel office, in another part of the site, then to a meeting in a third part of the site. It was a hot day and so I didn't wear my jacket. It was only when I returned to my desk that I saw my security pass, still attached to my jacket.
DISCLAIMER: To get onto that particular site you would have to either climb a 10 foot razor wire fence, or bluff your way past armed guards, but once you were in then you could wander about fairly freely. I didn't go anywhere particularly sensitive without my pass, but I walked past a number of security personnel, and was in ear-shot of a number of people talking about classified projects without being challenged.
Parent
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Fallout 3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:If this is how... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If this is how... (Score:5, Insightful)
The art of security is not to completely prevent someone from seeing something. That's impossible. Rather, you want to slow them down. ie. encryption that takes 100s of years. A safe that would take a long time to burn through or test all the combinations (thick walls, long combination). The goal is to slow them down, not completely stop them. Since stopping them is near impossible. (Unless you just kill them.)
Parent