If it’s “Russia” why are they investigating if the execs were in on it?
For the fifth year in a row, careless and untrained insiders are the leading source of security threats for public sector organizations”
https://t.co/TjgcuaBzUb
- Division Chief, Federal Civilian”
Check insider threat!
— Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) December 16, 2020
1. 8/19: SolarWinds\u2019 Orion acquired DOD
2. Late 2019: SW warned solarwinds123= pwd
3. Spring 2020: Spy hack
4. Hackers snoop
5. 12/7 Top investor SilverLake dumps $158M stock
6. 12/13 FireEye Security details hack in blog
7. 12/14 Gov pulls plug SW Orion
“The SolarWinds Perfect Storm: Default Password, Access Sales and More” https://t.co/a1xHU46nON via @threatpost
- Marcus Hartwig, manager of security analytics, Vectra
More from Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal PhD
Please remember this whistleblower's statements. The true objective here is an attack on Iran, which would presumably lead to draconian measures at home, and justify martial law. Look past the temporary events and see the scheme. Who truly controls
What is the real relationship between Kerry and Zarif? Does Iran truly control its own
Why did Obama have to mislead the American people in order to do a deal with Iran?
Jan 25 2018
CONFIRMED.
https://t.co/Y8k4D0ja4w📁
Why did HUSSEIN travel ahead of POTUS?
"Trump would not be in office for long, suggesting he could be out in a year."
Re-read crumbs.
Future unlocks past.
Q
Note - the Q item is quoted.
What is the real relationship between Kerry and Zarif? Does Iran truly control its own
Why did Obama have to mislead the American people in order to do a deal with Iran?
Jan 25 2018
CONFIRMED.
https://t.co/Y8k4D0ja4w📁
Why did HUSSEIN travel ahead of POTUS?
"Trump would not be in office for long, suggesting he could be out in a year."
Re-read crumbs.
Future unlocks past.
Q
Note - the Q item is quoted.
More from For later read
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
