this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
493 points (95.6% liked)

Security

5014 readers
1 users here now

Confidentiality Integrity Availability

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 50 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Such examples of OpSec competence make it easy to dismiss the majority of government conspiracy theories IMHO.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I go back to the veteran comedian every time.

We can't even stop our privates from telling their stripper girlfriend about the mission they're going on the next day, and people think there's a giant conspiracy out there where nobody talks...

Then there's the Warrantless Wiretap program under the Bush Administration. Cheney kept the authorization memo in his personal lawyer's safe. Only 7 people knew it existed. Shit still leaked.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Only 7. That’s perfect. I forget who said “three may keep a secret if two are dead” but of all the mustache twirling pricks in that admin, Cheney should have known.

Edit: it’s Ben Franklin’s joke, apparently. I doubt he’d mind.

[–] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

They dropped this to make themselves look incompetent!

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 7 points 7 months ago

4D chess by the deep state!

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

"No! This is not how the game is meant to be played."

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Compartmentalisation helps

If no one actually knows the plan other than the guy in charge, no one can leak the plan:

An example of compartmentalization was the Manhattan Project. Personnel at Oak Ridge constructed and operated centrifuges to isolate uranium-235 from naturally occurring uranium, but most did not know exactly what they were doing. Those that knew did not know why they were doing it. Parts of the weapon were separately designed by teams who did not know how the parts interacted.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

True, and interesting since this can be used as a statistical lever to ignore the exponential scaling effect of conditional probability, with a minor catch.

Lemma: Compartmentalization can reduce, even eliminate, chance of exposure introduced by conspirators.

Proof: First, we fix a mean probability p of success (avoiding accidental/deliberate exposure) by any privy to the plot.

Next, we fix some frequency k~1~, k~2~, ... , k~n~ of potential exposure events by each conspirators 1, ..., n over time t and express the mean frequency as k.

Then for n conspirators we can express the overall probability of success as

1 ⋅ p^tk~1~^ ⋅ p^tk~2~^ ⋅ ... ⋅ p^tk~n~^ = p^ntk^

Full compartmentalization reduces n to 1, leaving us with a function of time only p^tk^. ∎

Theorem: While it is possible that there exist past or present conspiracies w.h.p. of never being exposed:

  1. they involve a fairly high mortality rate of 100%, and
  2. they aren’t conspiracies in the first place.

Proof: The lemma holds with the following catch.

(P1) p^tk^ is still exponential over time t unless the sole conspirator, upon setting a plot in motion w.p. p^t~1~k^ = p^k^, is eliminated from the function such that p^k^ is the final (constant) probability.

(P2) For n = 1, this is really more a plot by an individual rather than a proper “conspiracy,” since no individual conspires with another. ∎