Mike Waltz Continuously Creates Signal Communication Groups
In the realm of encrypted messaging platforms, Signal has gained prominence among national security officials for its end-to-end encryption and strong privacy protections. However, this favourable reputation is balanced with a understanding of the operational security trade-offs that come with group chat settings.
The Pentagon has voiced concerns about using Signal due to potential vulnerabilities that Russian hacking groups may exploit. One such concern is the "linked devices" feature, which could potentially allow hackers to access chats.
Mike Waltz, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump, is among those who have reportedly relied heavily on Signal for sensitive national-security conversations. According to reports, Waltz built the entire National Security Council communications process on Signal. However, Politico's account suggests that Waltz's use of Signal may be more widespread than initially thought.
The group chats, used by officials to work out policy for various regions like Ukraine, China, Gaza, Middle East, Africa, and Europe, involve officials and advisors sharing thoughts, including sensitive information. Yet, key security concerns remain around user errors, phishing, device security, and oversight.
For instance, a recent incident involved a Signal group chat for senior U.S. national security officials mistakenly including a prominent journalist, highlighting the risks of misconfiguration or human error. Additionally, even encrypted chat apps cannot prevent targeted phishing attacks, and adversaries can exploit insiders or users via phishing that bypasses standard controls.
Moreover, while Signal protects message content in transit, the security of devices running Signal is critical. Compromised or infected devices can leak secrets despite the chat encryption. Furthermore, unlike some government communication tools subject to audit and records requirements, Signal is often used for informal or rapid communication, creating potential gaps in oversight.
Despite these concerns, Signal's adoption is not uncommon at high levels of national security government circles, due to its strong cryptographic assurances. However, this adoption requires vigilant operational security practices alongside technological safeguards to mitigate potential risks.
In a separate incident, Waltz accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic editor-in-chief, to a group chat about an attack on Yemen. Waltz's team has also reportedly used Gmail, which is not end-to-end encrypted, to discuss sensitive military operations, including details about military positions and weapons systems.
In response, the Pentagon has warned against using Signal for sensitive national-security conversations, emphasising the need for secure and reliable communication channels in such contexts. As the use of encrypted messaging platforms continues to grow, it is essential to balance the need for privacy with the need for security and oversight.
- The future of national-security communications might necessitate a balance between employing encrypted messaging platforms like Signal for their strong privacy protections and addressing the potential operational and security risks, such as device compromise, phishing attacks, and auditing gaps.
- While Mike Waltz, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump, has reportedly built the entire National Security Council communications process on Signal, the Pentagon tends to advise against using Signal for sensitive national-security conversations due to the risks of potential vulnerabilities and gaps in oversight.
- Despite the promising tech and policy discussions on encryption and privacy protection emerging from sources like Gizmodo and policy-and-legislation outlets, the general news landscape must grapple with balancing these advancements with the need for enhanced security and proper oversight in sensitive national-security contexts.
