[deleted]
Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
21–30 of 81 posts
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#22URL should be changed to the source http://motherboard.vice.com/read/judge-rules-fbi-must-reveal...
Yes. Changed from http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/19/fbi-reveal-code-lawsuit-d..., which points to this.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#23So the headline uses the word "pedophiles", but in the article the word is nowhere to be found. Maybe that's because this sting isn't necessarily about pedophiles, but about people watching and trading child pornography. Using "pedophiles" only serves to reinforce the stigma of a already heavily stigmatized minority. The word "pedophile" should be defined as someone with a sexual attraction towards children. It doesn…
> Also, the people operating and visiting that hidden service could have had other reasons for visiting. Such as?
"Research"
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#24Imagine a later hardline: "FBI Ordered to Reveal the Code Used to Backdoor San Bernadino Suspect's Phone"
The code being released wouldn't matter, because it can't be installed anywhere without Apple signing it. Presumably the keys wouldn't need to be released in any such order.
The code is only useful on the specific iPhone in question if it is in fact signed, and Apple does not have the technical capability to sign an update for a specific phone but not others; they all trust the same keys. And Apple would deliver it to the FBI with a signature, so there's a high risk that the signature wouldn't be redacted before being available to the public.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#25Imagine a later hardline: "FBI Ordered to Reveal the Code Used to Backdoor San Bernadino Suspect's Phone"
If you are referring to the software Apple is building to circumvent their kill switch, I don't believe Apple is required to give the FBI access to the software.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
The code being released wouldn't matter, because it can't be installed anywhere without Apple signing it. Presumably the keys wouldn't need to be released in any such order.
The code is only useful on the specific iPhone in question if it is in fact signed, and Apple does not have the technical capability to sign an update for a specific phone but not others; they all trust the same keys. And Apple would deliver it to the FBI with a signature, so there's a high risk that the signature wouldn't be redacted before being available to the public.
But the version signed could check the id of the phone and shut down if not a hard coded id.
Yes, it could be installed on any phone, but it would be useless on any other phone. And in order to modify it to work on other phones (even with source code) you'd need Apple's keys.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#27"Sure, here it is compiled to assembly and stripped of all comments." is sort of what I'd expect
If you analyze malware for a living, then the assembly is the source code. :)
It's really not that much of an issue. It makes things more fun.
I am curious about whether they developed the malware in-house or if they hired a contractor. Is there any information out there on this? I wouldn't be surprised if they cut out parts, which may hint at a particular contractor having developed the malware.
Also, I still do not understand why TOR Browser Bundle allows scripts by default.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#28The Justice Department contends that the act of viewing a child porn image revictimizes the child each time the view occurs and is the basis for arguing that viewing child porn is not a victimless crime. Yet the FBI seized a server and allows such images to be downloaded and viewed thousands of times over a 2 week period. This would be like seizing the operators of an underground rape dungeon where patrons pay to rap…
The dissonance is accepted in this case because of the repulsive nature of the crimes, as determined by our current social consensus.
Philosophical purity is very appealing, but ultimately the justifications we use for why the law is the way it is only have to stand up long enough to convince most interested parties that we're doing the right thing.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#29The Justice Department contends that the act of viewing a child porn image revictimizes the child each time the view occurs and is the basis for arguing that viewing child porn is not a victimless crime. Yet the FBI seized a server and allows such images to be downloaded and viewed thousands of times over a 2 week period. This would be like seizing the operators of an underground rape dungeon where patrons pay to rap…
The dissonance is accepted in this case because of the repulsive nature of the crimes, as determined by our current social consensus. Philosophical purity is very appealing, but ultimately the justifications we use for why the law is the way it is only have to stand up long enough to convince most interested parties that we're doing the right thing.
Well biologically the person has inherited some genes that function in such a way as to lead to their obsession with young people. At the end of the day this is very much a mental problem that can be remedied with bioengineering. Not much else you can do for these people.
To criminalize it in all of its forms, is the same thing as criminalizing any sexuality. Perhaps one day we'll create an algorithm that can generate these images without anyone being involved -- does that sound distasteful as well.
At this point even artful depictions of a sexual nature are illegal, criminal offense.
Re: Judge Rules FBI Must Reveal Malware It Used to Hack Over 1,000 Computers
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dissonance is accepted in this case because of the repulsive nature of the crimes, as determined by our current social consensus. Philosophical purity is very appealing, but ultimately the justifications we use for why the law is the way it is only have to stand up long enough to convince most interested parties that we're doing the right thing.
Well biologically the person has inherited some genes that function in such a way as to lead to their obsession with young people. At the end of the day this is very much a mental problem that can be remedied with bioengineering. Not much else you can do for these people. To criminalize it in all of its forms, is the same thing as criminalizing any sexuality. Perhaps one day we'll create an algorithm that can generat…
Has it been proven that Pedophilia is genetic, tho?