Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#101

Post by zkms »

mirimir wrote: post #92

Questions about what methods investigators can legitimately use aside, the practical implications are clear. You can not count on Tor alone for real anonymity. So what might these NITs be doing? In the simplest case, they'd be dropping malware that reports ISP-assigned IP address, local IP address, network hardware MAC, and whatever to FBI servers. And it's probably Windows malware. To protect against that, you isola…

> To protect against that, you isolate userland and the Tor process in separate machines, or at least VMs.

This applies as well to people who run Tor hidden services that are doorkicker bait (like drug cryptomarkets).

It should be impossible for a compromised browser or hidden service server or Tor process to know anything about your hardware or MAC address, your internal IP address (the RFC1918 one), or your globally routable IP address.

also yeah the Feeb loves to exploit browsers (especially firefox :^) and make them execute the NIT (which just sends, unencrypted/unauthenticated data of the MAC address, ethernet interface's IP addresses, username, and stuff like that, to a computer run by the FBI)

once one of their exploits got leaked, it was pretty fucking lulzy https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2016/11/30/fixing-an-svg-a... https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2016-Novembe...

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#102

Post by kelnos »

moomin wrote: post #9

So, let's see now: a man is going free who should probably be going to jail for a long time, because the state doesn't want to disclose the methods of gathering evidence against him, which we can speculate are because they are illegal or sourced from non-law-enforcement agencies. A case with near-identical facts and the same judge _is_ going to trial and, not content with tapping your email, the state now wants to pu…

One could also guess that they don't have as much confidence in the accuracy of their evidence-gathering method as they'd like. If they have to show how they gathered that evidence, and the defense is able to introduce enough doubt that their method targeted the right person, it would torpedo all related cases, and hurt the prosecution's credibility in future cases.

We're taking it as a given that this guy (and the others) actually committed the crime, but the prosecution cannot actually prove that without allowing us to verify that the evidence gathered actually comes from a place of fact.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#103

Post by dagw »

sanswork wrote: post #65
gpm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still evidence, just less credible evidence. Hopefully the prosecutor has other evidence as well. It could also be the case that it's evidence that was collected by someone who didn't commit the crime, but would currently be excluded by the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.

The only proof you have that it IS evidence is the word of someone who you know is willing to break the rules to secure a conviction.

Sure, and that is an argument you can make in court after the evidence has been submitted.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#104

Post by mirimir »

zkms wrote: post #101
mirimir wrote: post #92

Questions about what methods investigators can legitimately use aside, the practical implications are clear. You can not count on Tor alone for real anonymity. So what might these NITs be doing? In the simplest case, they'd be dropping malware that reports ISP-assigned IP address, local IP address, network hardware MAC, and whatever to FBI servers. And it's probably Windows malware. To protect against that, you isola…

> To protect against that, you isolate userland and the Tor process in separate machines, or at least VMs. This applies as well to people who run Tor hidden services that are doorkicker bait (like drug cryptomarkets). It should be impossible for a compromised browser or hidden service server or Tor process to know anything about your hardware or MAC address, your internal IP address (the RFC1918 one), or your globall…

The NIT used in Freedom Hosting pwnage was originally a Tor/VPN leak test on Metasploit ;)

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#106

Post by 1_2__3 »

inlined wrote: post #54
woolly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.

I don't completely understand how demonstrating the chain of investigation should require the disclosure of the vulnerability. I really hope the execution of the law isn't going to depend on 12 random people understanding the finer points of cryptanalysis. I wish there were some way to get a private but independent verification that X technique allowed IP addresses to be collected if they did action Y (e.g. logging o…

"Private" means "unavailable to the defendant" in this case which runs counter to some of the deepest roots of our justice system.

You do not get to convict someone based on evidence that can't be entered at trial. Some third party saying "oh yeah we totally verified it" is not enough.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#107

Post by [deleted] »

Frogolocalypse wrote: post #62
gpm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "we both go to jail" policy would probably do even betting at keeping police officers honest. The threat of the officer going to jail being significantly worse than the threat of allowing the criminal to walk free. The details are sketchy, who prosecutes the police/prosecutors? But in principle I think it makes sense.

> worse than the threat of allowing the criminal to walk free. Alleged criminal. You realize you're innocent until proven guilty, right?

[deleted]

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#108

Post by xenotb »

Huffers2 wrote: post #14
woolly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.

I've never understood this. If I gather evidence against somebody illegally, and it proves their guilt, shouldn't we both go to jail?

How would one stop the police from getting "anonymous tips" with illegally acquired evidence again and again? It sounds like it would lead to a plain disregard for procedure.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#109

Post by lazylizard »

hasenj wrote: post #16
woolly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.

How so? In general if a criminal goes free despite having evidence against him just because the evidence was not obtained legally ... it sounds rather wrong to me.

if the law enforcement is not clean, then who would be?

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#110

Post by jlebrech »

why not jail the guy and pay a fine too.

they jail innocent people all the time a give huge payouts or put people away in guantanamo and then also pay huge amounts of compensation.

how about the judge fines the law enforce and gives the fine to orphanages or to the victims.

Post reply on HN