Live data from Hacker News

CIA malware and hacking tools

wikileaks.org

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been illegal for him to tell the truth in that testimony, since it was public. I know people don't like that, but it's true. He could either lie or break serious secrecy laws. There's no immunity just because you're talking to congress.

In that case, you say "I can't answer that question" and let the system do its job. You don't lie.

"I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a program." This has been absolutely formalized since the 70s.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#412

Maybe this is a stupid question but how does one go about verifying the information wikileaks releases is accurate? I assume the people who submit info are verified in some way, does wikileaks then pass on that verification info to the public or are we supposed to just trust that they are providing truthful information in an unbiased way?

Wikileaks has pretty good track record. I believe so far every single one of the leaks have turned out true, or no one has challenged their authenticity.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to a time Assange pissed off russia? Why did Assange brag about 'kompromat' he held on putins administration, and then take a meeting with Putin after Russia threatened him? Why did he cut a tv deal wth Russia state controlled media a month later, and then neglect to release his 'kompromat'? Why did he censor emails showing Russian banks ties to the Syrian war, and why did he tow the kremlin line and ac…

You guys sound crazy. RT routinely gives airtime to all sorts of fringe characters that other stations don't, it doesn't mean those people work for, have "cut deals with" or are otherwise owned by Putin himself. As to "when did he piss off Russia", did you ever consider that maybe he doesn't get many leaks from there? If someone leaked stuff to Wikileaks and then Assange sat on it for his own reasons, the leaker woul…

>You guys sound crazy.

There's not much there in terms of evidence or substance, so I'll skip that. But I would suggest that sometimes nations have conflicts with each other, and further suggest that Russia and the USA have one such hostile relationship - sometimes these hostilities take the form of interfering with each others plans and goals. I'd also point out that Russia has invaded a string of neighbors after coordinated cyber and information warfare campaigns, as well as the recent string of dead Russian diplomats who all purpotedly had contact with Michael Steele. Hopefully the idea that a country who is actively fights to disrupt the current world order may take steps to further this goal doesn't appear crazy to you, because that seems like a bizarre mischaracterization of some rather straightforward concepts.

>RT routinely gives airtime to all sorts of fringe characters that other stations don't, it doesn't mean those people work for, have "cut deals with" or are otherwise owned by Putin himself.

This is another criticism that is really odd to me, because again it's mischaracterizing what is happening. """ Russia’s propaganda efforts aren’t partisan per se, though in the US election their preferred candidate was Trump. “The Russians don’t care who they’re helping, whether it’s the left or right wing. There are no barriers, as long as it weakens the system,” says Meister. “What Russia wants is to further its own interests, and at the moment, right-wing parties tend to speak to those interests more than the left,” says Meister """ [http://www.cjr.org/special_report/putin_russia_propaganda_tr...]

So what I hear is "Russia is funding every extreme viewpoint they can find", for you to rebut with "Russia funds leftists and the right, therefore they're not against the united states" strikes me as nonsensical.

>As to "when did he piss off Russia", did you ever consider that maybe he doesn't get many leaks from there?

Again, you're not actually arguing against my point. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-out_(espionage)] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence]

> If someone leaked stuff to Wikileaks and then Assange sat on it for his own reasons, the leaker would just go somewhere else. It's not like there's a lack of outlets that would publish such info: any western newspaper would do it. Wikileaks came on the scene because western media proved that they would not publish leaked material that made the US administration look bad, as the NYT's handling of Iraq related matters made clear. It was only after Wikileaks gave leakers another outlet that Anglospheric newspapers started to get the balls to publish government secrets, knowing full well that if they didn't Assange would use his own channels to do it for them.

You're trying to blur the lines between what happened when wikileaks was founded vs today. To make it much simpler, Pussy Riot is a very vocal anti-Putin group, who put it very plainly: """ A member of Russian punk band Pussy Riot says WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange directly collaborates with Moscow.

“But Julian Assange, he openly works with [Russia],” Nadya Tolokno told The Daily Beast in an interview Thursday. "It’s not a secret. He’s connected with the Russian government, and I feel that he’s proud of it.

“I generally support the work that WikiLeaks is doing, but I’m not that thrilled about his decisions that are unethical, in my view, concerning his connections to the Russian government.” Tolokno said she visited Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London two years ago, saying their meeting convinced her WikiLeaks has ties to the Kremlin.

“He couldn’t deny it,” said Tolokno, whose full name is Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. "He often works with the Russian propaganda machine, and he doesn’t try to hide it.

“Julian Assange doesn’t try to hide that fact because he hosts at the Ecuadorian Embassy the editor-in-chief of the Russian propaganda team, Russia Today, and he has projects with them,” she added.

Tolokno added she confronted Assange about advancing Russian interests ahead of America’s.

“I understood his position: He’s in a state of war with the American government,” she said. "He’s smart and charismatic and will use any means to destroy the American government.

“And we had a conversation if it was really the ethical thing to do that with the hands of another government [Russia] which is, in fact, much worse and a real authoritarian government.” """ [http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/303172-puss...]

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#414
post #278
post #238

>These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram... So much for guaranteed encryption and safety.

Control of the local device has always meant game over. How could it be otherwise?

You know that, and I know that, but it has to be made explicit for journalists and the general public to understand it.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intercepting audio/texts before encryption by Signal, Whisper, WhatsApp etc. This basically means if your device is compromised, expect malware to be able to read all content (including Signal, WhatsApp messages). Nothing new. The way it's phrased makes it sound like Signal, WhatsApp have vulnerabilities, but no, the intention is sensationalism over sound analysis.

Yes, that's nothing new, and it's obvious to us here on HN. However, I disagree that the intention can only be sensationalism. The average computer/smartphone user (or journalist!) absolutely does not understand that if their device's operating system is compromised, that so are all the apps they run. Saying that messages can be intercepted before they are encrypted is worth pointing out as a realistic consequence of…

Bypass encryption means they broke the protocol. They could say "also malware can read your private messages and anything else on your phone". But no, bypassing encryption sounds a lot better. Fake news.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#416
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party [1] and in a other interview has hinted that the source may be Seth Rich [2], a former DNC staff member that was murdered in Washington DC. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCOy25GdjQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Is Julian Assange a reliable actor in this? He has every motive to deny that Russia are the source of the leaks.

Why wouldn't he suddenly be? Because he exposed the corruption of the party you supported? It doesn't work that way really. Either he is reliable, or not reliable to begin with. I have every reason believe he is, and he has demonstrated that people turn a blind eye on things if it fits their narrative of the world and politics.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#417

I wander what phones / computers CIA operatives use - do they have special patched versions which address the zero day exploits they are aware of.

Doubtful. Part of being an undercover operative means deniability. Imagine if a foreign power arrested a suspected spy, and found non-standard software on their phone.

So they'd probably use off the shelf software and mitigate risks in other ways.

(Ex: not bringing smartphones to sensitive meetings)

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#418
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty okay with wikileaks not releasing hundreds of zero day exploits into the wild en mass.

I'd like to hear a security expert's opinion on whether releasing even patched 0-days could be considered harmful ? even if the 'sploits dont work out of the box, it seems like they would still advance the state of the art, and allow moderately-skilled hackers to build on very sophisticated designs, adapt and make them effective again - "stand on the shoulders of giants" kind of thing.

Many things are patched in theory but not in practice. For example, exploits on Android are very useful even if they are patched because lots of people don't upgrade their smartphones very often.
Post reply on HN