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

CIA malware and hacking tools

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#591

Post by huffmsa »

vanattab wrote: post #512
huffmsa wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is often overlooked, but very correct. "Classification" only pertains to how the material should be treated within the government. Once its out, the only penalty can fall on the person who let it out into the wild.

I would be careful also if you think you might need to get a clearance in the future. I was in college during the initial Wikileaks Manning dump and I remember getting a email from the DoD forwarded through the Physics department that viewing or sharing classified wikileaks info could prevent us from getting a clearance in the future even of we did not have a clearance at the time.

And that's when you laugh and cite https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 subsection (e) wherein you have never transmitted nor believed the documents in question to be harmful to the defense of the United States.

Especially in this case as these are all offensive tools.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#592

Post by revelation »

abandonliberty wrote: post #485

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…

I can't believe this warmongering is on top. Yes, maybe ask who is dumping what and question the authenticity, but stop trying to talk up a nuclear war on the basis of downvotes on Reddit.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#593

Post by blisterpeanuts »

badloginagain wrote: post #545
abandonliberty wrote: post #485

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…

It absolutely provides the Trump Administration with cassus belli to take punitive measures against the CIA. WikiLeaks appeared to have received the dump quite recently. This is all conjecture, but this could be seen as a 'civil cyber war'. The Executive branch suffers from leaks, followed by an evisceration of the CIA hacking capabilities? Trumps love of the intelligence community is well known, and the scale of the…

It looks more like Wikileaks chose this timing to help Trump. No one is talking about his paranoid surveillance tweets now. Everyone's talking about how suddenly the CIA is in all our phones and TV sets. Trump gets to say "See, I told you!", and the world gets to witness another NSA surveillance style scandal, only this time possibly on an even larger scale.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#594

Post by Godel_unicode »

redblacktree wrote: post #403
Godel_unicode wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the same thing others do when they know about 0-days? Signatures.

Could you explain a bit more? I'm not sure what you mean.

Sure, this is essentially the argument for disclosure of bugs before they've been patched. If I had known about e.g. shellshock before the patch was out, I could have written a Snort signature looking for it in network traffic and have my IPS drop the packets. I do this on my network with bugs I find before the vendor patches them.

This is an example of security through defense in depth; patching is one layer of defense, but if you can't patch there are other mitigating actions you can take to protect against (especially) known threats. It allows someone with an offensive and defensive mission to simultaneously use exploits while not being vulnerable to them.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#595

Post by prodmerc »

DashRattlesnake wrote: post #346
cloakandswagger wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them?

> Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them? I think you're letting your cynicism get in the way of truth and understanding. The US has signed and ratified a treaty committing to destroy all chemical weapons and never produce them again [1], and it has built the infrastructure to do so [2] [3]. It's conspiracy-nut territory to think the US is simultaneously stockpili…

More importantly, it's a bit stupid/outdated to stockpile dangerous stuff when you have the facilities to produce it if/when it is actually needed.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#596

Post by sailfast »

tehwalrus wrote: post #508
sailfast wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that what you're doing here is creating a world-dominating monopoly on the use of force, and whomever ran that army would be the defacto leader of the world, right? We're organized as nation-states in the first place so we can protect (generally) and pursue interests based on some sort of shared goal or value. For the United States, it's the constitution (ostensibly), for others it's different reasons. Feder…

> whomever ran that army would be the defacto leader of the world That is specifically why I don't permit an executive. This isn't one army, it's an alliance of armies. They were (in my original proposal, not in the comment above) controlled by a council of heads of government who had to take (arrest) suggestions from the chief prosecutor of the international court, but were forbidden to take other actions collective…

Thank you for the rebuttal. These are definitely potential alternatives but I think they all lead to the same place. When it comes down to stopping a determined belligerent, you have to beat them on whatever the battlefield happens to be.

The group of allies comments make sense, but that assumes a super-state group of allies with shared values are willing to band together to share those values (NATO is a prime example of this, but it's not ALL countries of the world, just those nations that felt the need to counter Soviet / Russian influence)

> controlled by a council of heads of government who had to take (arrest) suggestions from the chief prosecutor of the international court, but were forbidden to take other actions collectively.

In order to effectively "arrest" activities of other countries outside of your typical shame, embarrassment, sanctions or other incentives you need to be able to pull together a force that is more powerful than that country.

In the case of 1-4 party hegemony this isn't really plausible, and that's the current situation (in my opinion). At a minimum you'd get hegemonic blocs like (totally random because they're not opposed but they're known blocs) BRIC vs. NATO.

Once a single country (or cartel of countries) has enough of a deterrent or military force, then they can (effectively) do whatever they would like, including go against any collectively forbidden actions. I'm not saying this is what _will_ happen if countries happen to think participating in a global order is a good idea and are friendly, but that's not the historical precedent. I'm not sure how to counter that, short of the current blocs or potential other future arrangements.

> I'm not sure I was ever offered a choice of whether or which nation to join

The reasons for a number of nation-state formations are very much rational. That said, they are not necessarily permanent or as binding as people think. The idea of being "French" is pretty powerful. If you live in Alsace, maybe you waffle, but it's a unifying thing that has territory tied to it due to a long history. Different for more recent Western assignments of borders, surely and you see the results of that. Just because you're a citizen doesn't necessarily mean you're part of the nation, but my guess is that you probably come to identify somewhat with your country at some point?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#597

Post by coldtea »

abandonliberty wrote: post #485

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…

>There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA.

And why NOT to undermine the CIA?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#598

Post by nosuchthing »

myegorov wrote: post #507

Looks like the CIA is screwing the public by mutual consent. The public is demanding more of the same, just as long as it's directed at whoever is out their favor. Here're the two topmost comments on NYT at the moment[0]: karma2013 New Jersey 3 hours ago If anyone still has doubts that Wikileaks and the Russians are working together to undermine and destabilize our government institutions, erode public confidence in…

If you've spent anytime on twitter or reddit lately, there's an increasingly large amount of political astroturfing from special interest organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/US-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Modernization_Act_...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#599

Post by jakeogh »

debacle wrote: post #585
criley2 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russians do not have free press and the state controlled media allows them to use nationalism to strongly insulate themselves from criticism and foreign press. Combined with their propensity for assassinating dissenters and journalists, there is less willpower to resist the fascism. It's to the point now that things like this improve Putin's poll numbers, not hurt them.

> the state controlled media allows them to use nationalism to strongly insulate themselves from criticism Have you watched news in the US recently?

A flock of Mockingbirds.
Post reply on HN