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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#801

Post by jMyles »

megablast wrote: post #657
sushisource wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't actually say why they shouldn't be doing this, though. Everyone with this opinion seems to base it on moral grounds around privacy, but in practical terms, is this really harming citizens? So far there's zero evidence these things being used illegally domestically. IE: Without a warrant. There is some evidence that they've prevented some wrongdoing with it, though. I get the theoretical moral argument. I ju…

You haven't looked at the dodgy stuff the CIA has done over the years, included bringing down governments, funding coups, responsible for the deaths of millions. Yeah, I guess I don't think those guys should have power like this.

It's also altogether reasonable to believe that they murdered a sitting US President only 5 decades ago.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#802

Post by foxfaction »

goodroot wrote: post #516
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…

The assumption here is that those people are part of the public and are not shilling a 'more correct record'.

Just for your own knowledge, Correct the Record was dissolved after the election and the primary internet PR organization is now called "Share Blue"

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#803

Post by incompatible »

Cookingboy wrote: post #767
incompatible wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us are not USians. I'd say if your goal is to make people elsewhere in the world love the US, then CIA dirty tricks isn't the way to do it. Dirty tricks by other governments wouldn't do much if the US was a genuinely beneficial influence in the world. At the moment it's not so clear that the US is beneficial, with it doing some things that are useful, but which Trump seems to want to eliminate as soon as poss…

Nope, the goal is not to make the rest of the world love the US. It is to further our own national interest while fucking over our enemies. Just like any other countries that ever existed in the history of human civilization.

That seems about right. You have to wonder what "national interest" really means though. Something to do with making US billionaires richer than their foreign competitors, I think.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#805

Post by marmot777 »

In media accounts, I keep seeing quotes that cyber security experts were alarmed by the revelations. I'm no expert but to me all of the revelations have been open secrets for years. Are cyber security experts really alarmed by the revelations? I'm not saying the info itself isn't alarming but "alarmed" implies shocked by information you didn't already know about. It occured to me that some of these experts could have their own motives (promotion?) for getting quoted in the media.

What am I missing in my understanding of this in saying that I wasn't alarmed (in the sense of surprised) by anything I've read so far? Most of the source code they released has been circulating for several years? This is basically publicity for already existing open secrets? That is, this was an act of political theatre?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#806

Post by Girlang »

vadiml wrote: post #464
Freak_NL wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really; copyright is mostly implicit. If US law made all code developed for the purposes of the CIA automatically copyrighted, the code would be copyrighted. Right now the law says it isn't, so it isn't. Having code be copyrighted does not require any explicit registration.

This is TOTALLY wrong.... All code developed by US Governement is PUBLIC DOMAIN.

This, too, is TOTALLY WRONG.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#807

Post by marmot777 »

ismay wrote: post #576
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…

He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of associ…

They are not neutral. I don't think it's even controversial to say they're working against the United States. They clearly are. It's an observation not a political statement to point this out.

If they were neutral you'd see big releases of Russian secrets, etc.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#808

Post by marmot777 »

alpha_squared wrote: post #603
ismay wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of associ…

For the purpose of devil's advocate in this, I think it's possible to state truths and still be misleading and/or distracting from another narrative. Just because something is true doesn't necessarily explain what the motive is for releasing that information. It's certainly healthy to have at least a shadow of a doubt as to what WikiLeaks's motivations are when it's already shown that it can either restrain itself fr…

Whether something is true or not is a separate question from whether they are neutral or not. Whoever twisted a discussion of bias into a binary question of truth vs. lies, muddled the question to the point where clear thinking about it would be impossible. Bias and truth are separate issues. You can be a lying bastard who lies to harm a specific person or entity and you can be a strict adherent to truth with the exact same motives.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#809

Post by Natsu »

vitus wrote: post #786
routelastresort wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PolitiFact: "completely unbiased" goalpost mover. His password was an iteration of 'password' - e.g. no real difference.

Um, his win8 login password being a variation of password at some point doesn't automatically imply that his gmail password was "password". I thought it was widely accepted that Podesta was the victim of a spearphishing attack (coupled with bad advice from IT), rather than just "hacked" via password-guessing.

A few points:

* Yes, lots of evidence says that Podesta did give his password to a hacker the spear phishing email you mention. The email dump cuts off soon after this event, the phishing bit.ly link was visited then according to the stats page, and we can see the phishing email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899

* This appears to be a quote of someone speaking, I think it's pretty reasonable not to pronounce the @. All common variations on password are equally vulnerable to password guessing programs. There's a rule to use l33t speak in JTR and many other common programs.

* You can make a GMail account with the password p@ssword, something else they don't mention, choosing instead to go with a literal interpretation.

* It doesn't seem to mention that he also lost his phone in a DC cab, which is another possible source of leaks.

* They never appear consider whether or not the person who gave the emails to Wikileaks told them Podesta's password, they just say there's no evidence for them to verify, other than Gmail rejecting a password of 'password' (but not p@ssword), after which they rate that claim as false.

Post reply on HN