51–60 of 83 posts
What does it actually do?
> … files go in, and a handful of small helper applications automatically comb through each one in search of malicious clues. On the way out, every file is given a score, which lets analysts sort old, familiar threats from the new and novel attacks that typically require a closer, more manual approach to analysis.
Is it just me, or is it amazing that they're releasing this for free? Even Canadian SPY organizations are friendly!
I'd be far more impressed and grateful if these state services released disclosures and actual patches for complex zero-day vulns, particularly in unmaintained, widely deployed closed-source products such as WinXP. 8-Ball says that is 'Unlikely' though.
Interesting, Kaspersky is constantly maligned for simply being USED by Russian spy agencies, or "having associations with" them. Russia and China now demand audits of security software from the USA. Countries build their own national Linuxes now that Windows phones home all your passwords, for the CIA and NSA to easily backdoor or get via an order. So, why would anyone trust a spy agency's software? Only if it's all…
Interesting, Kaspersky is constantly maligned for simply being USED by Russian spy agencies, or "having associations with" them. Russia and China now demand audits of security software from the USA. Countries build their own national Linuxes now that Windows phones home all your passwords, for the CIA and NSA to easily backdoor or get via an order. So, why would anyone trust a spy agency's software? Only if it's all…
An interesting inclusion but it makes sense as it seems to work by hitting up all possible scanners (both remote and local). The consensus from security people seems to be use multiple AV products, if you insist on using them at all...
This tool will get extra scrutiny given it's coming from a spy agency and is OSS. That's not usually how spy agencies operate, too overt. Besides, they seem to have no problem quietly hacking your browser remotely with the click of a button with Quantum anyway.
I'm still not going to use it but I wouldn't personally be overly worried vs any other mainstream antivirus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suspect the Citation needed was referring to "They're good at their jobs."
Well we do know they successfully hacked the Brazilian government in the interests of private oil companies? That's something isn't it? > CSEC had been meeting with the heads of our country’s largest energy companies and debriefing them on all the secrets they’ve stolen from Brazil’s mining and energy ministries. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/5gqkwq/the-canadian-gover...
> Assemblyline is described by CSE as akin to a conveyor belt: files go in, and a handful of small helper applications automatically comb through each one in search of malicious clues. On the way out, every file is given a score... This sounds like it could sit nicely between Github and CI (Jenkins/Travis/Circle/etc), and be a pre-integration security scan. Can we name it Sherlock?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a Canadian government rule that even URLs have to be bilingual. eg You can't have http://host.ca/news (with bilingual text on the page) it has to be http://host.ca/news_nouvelles This is only for fed government sites.
I'm surprised there isn't a separate copy of all the code in French, or at least the code comments
// En français, s'il vous plaît
fonction commencer(état) {
si (état !== nonDéfini) {
laisser nouveauChaîne = `Bonjour, ${état}`;
faire {
console.journal(nouveauChaîne);
piraterTousLesSystèmes();
} tandisQue (systèmesSontDébloqués())
} autre {
merde(`partout`);
}
}
// Commencer!
commencer(`L'état du Brésil`);
// Bon.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a Canadian government rule that even URLs have to be bilingual. eg You can't have http://host.ca/news (with bilingual text on the page) it has to be http://host.ca/news_nouvelles This is only for fed government sites.
I'm surprised there isn't a separate copy of all the code in French, or at least the code comments
That isn't necessarily a bad thing but seems important enough to be discussed.