New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7 • Hacker News Board

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#131

Post by stordoff » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #98

zeth___ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who lived in a place that would boil dissidents alive in the 00's: That's the most beautiful part of this. If you know anything about downloading hugely illegal material you will keep your mouth shut because the claims there are completely laughable, but you don't want to admit you've been downloading hugely illegal material that would get you jailed/killed. To the average person it sounds reasona…

So your argument is that the entire thing is faked? Faked so incredibly well that it will withstand expert analysis at trial? That they faked years of activity (down to the inode level of the filesystem) by this guy and didn't make a single mistake? Because his defense team will tear that evidence apart and will find that mistake if it's there (e.g. any inode activity during a time he has an alibi... very easy to fin…

> Faked so incredibly well that it will withstand expert analysis at trial? That they faked years of activity (down to the inode level of the filesystem) by this guy and didn't make a single mistake?

At this point, we don't know that it will. That's making the argument out to be stronger than it is.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#132

Post by DINKDINK » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #117

Cacti wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making an assumption, that it was weak. What we know is that they found the password on his phone. It could have been quite strong.

I think the question I have is did the guy have a password manager on his phone?

The question we need to answer is: Was the incriminating data planted or not. Having a password manager on his phone is tangental to answer that question. After the computer and phone left his custody, either device could have had data modified. Unless he's got his data pinned into the Bitcoin blockchain, it's a pretty hard to show that it was planted. If it wasn't planted then it's really just about how the key was revealed.

P.S. The description does seem to describe a password manager: "Specifically, the Cellphone Examination identified various passwords that had been input by the user of the Cellphone to, for example, access the phone, applications on the phone, and/or certain websites."

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#133

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:44 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #128

ruskerdax wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing about the use of a VM that is "hard to explain away." You know what a VM is, right? You know anyone could plant things on a VM just like any other computer, right? You know there are many ways someone like the CIA could obtain a password used to encrypt a VM, right? Perhaps it was not always encrypted? Perhaps his host machine was infected with a key logger? Perhaps they used an exploit in the softwa…

My other comment is below. Have you read the complaint? The government is claiming that there is essentially 8 years of evidence on that VM, that in addition to the actual CP, there is a long trail of metadata and inode data that would be fairly difficult to fake. I mean, think about it: if you were the defendant, all you'd have to do is have someone examine it and find inode activity when you had a clear alibi that…

[deleted]

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#134

Post by Semirhage » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:52 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #111

Semirhage wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilt…

I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do. Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a…

And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways

Did you miss me specifically saying that I didn’t buy into the shilling thing? Please don’t claim that I said or implied something I went out of my way to disavow.

I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born

Holy shit, you know how old I am?

and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges.

I think the opposite is true, but I’ll tell you what, I’d never reach either conclusion with so little information available and it all coming via one side. A prosecutor looking for an indictment isn’t an unbiased viewpoint, just like a defense attorney speaking on behalf of their client isn’t.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#135

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

influx wrote: post #26

jessaustin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but ISTM the question isn't really whether the logs are of a genuine conversation about CP, but rather whether the accused really was a part of that conversation? After all, if he really took part in a conversation about procuring such material, it wouldn't have mattered if he talked like a newb. Likewise, if he wasn't in on it, it doesn't matter that everyone who was in on it got "t…

Read the transcript and decide for yourself, I'm referring strictly to how I've seen people speak on IRC. Warning, there is disturbing text in there. https://dd80b675424c132b90b3-e48385e382d2e5d17821a5e1d8e4c86...

[deleted]

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#136

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #128

ruskerdax wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing about the use of a VM that is "hard to explain away." You know what a VM is, right? You know anyone could plant things on a VM just like any other computer, right? You know there are many ways someone like the CIA could obtain a password used to encrypt a VM, right? Perhaps it was not always encrypted? Perhaps his host machine was infected with a key logger? Perhaps they used an exploit in the softwa…

My other comment is below. Have you read the complaint? The government is claiming that there is essentially 8 years of evidence on that VM, that in addition to the actual CP, there is a long trail of metadata and inode data that would be fairly difficult to fake. I mean, think about it: if you were the defendant, all you'd have to do is have someone examine it and find inode activity when you had a clear alibi that…

[deleted]

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#137

Post by selectodude » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:00 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #125

anonymous5133 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate further?

The complaint is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6359557/united-states-v... Pages 3-6 detail the VM. Basically, they found a VM on his computer that was encrypted, with an encrypted file in it, that they unlocked with a password they found on his phone. In the encrypted (truecrypt) file, they found a large amount of what was unmistakenly CP. When they examined the file system, their claim is that there was…

>I mean, it's possible to fake, but it would be incredibly easy to fuck that up, and incredibly risky to get caught doing that.

Maybe, but how hard would it be to convince a tech-illiterate jury of that? Is there a lawyer on earth that could explain the minutiae of metadata on virtual machines to one? And if they get caught, they go "oops!" and pay out a few million dollars as a sorry, at best.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#138

Post by zeth___ » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:19 AM UTC

Cacti wrote: post #90

zeth___ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear god this thread is being hit hard by people pushing the US government narrative. I'm not saying you're all paid trolls, but HN is to the tech scene what reddit was 10 years ago which is when we first saw shilling hit it hard and fast.

Look in the mirror, man. You're accusing people, without a shred of evidence, of being government shills simply because you disagree with them.

I'm looking at your post history. At the point when you have posted 17 times in a thread with half of them being a literal copy of what the prosecution is charging him with, while by omission implying that the information there is somehow impartial, the fact of being a paid or unpaid shill is immaterial.

You are the only person in this thread pushing the government narrative and taking their words at face value.

Anyone who has kept track of these persecutions knows that unmentionable facts are thrown in constantly to try and get the defendants to break. Viz, Daniel Ellsberg being called a homosexual.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#139

Post by 0xbear » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:50 AM UTC

Yeah, I’m not a CIA employee, but even I use different passwords for everything and don’t store them in the clear. This smells like a government hit job from a mile away, much like Assange’s “rape” case. Snowden would have no doubt attracted the same kind of “attention” had he not moved to one of the very few countries where CIA, FBI, and NSA can’t operate.

Re: New Charges in Huge C.I.A. Breach Known as Vault 7

#140

Post by calimac » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:04 AM UTC

salimmadjd wrote: post #5

Mr. Schulte had been charged last year in New York with possession of child pornography Very interesting! It almost seems like the pornography charges against him was a way to punish him but without prosecuting him for the actual leakage. Perhaps the government wanted to still point the fingers at someone else or avoid embarrassment?

I can think of multiple reports of cp payloads being directed at enemies of the CI@. ...going back to 2013 they have been known to plant the cp on their enemies inside USA> interesting thing is that it's the same year the domestic spy operation was made legal by the defense authorization act 2013.