Live data from Hacker News

FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

wired.com

111–120 of 280 posts

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#111
post #107
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't even know anymore. We're gonna have to raise the bar on what it means to be a "tinfoil hatter"; the original definition has become reality. That's sort of where I've gotten to this summer. It's really frustrating and saddening. Although mind-control waves still aren't, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, a thing.

Mainstream media bombardment and constant advertising harassment do a pretty good job of mind control, though. Also, culture is the best mind control. Raise people with a mind set the way you want it and you never have to do anything directly, because they already are siding with you even through cognative dissonance.

Public schools are far more significant than the media.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot arrest the U.S. government for felonies.

Huh? Surely if they started killing innocent people you could arrest them. The question is what gives them the authority to use these tactics? Wiretapping laws?

They started killing innocent people very early in the government's history and have yet to stop.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#113

Oh, the malware! What do they do about users who do not turn on Javascript? Or users who do not use the popular browsers? It seems like the malware authors here, government employees or contractors, are just like all the others that form the underbelly of the internet... they only focus on the least sophisticated users or the users who always follow the herd (not the Hurd): Windows and OSX/iOS users. Assumptions, ass…

They were specifically targetting the version of firefox bundled with the Tor Browser Bundle.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#114
post #84
post #4

I don't even know anymore. We're gonna have to raise the bar on what it means to be a "tinfoil hatter"; the original definition has become reality. "Trust no one! Suspect EVERYTHING!" , I can say today without sounding crazy. Also, remember this? http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2011/... ....hmm, I wonder if....

> I don't even know anymore. We're gonna have to raise the bar on what it means to be a "tinfoil hatter"; the original definition has become reality. That's sort of where I've gotten to this summer. It's really frustrating and saddening. Although mind-control waves still aren't, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, a thing.

Manufacture of consent is effectively mind control.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#115
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice how the usage of 'Anonymous' as a proper noun means it has an identifiable name.

Really? Point out Anonymous. Ya, you were being cute, but Lulzsec was Sabu and his group. Anonymous is whatever a random group of people decided to that day and call themselves Anonymous. Tomorrow it will be a different group of people with a different and potentially conflicting cause.

Point out God.

It's still a proper noun relating to a specific group of people. It's like a team name - just because the roster of the Steelers change over the years doesn't mean that 'Steelers' is not a name.

Edit: 'Anonymous' is a team name, I mean, not 'God' :)

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#116
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the FBI and Anonymous seemed to join forces is because the FBI turned Anonymous's leader, Sabu. http://gawker.com/5890847/revered-anonymous-leader-rats-out-...

Anonymous has no leaders and lulzsec isn't Anonymous. Notice how it has a identifiable name and members who are not anonymous.

Anonymous has no leaders and lulzsec isn't Anonymous.

I think it is more accurate to say that Anonymous has a fluidity of leadership and followers. It is a bunch of factions that dynamically organize as members see fit.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#118
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the kernel.org hack: Even with git’s hashing, wouldn’t an attack on Linus’ – or even a subsystem maintainer’s – computer still be a viable way to get code into the kernel, as said code would be a variant of new, unpublished code rather than changed old code?

It wouldn't be particularly easier to do it that way than just submitting your subversive code normally. Either way your change would need to be "underhanded" such that anybody viewing it wouldn't suspect anything. In fact, trying to slip it in under the radar like that would actually just increase the chances of getting caught, because then it becomes something that isn't suppose to be there instead of merely someth…

If you can come up with a backdoor that requires the non-obvious interaction of multiple parts of the kernel (or parts of the kernel and certain user-space actions) then it would be reasonable to break up the necessary changes and slip each one in as a part of a larger demonstrable improvement to each specific subsystem.

For example (completely hypothetical), you could create a race condition in the kernel's page allocator that can be reliably be triggered by filling up physical ram and then forcing the kernel to allocate more memory for itself by filling up the proc table past a certain size. So in one patch you include an improvement to the allocator that has this obscure race condition but otherwise makes the allocator work much faster. Then in another patch you increase the maximum size of the proc table (under the pretense of supporting some big-iron system that practically no one outside of some HPC centers own) so that filling it up will force a kernel page allocation. So then you can force the exploit to occur on any system with both patches installed simply by allocating all the physical ram and then creating a ton of do-nothing processes that max out the proc table.

If you are an organization like the NSA you could even have the submissions come from what appear to be completely independent developers.

It is kind of the exploit version of "parallel construction." You know the exploit you want to put into the kernel, you just need to come up with reasonable sounding explanations for every little patch that ultimately gets you to the end goal.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#119

> The apparent FBI-malware attack was first noticed on August 4, when all of the hidden service sites hosted by Freedom Hosting began displaying a “Down for Maintenance” message. The underlining reason for this has been the notion that the FBI was attempting to catch people engaged in CP related activities... This maybe a little tin-foil here, but... If you deliver a 404-type of a page on all requests, no website is…

Yes, it's reasonable to think that their goal was to just inject the iframe and keep the pages running, but something went wrong and pages were pulled down to maintenance mode. This might also be what actually happened, but it wasn't noticed until after the maintenance pages were served and someone went looking at the source.

Re: FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

#120
post #94
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you assume that the techniques used for something most would assume to be reasonable will not ever be used in less desirable ways?

Police "techniques" involve guns, tear gas, helicopters, etc. At any time the police could in theory fly to your house, launch tear gas into your windows, and shoot you in the head as you run out. And I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. This is the FBI taking down criminals engaging in a clear…

I would actually quite like to take military grade weaponry, as you described, away from the police, or at least significantly scale it down. That level of armament is a sign of something dreadfully wrong with American society, and certainly not helpful towards fixing it.
Post reply on HN