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

FBI Admits It Controlled Tor Servers Behind Mass Malware Attack

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 280 posts

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

#181

Post by simoncion »

darkarmani wrote: post #160
Amadou wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF he was serious he would be burning CDs/DVDs instead of using a read-write USB stick. It is tedious, but blank media is cheap and there is precedent (that I'm sure Bruce is aware of): The DoD's own (classified) SIPRNet was infiltrated via a flash-drive based virus back in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08...

SD cards have a physical switch you can flip for read-only.

The switch is electrical and advisory. The SD card reader is free to ignore it.

Search for "Bootable SD Card Method" here: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Prepare_your_SD_card (I have a Canon camera that runs CHDK. Those instructions work, and the camera can write to the SD card.)

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

#182

Post by mkmkmmmmm »

skwirl wrote: post #94
alan_cx wrote: 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…

Police having military weapons and vehicles is actually a huge problem, especially when they are punished with no more than a paid vacation for misusing them.

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

#184

Post by pjscott »

VladRussian2 wrote: post #109
Tloewald wrote: post #69

This would make the FBI guilty of a whole bunch of felonies, would it not? (Independent of whether what they were doing is morally right or wrong, isn't this exactly what they imprison hackers for?)

you probably miss the point of a 2 caste system - one above the law and the other. USA has been significantly lagging (compare to many other countries) in development of such a system, yet it has made huge progress in that direction during the recent decade.

Is it a recent development? On the FBI scale of sinister actions, I'd say this rates, at most, 300 milli-Hoovers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

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

#186

Post by derekp7 »

jlgreco wrote: post #15
claudius wrote: post #13

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…

How many security exploits have been found in the Linux kernel, or other trusted software? How many of those were around for a "long time"? Every one of those got by the normal peer review process.

So the question is, which is harder: does it take more skill to accidently insert a bug that gets by (sometimes for years), or to do so on purpose?

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

#187

Post by samstave »

wslh wrote: post #168
mithras wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get the one time pad to the recipient?

Personally.

Just out of curiosity - assume you took a key of 8096 bits - and it is super long - could you then make a hash of the key which were shorter, and provide the hash, with instructions on how to reverse it, and then use the hash to produce the 8096 keylength with less digits between you and the recipient?

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

#188

Post by skidoo »

superuser2 wrote: post #154
skidoo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, there is plenty of documentation that diverse subliminals find their ways into television programming, and even the music in supermarkets. Just like Fight Club. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

There is also plenty of research that these don't actually work, or at least not nearly as well as you think they do.

Oh, I don't have much faith in the inner fortitude of my fellow man. The unwashed masses are still watching reality television, ya know.

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

#189

Post by tptacek »

samstave wrote: post #187
wslh wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally.

Just out of curiosity - assume you took a key of 8096 bits - and it is super long - could you then make a hash of the key which were shorter, and provide the hash, with instructions on how to reverse it, and then use the hash to produce the 8096 keylength with less digits between you and the recipient?

Are you asking whether you can compress an RSA key?

Anyways: don't use 8192 bit keys. Whatever kills the 4096 bit keys is going to kill RSA along with them. Honestly, I think 4096 bits is also kind of a you're-kidding-yourself key length; if attacks on 2048 bit keys became tractable, RSA is probably in serious trouble.

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

#190

Post by singlow »

aheilbut wrote: post #162
jlgreco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air gapped with new hardware: "Since I started working with the Snowden documents, I bought a new computer that has never been connected to the internet. If I want to transfer a file, I encrypt the file on the secure computer and walk it over to my internet computer, using a USB stick. To decrypt something, I reverse the process. This might not be bulletproof, but it's pretty good." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2…

I hope he's using one of those USB condoms with his memory stick.

When the battery gets low?
Post reply on HN