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

261–270 of 280 posts

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

#261

Post by ufmace »

signed0 wrote: post #218
jacquesm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if your bank does not do 2 factor authentication switch to another bank.

Which banks actually do this? I've never encountered one.

The major ones that I've used do - Chase and Bank of America, both through sending codes over SMS to login and perform certain activities once logged in. For BoA, even if you stole my password and browser cookie (to get past the login check), you still wouldn't be able to do anything but pay my bills for me. Anything that might send money to a new destination, like creating a new billpay recipient, changing the info of one, or adding a wire transfer destination, requires an additional 2-factor code.

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

#262

Post by atmosx »

twoodfin wrote: post #229
atmosx wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI as every state organization is a position of power give by the state and it's citizen to protect them from illicit activities. All of them, not some of them . When the FBI engages in unethical and illicit practice, it's like stating that rules do not apply for them. Given for granted that they are in a position of power a priori, it's hard for me to see how this is good thing and how accountability can be hel…

It is unethical or illicit for me to tap someone's phone or install malware on their computer. That doesn't mean it's illicit or unethical for the FBI to do so. The whole point of having a state is to trust it with powers that individuals should not exercise on their own authority.

Right, and when the FBI goes rogue (because that's whats happening) what?

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

#263

Post by makomk »

kropotkin wrote: post #212
skwirl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. You might want to rethink your position: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelp...

Don't worry, I doubt he'll have to rethink his position - after all, he's almost certainly white.

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

#264

Post by polyfractal »

josh2600 wrote: post #260
polyfractal wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. Acetaminophen is Tylenol. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Tylenol is a poison? Arsenic is a poison. Lead is a poison. Cyanide is a poison. Tylenol becomes toxic at a certain threshold (like every other substance on the earth for that matter). Sure, it is toxic to your liver in large doses. That isn't why Tylenol 3 is Schedule II while pure Codeine is Schedule II. The difference…

http://www.medicinenet.com/tylenol_liver_damage/article.htm#... Yes, but in rare cases. Acetaminophen is not the easiest thing in the world for your body to deal with. But this is technically correct and in the 99 percent case you're correct so this is kind of belaboring the point. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth mentioning.

Sure, but you can make that argument for virtually any substance. A particular combination of genetics and will equal a bad reaction in some portion of the population. It's practically guaranteed due to the nature of genetics and statistics.

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

#265

Post by babuskov »

smtddr wrote: 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....

http://abstrusegoose.com/536

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

#266

Post by just_testing »

jacquesm wrote: post #219
signed0 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which banks actually do this? I've never encountered one.

Both my banks do (European banks, specifically Rabo and ABN/AMRO). These are still not immune to phishing attacks but it's a lot better than TAN codes or some other 'dumb' authentication scheme. Typically these systems work in conjunction with pin-and-chip card, a small piece of hardware that generates the codes and a challenge / response system built into the website you use for the authorization. Separate challenge…

Those are common in Brazilian banks as well. At least four of the six biggest (I don't remember about the last two) do two-factor authentication.

Another cool thing I've seen in Banco do Brasil was the need to authorize the computer you're going to use in a ATM or in a 1-800. If I recall correctly, they do that with a Java applet.

Recently they also launched a common-malware-search-and-destroy application of MANDATORY use in Windows computers (my mom uses, she asked me. And yes, the digital certificates were all valid).

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

#267

Post by MichaelGG »

polyfractal wrote: post #259
MichaelGG wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still poison medicines. Hydrocodone, a Schedule II substance, drops to Schedule III when sold with acetaminophen, a substance toxic to the liver.

This is ridiculous. Acetaminophen is Tylenol. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Tylenol is a poison? Arsenic is a poison. Lead is a poison. Cyanide is a poison. Tylenol becomes toxic at a certain threshold (like every other substance on the earth for that matter). Sure, it is toxic to your liver in large doses. That isn't why Tylenol 3 is Schedule II while pure Codeine is Schedule II. The difference…

The FDA is considering a black label warning for acetaminophen and recently changed the max "recommendation" down from 4 grams daily to 2.3g (IIRC). It is most definitely a liver toxin with therapeutic index that's not so amazing.

People get prescribed ratios of 100:1 APAP:hydrocodone (750/7.5 for example) - it's idiotic from a health and safety perspective. If you need opiate painkillers such as hydrocodone or oxycodone, the extra APAP is unlikely to be of much benefit, and you can always just take some APAP on the side. The APAP is there purely to "prevent" abuse.

I'm not suggesting the "Government is poisoning people" as a conspiracy, I'm suggesting the same idiotic politics and ideas at play during alcohol prohibition are still alive.

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

#268

Post by ldfkcvbm456 »

a3n wrote: post #137
baddox wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public schools are far more significant than the media.

You could be right. Or it could be the exact opposite. Or something else. It doesn't matter. Fundamentally we do it to ourselves, because we're herd/pack/social animals. We shun anyone too different from the tribe, it's in our DNA. Because of that, we are highly evolved to fit in. Yeah, we're self aware and all that, we have choices, but what we generally choose to do is identify with some group and hate opposing gro…

>herd/pack/social animals I can already tell you have no idea about what you are talking about because you cant figure out the word to use here.

Stupid pop-sci reading pinkerian evo psych pseudo-wisdom lesswrong.com idiot.

Who's "we"? I bet that just pissed you off, keep projecting how much of a inferior you are.

>generalizing everything as a "tribe"

You do know those evo psych idiots use the term "genetics" and not "DNA" right? Now you really don't know what you are talking about.

>highly evolved to fit in

I swear schools should just stick to bible class instead of evolution class if they cant even teach it properly.

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

#269

Post by [deleted] »

samstave wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dude, Get your ass to SF so I can buy you the many beers I owe you! I get truly excited when I see your replies, I'd love to banter in [inebriated] public! With that said, may I please make the humble request; Yoou have contributed a shitload of awesome comments on the state f "who-the-fuck-are-we-kidding" with respect to encryption and privacy in light of what we actually know now related to the NSA.... Would you pl…

[deleted]

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

#270

Post by rdl »

jacquesm wrote: post #213
rdl wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the vast majority of USB sticks in the world are not pwned. If you randomly go out to purchase one in a large market, it's pretty likely to be safe. Things like the Bagram PX were concentrations of high value targets with only one source of supply. The general USB stick marketplace is a lot safer. In China they're often fake and thus unreliable (smaller than advertised), but in the US, I'd be pretty comfortable d…

The vast majority of USB sticks are lost, not attacks, the vast majority of USB keys handed to you are handed to you in good faith, not as attacks. That doesn't mean there are no attacks. So prudence is adviced in either case, on the off chance that the one that you have is a bad one. Ditto for anything else that you stick into a USB port. That webcam plugged into your computer, are you sure the mike isn't on all the…

Just like bareback sex with partners who remain monogamous for the duration of your relationship, repeatedly sticking the same USB device into your computer is a lot less risky than sticking a wide variety of USB devices of unknown provenance into your computer...
Post reply on HN