shared pad for compiling patterns: https://pad.riseup.net/p/gO8Ng806lNnl
And they all use gmail?!?!?!
It is called NopSec
Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
51–60 of 80 posts
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty depressing. Only 2 out of 54 scanners currently detect something in the zips of the spyware. https://www.virustotal.com/en-gb/file/6ee40b8e7d49f4ea70b7ce... https://www.virustotal.com/en-gb/file/688f1e15390faf8d977351...
WAY too many security companies play both sides of the fence.
More like anti-virus companies are just bad at what they do.
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're deliberately trying to discredit a person who made available proof that the surveillance machine is out of control. While everyone else is dissecting the information and trying to digest it and working on solutions to the surveillance problem; you're obsessed with the messenger. Why?
Well, I'd agree with you, but the way you phrased it made me feel uneasy. Are you saying that source criticism in journalism is overrated, or that Assange should be an exception to the rules? This is the Internet. Isn't there enough room here for discussions about both the message and the messenger? Or is it that when the message gets strong or important enough, the messenger gets irrelevant in comparison?
What has the message to do with the messenger, in this case?
Sure we should be skeptical to all sources - media, individuals, government. Isn't this common sense?
The presented information, however, stands on its own, no matter who the person who delivered them represents.
What exactly would we gain from discussing the messenger? Would that move anything forward?
What if we found out Snowden was paid by some russian agency. What exactly would that change? Would the guys at Stellar say "Oh, the russians paid him? Everyone stop changing passwords and re-issuing certificates, guys, everything's fine; he got paid by the russians", and the slides with router passwords would suddenly disappear from the face of earth?
I hope it's the language barrier and I'm failing to understand your point.
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got anything that doesn't involve the 2d/3d video acceleration? Those are a rather obvious and off-by-default attack surface.
See here http://www.vupen.com/blog/20120904.Advanced_Exploitation_of_...
Down for me. Here's a cached version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140703130707/www.vupen.com/blo...
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'd agree with you, but the way you phrased it made me feel uneasy. Are you saying that source criticism in journalism is overrated, or that Assange should be an exception to the rules? This is the Internet. Isn't there enough room here for discussions about both the message and the messenger? Or is it that when the message gets strong or important enough, the messenger gets irrelevant in comparison?
What has the message to do with the messenger, in this case? Sure we should be skeptical to all sources - media, individuals, government. Isn't this common sense? The presented information, however, stands on its own, no matter who the person who delivered them represents. What exactly would we gain from discussing the messenger? Would that move anything forward? What if we found out Snowden was paid by some russian…
You're probably correct that it's the language barrier. The message has very little to do with the messenger, and I can't see who's claimed otherwise.
The difference seems to be about whether we SHOULD discuss the messenger. Assange still has the power to decide what to publish, and maybe more importantly when to publish it. Everyone who has a message to convey will wait for the right time to do so. This is true for political statements, for press releases, for when you ask your girlfriend to marry you or for when you tell your parents that you failed an exam. It would be silly not to accept that Assange cares about timing.
A discussion about the messenger shouldn't be seen as a dicussion about the truthfulness of the message. For example: The Russian government accused the Ukrainian government of being fascists, and one of their excuses for entering Crimea was that they needed to protect the Crimean Tatars from these fascists. But the Tatars are pro-Ukrainian, and many of them fled when the Russians took control. Those who remained are being harassed, and there are Tatars who were even denied re-entry to Crimea after having traveled to Ukraine. Sure, there are far-right extremists in Ukraine. Of course there are. But the Russians didn't want to admit that the phenomenon is far more prevalent in Russia. Knowledge of the messenger helps us to put all of this into a context.
All I'm saying is that we should be generous enough not to censor discussions just because we're not interested in them. In this case, it means discussions about both the message and the messenger. When combined, the outcomes will provide us with even more information. Ad hominem arguments like "you're obsessed with the messenger" are designed to silence one of these discussions.
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#56If I were to download this, I'd do it with some masking tape over my webcam, booted from Kali Linux, inside a Windows VM from a library or coffee shop.
Would you do that on a laptop hard drive partition or on a clean drive? Would you use that drive after formatting it? I think that physically breaking the connection between the camera and microphone and the laptop would be a good idea.
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#57Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be fun to install in a VM though! Or maybe not.
It will phone home. Don't do it unless it's disconnected from the network. It might also try to spread the infection through other attack vectors, like bluetooth, or trying to break out of the VM.
More likely it would self-destruct to avoid analysis or detection, this is well documented behavior of a number of more sophisticated pieces of malware.
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#59If I were to download this, I'd do it with some masking tape over my webcam, booted from Kali Linux, inside a Windows VM from a library or coffee shop.
That's pretty much what I did, it's now sitting in my Random-Noise-10GB file waiting to be opened in IDA.
Re: Copies of malware used by intelligence agencies to spy on journalists
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'd agree with you, but the way you phrased it made me feel uneasy. Are you saying that source criticism in journalism is overrated, or that Assange should be an exception to the rules? This is the Internet. Isn't there enough room here for discussions about both the message and the messenger? Or is it that when the message gets strong or important enough, the messenger gets irrelevant in comparison?
What has the message to do with the messenger, in this case? Sure we should be skeptical to all sources - media, individuals, government. Isn't this common sense? The presented information, however, stands on its own, no matter who the person who delivered them represents. What exactly would we gain from discussing the messenger? Would that move anything forward? What if we found out Snowden was paid by some russian…
So you totally rule out the possibility that those terrible-looking slides, which apparently came from the most well-funded, advanced, government agency on the planet, could be fabricated? I'm not saying by Snowden either, but rather being crafted by the U.S. government for an intentional leak. I see so many people talking about these programs, when in reality, the content of the leak could be directly applied to the leak itself. That seems to fly over everyone's head, though.
All you know about Snowden is that he leaked documents that are apparently from the NSA. You know NOTHING about the legitimacy of anything else, so why speculate or argue with people about it? It's better to keep an open mind about this situation rather than go with one side. Stop being lazy and consider outside possibilities rather than treating what's spoon-fed to you as the absolute truth.