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

CIA malware and hacking tools

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#181

Post by tdb7893 »

imron wrote: post #66

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. Th…

The Russians really seem like to most likely there still. It would’ve taken quite a bit of knowhow and resources so the Russians would be one of the few organization with motive and opportunity so at this point it seems highly likely that it was the Russians. It could also be some nation state that wants us to think that they are Russian (which I don’t know who would have motive for this). The only other option would be a corporation or hacker group that is really good and knows enough to be able to (and also have a motive to) implicate the Russians convincingly, but that seems unlikely.

That’s the analysis I heard so it doesn’t really change the overall analysis but I’m no expert and I’m open to other views.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#182

Post by degenerate »

strictnein wrote: post #150
cQ5ktKqTvOPZ wrote: post #73

If they call in James Clapper, will he perjure himself again? http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/

It would have been illegal for him to tell the truth in that testimony, since it was public. I know people don't like that, but it's true. He could either lie or break serious secrecy laws. There's no immunity just because you're talking to congress.

In that case, you say "I can't answer that question" and let the system do its job.

You don't lie.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#183

Post by danielam »

tehwalrus wrote: post #45
dvcc wrote: post #5

Based on the overview alone (of course I can't read the entire report that fast!), this is exactly what I expect a spy agency would be doing -- if they were not then I would be disappointed. What exactly in the admittedly shortened list am I supposed to be upset about? It makes no distinction between US citizens and overseas parties. If these actions are being done domestically against US citizens, with no just cause…

> If these actions are being done domestically against US citizens, with no just cause sure I will get upset, but that has yet to be seen. May I just ask, why does this distinction matter? Why do you believe the world should be divided into "people who were issued bits of paper by my overlords" and "people who weren't"? I never understood this division in other people's heads. It leads to all sorts of philosophical p…

That some governments use that kind of tribal moral relativism to justify war does not mean that war cannot be waged for justifiable and morally good reasons.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#184

Post by patrickaljord »

Use of undisclosed zero day vulnerabilities by governments is not really news. But the article makes it sounds like these OS come with a rootkit pre-installed to exploit those vulnerabilities. My guess is that they first need to find a way to install these on targeted devices. Any idea?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#185

Post by strictnein »

degenerate wrote: post #182
strictnein wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been illegal for him to tell the truth in that testimony, since it was public. I know people don't like that, but it's true. He could either lie or break serious secrecy laws. There's no immunity just because you're talking to congress.

In that case, you say "I can't answer that question" and let the system do its job. You don't lie.

No. The only way he couldn't answer the question was if the program existed, thus revealing the existence of the program, so he had to lie.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#186

Post by compuguy »

apo wrote: post #92

In what is surely one of the most astounding intelligence own goals in living memory, the CIA structured its classification regime such that for the most market valuable part of "Vault 7" — the CIA's weaponized malware (implants + zero days), Listening Posts (LP), and Command and Control (C2) systems — the agency has little legal recourse. The CIA made these systems unclassified. Why the CIA chose to make its cyberar…

I honestly think this makes sense, based on how government bureaucracy is. Obviously everything else about it, is classified.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#187

Post by 40acres »

It's very sobering to realize that if the government wanted to track my every movement they could easily do so. Arguing about the security features of Android vs. iOS just seems redundant now.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#189

Post by zdkl »

thraway2016 wrote: post #175
jMyles wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I miss a memo? Wikileaks has done tireless work in this field and has largely been correct about its claims and the authenticity of its documents. If not Wikileaks, whom do we trust for this sort of info?

The infosec community has this insane conspiracy theory that Assange is owned by Putin.

Alright, I'll bite. Regardless of the who owns what, I'd be a hell of a lot more confident if some of the old regular PGP sigs started showing up again

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#190

Post by _jal »

jMyles wrote: post #170
phpnode wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't flag it, but I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the source (any more). Edit: Why the downvotes? I didn't indicate my position, I pointed out that some people don't trust WikiLeaks any more, which is obvious - go and look at the responses they get on twitter.

Did I miss a memo? Wikileaks has done tireless work in this field and has largely been correct about its claims and the authenticity of its documents. If not Wikileaks, whom do we trust for this sort of info?

> Wikileaks has done tireless work in this field and has largely been correct about its claims and the authenticity of its documents

I believe what people don't trust is their motivation. I've seen people argue that motivation doesn't matter; facts are facts. That's incorrect, as anyone who has listened to a skilled dissembler state facts leading to a conclusion at odds with reality knows.

There are other problems, including suspicion that it may be true that WL may be leaking exactly what they're given (modulo redaction and strategic withholding), what they're given may be tailored to the goals of those leaking. Assange's statements don't help dissipate that suspicion.

So in looking at their releases, you have to fact in not only their (Assange's) motivation, but that of the unknown people leaking documents.

Ain't intelligence analysis grand?

Post reply on HN