41–50 of 250 posts
Mention "Signal" in any article and you'll have @tptacek running here to defend it with any costs.
The article claims that the CIA has compromised the Android device itself. They are intercepting communications before/after it's decrypted on the device.
Signal can help make sure you're transmitting information encrypted over the wire, but it can't really help you if your device is compromised.
To me this is much more worrying: > As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations. https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ Given the fact that car makers don't even have "PC age" security in their cars, things are looking pretty bad for…
Makes the conspiracy theories regarding journalist Michael Hastings' death in 2013 seem more plausible. [1] Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack". He was quoted as saying "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers — including the Unite…
I never thought they seemed implausible.
Mention "Signal" in any article and you'll have @tptacek running here to defend it with any costs.
Mention "Signal" in any article and you'll have @tptacek running here to defend it with any costs.
Edit: deleted, for very valid criticism. Next time I won't post in a rush during work hours.
To what are you referring to here, precisely?
Since AOSP is open source, is there a specific line of code that you can point to that contains (or is emblematic of) this insecurity?
Your article doesn't seem to say.
This headline is extremely dangerous. The phone itself was owned. No encryption was harmed by capturing the keystrokes and audio before it reaches the application. NYTimes should be ashamed of themselves for basically lying about the nature of the hacks.
No, it's not. The encryption is not broken, it's bypassed . The data go to an unintended third party, even when the encryption is legit, rendering the encryption useless. So the word "bypass" is correct.
Mention "Signal" in any article and you'll have @tptacek running here to defend it with any costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like your take on a more specific question: Do you think that Google applications (GMail, Search, Translate, Maps, etc) themselves can get access to the necessary kernel subroutines to catch information which is intended for encryption? Or would running a custom rom (ie. cyanogenmod) while still using Google applications suffice to mitigate these attacks?
Wait, what? If you are running something based off of AOSP, you're running code that was touched by Google employees. Is your fear that Google is installing backdoors to help the CIA? If so, why are you afraid of that?
This headline is extremely dangerous. The phone itself was owned. No encryption was harmed by capturing the keystrokes and audio before it reaches the application. NYTimes should be ashamed of themselves for basically lying about the nature of the hacks.
No, it's not. The encryption is not broken, it's bypassed . The data go to an unintended third party, even when the encryption is legit, rendering the encryption useless. So the word "bypass" is correct.