91–100 of 284 posts
wonder when wikileaks will publish fsb hacking tools LOL
Seems FSB has better security than CIA. 90% of intelligence community cyber security spending is on offensive projects, so this revelation should not be too surprising. ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-defense-idUSKBN1... )
What would be the advantage to making your exploits appear to come from other countries? What do we gain from this? It feels like an instigation.
Doesn't necessarily have to be instigation -- could just be misdirection. If you're targeting Russians, then making malware that looks like Russian hackers seems like a no brainer, if you don't want to attract attention from intelligence services.
Like it's the case with the NSA: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3137065/security/shadow-...
I've really turned on Wikileaks. Itd be one thing if all the major powers had equivalent leaks publishing, but focusing on the US basically serves Chinese and Russian interests far more than it does the citizens of the US. String obfuscation isn't stemming from some corrupt deal that needs sunlight... this is just doing a disservice to their original mission.
The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests, and especially not the interests of the biggest secret keeper. The truth is not political, except that it is the natural enemy of politics which rely upon secrecy. If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution...
If you're running a media outlet, and use your editorial discretion to only disclose specific truths that align with your broader interest, you're not worthy of claiming to be acting in the public interest.
Facts are never black and white things. The meaning of truth is dependent on the context surrounding it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone sends real leaks to Wikileaks and they don't publish, then the leakers can use alternative channels to distribute the leaks (for example, sending directly to journalists), and then accuse Wikileaks of not publishing. Has anyone already accused Wikileaks of not publishing real leaks?
Yes, they've been accused of that. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-ju... > WikiLeaks, he told a Moscow newspaper, had obtained compromising materials “about Russia, about your government and your businessmen.” > Mr. Assange, asked soon after by Time magazine whether he still planned to expose the secret dealings of the Kremlin, reiterated his earlier vow. “Yes indeed,” he said. > But that pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. > Russians returned to typewriters for all their top secret stuff That's what they're telling people, I wonder how much truth there is to it. At the very least it provides a plausible cover story for when people ask why there aren't big leaks.
Not sure why they'd need a cover story for not having big leaks. It's not like US intentionally leaks things either. Anybody is free to try and hack their systems just the same way people hack US ones.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-30/how-russi...
Leaks include president Medvedev personal email and his secretary email, then Vladislav Surkov secretary emails and multiple entrepreneurs related to Kremlin. Though I doubt there was a lot of interest to them outside of Russia.
I've really turned on Wikileaks. Itd be one thing if all the major powers had equivalent leaks publishing, but focusing on the US basically serves Chinese and Russian interests far more than it does the citizens of the US. String obfuscation isn't stemming from some corrupt deal that needs sunlight... this is just doing a disservice to their original mission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests, and especially not the interests of the biggest secret keeper. The truth is not political, except that it is the natural enemy of politics which rely upon secrecy. If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution...
The truth may not be political, however the curation is. Take the US election, for example. Wikileaks has released information about Clinton and the DNC, and claims they have stuff they never released about Trump and the GOP [1, 2]. Other sources have said the GOP was hacked in the same attack that got Podesta [3]. The only person less likely to criticize Russia than Trump is Assange. Wikileaks lost any proximity to…
It's fair if you align yourself with American foreign policy interests, I do too, but to single out other publications that don't follow that agenda is just a case of having self interested double standards. All of the criticism of Wiki leaks and non-America MSM has all sounded like that to me. "They are selectively publishing different things than we want to be selectively published. Waaah".
But let me guess what the go to response would be: "whataboutism" (aka you can't call me a hypocrite, because some guy made a term for it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth isn't responsible for serving anyone's interests, and especially not the interests of the biggest secret keeper. The truth is not political, except that it is the natural enemy of politics which rely upon secrecy. If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution...
> If your perspective is that more secrets are being kept by more egregious actors than the US, the truth welcomes your contribution... If your perspective is that the US is truly the most secretive and "egregious" actor on the modern stage, then you are shockingly naive. Or, more likely, misled by the skewed "truth" you are reading.