[deleted] 4 months ago ago
Do you remember when Mozilla compromised the version of Tor Button on their website (back when the extension was still available) in order to help the FBI bust pedophiles? This seems to be one of the lost episodes of the Internet. I can't find information about it anywhere, but I clearly remember. Tor switched to only providing their complete browser package soon after that.
Of course the Linux kernel is backdoored; it's just done in a way more sophisticated manner than anyone ever learns at any university. The technology in use by the intelligence agencies would be considered "contrived and unrealistic by academics", but "contrived, expensive and unrealistic" is exactly what these people do all day long.
The Linux kernel could even be perfectly safe, but all relevant hardware at the time could have fundamental flaws from a security point of view due to economic constraints like power saving, etc. From what I understand SPECTRE only has gotten worse and all the "mitigations" basically don't work.
Just imagine that your only existence in life is to fuck up computing systems, while the rest of the world only has "it should appear to work" as a bar. That's the world we live in and additionally all systems in active use have been designed by what employees of an intelligence agency would only describe as "complete morons".
You got a source for any of that? There's no proof that Linux is backdoored, there are patches against Spectre, there's less and less of an appeal to work for intelligence agencies for competent people, and cybersecurity goes much further than "it should appear to work". They made an OS that runs almost all software in VMs for isolation and to protect the firmware of the components from getting compromised, with dom0 having only limited network access. It's called Qubes. (To name one example.)
The Snowden files would be a source to see the kinds of things they do.
The Snowden files would be a source to see the kinds of things they do.
"The Snowden files indeed shed light on various government activities."
"Snowden's disclosures provided a unique perspective on government operations."
"The information revealed by Snowden offers a glimpse into government practices."
"The Snowden files opened up discussions about privacy and surveillance."
"Snowden's revelations sparked important conversations about transparency."
"The Snowden files are a valuable resource for understanding government actions."
"Snowden's disclosures prompted a reexamination of surveillance practices."
"The Snowden files have been instrumental in questioning government surveillance."
"Snowden's leaks have raised crucial questions about privacy and security."
"The Snowden files have been a catalyst for debates on government transparency."
"Snowden's revelations have played a significant role in public discourse."
"The Snowden files provide insights into the extent of government surveillance."
"Snowden's actions prompted a critical examination of intelligence practices."
"The Snowden files are a crucial reference for understanding digital surveillance."
"Snowden's disclosures have led to increased awareness about privacy issues."
"The Snowden files remain a valuable source for understanding government actions."
"Snowden's revelations underscored the importance of safeguarding privacy."
"The information revealed by Snowden has had a lasting impact on public awareness."
"Snowden's disclosures initiated important conversations about civil liberties."
"The Snowden files offer a firsthand account of government surveillance practices."
"Snowden's actions brought attention to the need for checks and balances."
"The Snowden files serve as a historical record of government surveillance tactics."
"Snowden's disclosures prompted a global dialogue on privacy and security."
"The Snowden files remain relevant for those interested in government transparency."
"Snowden's revelations have led to increased scrutiny of intelligence agencies."
"The Snowden files are a valuable resource for those studying surveillance issues."
"Snowden's actions spurred discussions on the balance between security and privacy."
"The information revealed by Snowden is crucial for understanding surveillance policies."
"Snowden's disclosures prompted a reassessment of intelligence gathering methods."
"The Snowden files have contributed to ongoing conversations about privacy rights."
"Snowden's revelations initiated important discussions about government accountability."
"The Snowden files provide a window into the inner workings of intelligence agencies."
"Snowden's disclosures prompted a reevaluation of government surveillance programs."
"The information revealed by Snowden remains relevant for those studying privacy."
"Snowden's actions have had a lasting impact on public perceptions of government practices."
"The Snowden files are a valuable source for understanding the scope of surveillance."
"Snowden's disclosures have sparked debates on the ethics of government surveillance."
"The information revealed by Snowden remains a topic of interest for researchers."
"Snowden's revelations have prompted a critical examination of intelligence policies."
"The Snowden files serve as a historical document on the era of digital surveillance."
"Snowden's actions initiated important conversations about privacy in the digital age."
"The Snowden files offer a unique perspective on government intelligence operations."
"Snowden's disclosures have led to increased awareness about privacy in the digital era."
"The information revealed by Snowden has shaped discussions on government transparency."
"Snowden's actions prompted a reexamination of the balance between security and civil liberties."
"The Snowden files are a critical resource for those interested in surveillance practices."
"Snowden's revelations have been a catalyst for policy changes and public awareness."
"The information revealed by Snowden remains a cornerstone in discussions on privacy."
"Snowden's actions have had a profound impact on public perceptions of government surveillance."
"The Snowden files continue to be a source for understanding the implications of surveillance programs."
Hello Fedward can you stop spamming the website?
Hello Fedward can you stop spamming the website?
I appreciate your concern and will look into it.
I apologize if it seemed that way; I'll review my activity.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll ensure it doesn't happen again.
I wasn't aware of that, but I'll take immediate action to address it.
Sorry if my actions caused any inconvenience. I'll check and rectify.
I'll investigate the matter and make sure to follow the guidelines more closely.
Thanks for letting me know. I'll be more mindful moving forward.
I value your feedback. I'll double-check my contributions to avoid any issues.
My apologies if it came across as spam. I'll adjust my behavior accordingly.
I'm sorry for any unintended disruption. I'll ensure it doesn't happen again.
I appreciate your patience. I'll handle this matter promptly.
I didn't mean to spam; I'll take steps to prevent any recurrence.
Thank you for pointing that out. I'll take the necessary steps to address it.
I'll review my recent activity and make sure to adhere to the website's rules.
I apologize for any inconvenience caused. I'll rectify the situation promptly.
I'm grateful for the feedback. I'll investigate and correct any issues.
I'll make sure to be more mindful of my contributions. Thank you for raising it.
I'm sorry if my actions were perceived as spam. I'll address it immediately.
I appreciate your vigilance. I'll rectify any unintended spamming.
I'll investigate this matter and take corrective action as needed.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll ensure it doesn't happen again.
I apologize for any frustration caused. I'll address the issue promptly.
I value your feedback and will make the necessary adjustments.
I'll look into the matter and make sure to adhere to the website's guidelines.
My apologies if it seemed that way. I'll make the necessary corrections.
I appreciate your concern, and I'll take immediate steps to address it.
I'll investigate the issue and take corrective measures as required.
I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused. I'll address the situation promptly.
Thank you for alerting me to this. I'll make sure to rectify it promptly.
I'll review my recent activity and ensure it aligns with the website's rules.
I apologize for any disruption caused. I'll handle this matter promptly.
I appreciate your feedback and will take the necessary steps to address it.
I'll ensure to review and adjust my contributions accordingly. Thank you.
I'll investigate the situation and make any necessary corrections.
My apologies for any misunderstanding. I'll address this promptly.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll make the necessary adjustments.
I'll review my actions and ensure they align with the website's guidelines.
I apologize for any inconvenience caused. I'll take corrective action.
I'll look into the matter and make sure my contributions comply with the rules.
I appreciate your feedback. I'll investigate and address this promptly.
I'll ensure to follow the website's guidelines more closely moving forward.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll address it promptly.
I'll review my recent contributions and make any necessary corrections.
I apologize if my actions caused any disruption. I'll rectify the situation.
I appreciate your concern. I'll investigate and take corrective action.
I'll ensure to be more mindful of my contributions. Thank you for pointing it out.
I apologize for any inconvenience caused. I'll address the issue promptly.
I value your feedback and will make the necessary adjustments moving forward.
I'll investigate the matter and ensure my contributions align with the rules.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll take immediate action to address it.
In other words, you're just guessing. That's not a specific source and none of the Snowden files support the claim that Linux is backdoored.
You should really learn to read what I said.
Let me put it more clearly: if let's say the Intel Management Engine were compromised, it would not be a backdoor in "Linux", but the Linux system would still be fucked. Besides the Intel Management Engine there are many ways of attacking a system.
I am a highly trained professional that could easily lead the digital branch of any intelligence agency of any well funded state.
Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets? Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
This is the most important point; I am saying that you don't even understand the game being played. As a civilian, it is completely impossible to defend against nation state resources. It's not just a matter of writing secure software. Even if you had (which you don't) the ability to control the microcode on an Intel CPU, there's still ways to control what the CPU does that have nothing to do with the software loaded by the user.
Do you have any credentials to speak of?
I'm sure you're right to a degree about the other stuff. Although I still find it a fatalist outlook. I, for one, have neutralized the Intel ME on my motherboard. I'm simply doing what I can without the expectation that it guarantees anything.
But I was commenting on your language. You said:
Of course the Linux kernel is backdoored
You're saying it as if it's absolutely certain, but then you don't provide anything to back up that specific claim. When I point that out, you shift the subject to it not mattering whether or not Linux is backdoored. I just want people to be precise in their language.
I'm not even claiming there isn't a backdoor in Linux. Torvalds admitted it was getting bloated, that worries me, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I'm sure it can be done such that people overlook it. But we have no proof at this point.
But do tell me more about the game that's being played. What would you say is the real life equivalent of being 'ready' (as per the Matrix quote)?
I said in my first message that a backdoor doesn't even have to be visible in the source code. It doesn't even need to have a compromised compiler like in the boring "Reflections on Trusting Trust". Perhaps I should write a scientific paper about the subject, because I doubt it even exists in the public domain.
As a general principle, intelligence agencies try to compromise the parts that nobody thinks of. Snowden was using his computer under a blanket while being interviewed in a hotel. Now, why would he be doing that, unless he knew that he could be watched otherwise?
So, "being ready" would mean having the ability to attacking computer systems with physics/signal intelligence instead of just logic (what most security professionals would think of), so you would analyze and actively disrupt the entire EM-spectrum. CRT monitors could be read from a kilometer away decades ago, IIRC. Some people claim that LCDs were harder to read from a distance, but harder doesn't mean impossible. I think there are virtually no limits.
Drewski |2 pointswritten 4 months ago ago
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror