The Linux Backdoor Attempt of 2003 [2013]

submitted by Drewski from (freedom-to-tinker.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

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.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

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?

[–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

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)?

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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.