If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Apple Insider)   U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency openly frustrated that they cannot crack Apple's iMessage encryption to listen in on suspects   (appleinsider.com) divider line 140
    More: Spiffy, DEA, encryption, Mac computers, Internet Crime Complaint Center  
•       •       •

9628 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 3:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 04:33:55 PM  
Look, all of you obviously know nothing about intelligence work. It's an X-K-Red-27 technique
 
2013-04-04 04:35:39 PM  
Anyone can be a suspect, so good. Let the subhuman scum work for a living.

Does this mean the DEA needs to be brought up to speed for every new encryption system or chat program?

DEA officials first discovered that iMessages could be a hinderance to their efforts when a real-time electronic surveillance under the Federal Wiretap Act failed to yield all of a target's text messages.

I am so sure that it was the 'one target' they had difficulties with. I shouldn't be surprised but I am still disgusted. Just because its legal doesn't mean it's right.

/special hatred for dea scum
 
2013-04-04 04:36:52 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.


Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

THAT is the way that Windows now works for out government to take advantage of when they need it.  Heck, for all we know the people in the Clinton Administration saw the future of cyber warfare, tried the pretty-please approach to get their people on the inside of MS, got turned down by Bill Gates, and the anti-trust case was blackmail to hammer Bill Gates into saying YES.
 
2013-04-04 04:37:39 PM  

ceebeecates4: What encryption method does iMessage use? Is it a stream or block cipher? What is the key strength? While encryption is mathematically complicated, the concepts of use are not.


Given that it's closed-source, it could be a variation of ROT13 for all we know.

ceebeecates4: while I don't expect you to name the "backdoors" you allege Microsoft products contain


Obviously I'm speculating, but I believe you're being naive if you think microsoft would put up some kind of principled fight if the government asked for such access. As far as communicating the results, it could be as simple as collecting keystrokes and saving them until the warrants get served and the machine gets confiscated. If you want to go the network route, which I think is what you were getting at, then who really monitors what their system sends out? Firewalls are pretty forgiving for anything sent over http, could be a lot of things sent in those headers, etc.
 
2013-04-04 04:38:22 PM  
Also, Apple announced that iMessages would be encrypted when they launched the service.  Why did it take the DEA 18 months to figure this out?
 
2013-04-04 04:38:48 PM  
Let's be honest.  If you trust the government when they say that they can't crack your system, then you deserve whatever happens when it turns out that they're lying.
 
2013-04-04 04:41:20 PM  

THX 1138: Are you referring to Some Remarks? I was curious about it, but held off on buying it because I wasn't sure if it'd be as good as his full-length fiction.


Yes, Some Remarks, and no, it's not as good as his full-length work, but if you're a huge fan it's worth it. It has some interesting short stories, his Gresham College lecture notes, slashdot interview, Salon interview, etc. It's a real hodgepodge.
 
2013-04-04 04:43:08 PM  
Dont. You. Believe. It.

sounds like a trap
 
2013-04-04 04:43:21 PM  

mrmopar5287: Rumored? I think that's pretty much confirmed. And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.


That level of paranoia overlooks the basic fact the most paranoid group of people on the entire planet, and the loudest to protest any perceived coercion, is software programmers.

You just can't make conspiracy like that work with skilled worked unless they actually believe they are personally saving lives.
 
2013-04-04 04:43:25 PM  
I don't think its reasonable to assume that widely-used encryption schemes have "back doors".  There is nothing a cryptoanalyst would love more than breaking (defeating without brute-forcing) a widely used scheme.  Generally, encryption methods are developed in academia buy math wunderkind who are then checked up on by other wunderkind.

Back doors exist in computer software because once high level code is compiled into executable code, it is virtually unreadable by humans. Complex software tends to be large, with lots of hiding spaces among the binary code.   AES is a scheme that can be described fully on Wikipedia.  It is open, readable and audit-able.

This is why most attacks won't even try to decrypt the ciphertext, but rather compromise the endpoint devices.  (Which may have backdoors programmed in by the behest of the government, especially if the software is proprietary and un-audtiable)
 
2013-04-04 04:44:07 PM  

ringersol: WalkingCarpet: "What if the DEA cracked the encryption and want all drug dealers to use iMessage now thinking it's safe?"

Drug Dealers use burners.
It's cute to have encryption, but if you're carrying the same tracking beacon 24/7 they'll get plenty of evidence the old fashioned way.


bingo! cash purchase fresh phones regularly are the cure to what ails ya.
 
2013-04-04 04:45:06 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: it's not as good as his full-length work, but if you're a huge fan it's worth it.


Fair enough.  I liked the few short works of his I've seen, like In the Beginning... and Jipi and the Paranoid Chip, so I'll give it a shot.  I appreciate the recommendation.
 
2013-04-04 04:45:07 PM  

namatad: why wasnt DEA funding cut by 100%?
absolutely NOTHING would have changed and all that money would have been saved.

I guess that is a question for the small government people.
WHY does the DEA exist?


It's to help prop up prices. The last thing drug dealers want is a bunch of noobs entering the market and depressing prices with excess supply. It hurts their bottom line.
 
2013-04-04 04:45:17 PM  

mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

THAT is the way that Windows now works for out government to take advantage of when they need it.  Heck, for all we know the people in the Clinton Administration saw the future of cyber warfare, tried the pretty-please approach to get their people on the inside of MS, got turned down by Bill Gates, and the anti-trust case was blackmail to hammer Bill Gates into saying YES.


As far as I am aware no one has ever found a backdoor of any kind into any Microsoft operating system, working or otherwise. The simple presence of code allowing for that kind of operation would have been found by now if it existed. Further, if it existed it would have been exploited by malware authors.

That said - Microsoft doesn't need to include backdoors, the US Government trades in zero-days. Those are better than any built-in backdoor for a multitude of reasons.

Also, what made that anti-trust case go away was the same thing that brought it on. Money.
 
2013-04-04 04:47:01 PM  

dittybopper: WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: Meh. I can do better with paper and pencil, something not even the NSA can crack. Ever.

Dilettantes have been telling themselves that for millennia.

It's provably so.  

Better yet, it can be implemented without any resort to electronics.  This is a set of pads I generated with 10-sided dice and a manual typewriter:



Completely random.


Don't forget to burn the ribbon.
 
2013-04-04 04:48:41 PM  
There's a better way.  Just start talking in Navajo with your friends.  Hey, it worked before...
 
2013-04-04 04:49:19 PM  

turtleking: Dont. You. Believe. It.

sounds like a trap


DEA - "Oh, we can't seem to break this encryption! Please criminals, don't use this messaging system that we can't monitor and is available on millions of devices!" *wink*
 
2013-04-04 04:49:24 PM  
the DEA needs to be shut down and their employees  allowed to pursue productive employment.

Al Capone, Prohibition, Crime
Drug War, Crime,   Dead Prison Wardens, District Attornoys
 
2013-04-04 04:52:04 PM  

A Shambling Mound: As far as I am aware no one has ever found a backdoor of any kind into any Microsoft operating system, working or otherwise. The simple presence of code allowing for that kind of operation would have been found by now if it existed. Further, if it existed it would have been exploited by malware authors.


For further proof, plenty of people have run Windows machines behind Linux box firewalls/bit-loggers (which have had code reviewed all the way down), and haven't seen any evidence of unanticipated communications.  Unless they're hiding their communications very cleverly (timing of packets or some such) or communicating some way other than the internet, there's not much evidence of backdoors.
 
2013-04-04 04:53:21 PM  

Wittenberg Dropout: Look, all of you obviously know nothing about intelligence work. It's an X-K-Red-27 technique


Are you doing the Litmus Configuration?
 
2013-04-04 04:56:12 PM  

Lawnchair: A Shambling Mound: As far as I am aware no one has ever found a backdoor of any kind into any Microsoft operating system, working or otherwise. The simple presence of code allowing for that kind of operation would have been found by now if it existed. Further, if it existed it would have been exploited by malware authors.

For further proof, plenty of people have run Windows machines behind Linux box firewalls/bit-loggers (which have had code reviewed all the way down), and haven't seen any evidence of unanticipated communications.  Unless they're hiding their communications very cleverly (timing of packets or some such) or communicating some way other than the internet, there's not much evidence of backdoors.


Further proof, there have been exactly zero cases of stalking, extortion, exploitation, or other access of data resulting in criminal charges by any member of the Microsoft development team that have popped up.  You really have to stretch the limits of reasonableness to realize how many people would need to be aware of such a thing, and never to have ONCE used it in the course of all the marriages, break ups, divorces, stock decisions, lawsuits, and other myriad of situations in which any single one of the people who would need to be aware of it may have decided to use such a backdoor to target someone inappropriately.  Not one single disgruntled employee, pervert, or corrupt lawyer has been caught using information alleged to have been obtained this way.
 
2013-04-04 04:57:36 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: ceebeecates4: What encryption method does iMessage use? Is it a stream or block cipher? What is the key strength? While encryption is mathematically complicated, the concepts of use are not.

Given that it's closed-source, it could be a variation of ROT13 for all we know.

ceebeecates4: while I don't expect you to name the "backdoors" you allege Microsoft products contain

Obviously I'm speculating, but I believe you're being naive if you think microsoft would put up some kind of principled fight if the government asked for such access. As far as communicating the results, it could be as simple as collecting keystrokes and saving them until the warrants get served and the machine gets confiscated. If you want to go the network route, which I think is what you were getting at, then who really monitors what their system sends out? Firewalls are pretty forgiving for anything sent over http, could be a lot of things sent in those headers, etc.


I know its fun to hate on Microsoft, but I believe they  would put up a principled fight against a government's request for a back door.  Here's why: A back door (especially a low-level one such as a system-level keylogger) could never be protected well enough that only its intended user (such as the US government) would find it.  This is why good programmers do  not write back doors.  Imagine if some Ukrainian hacker was able to find the secret keylog cache within every implementation of Windows.  His next step will be to write software that includes a routine to collect this information (The AV companies have NO clue of this vulnerability, so they provide little to no protection) and distribute it.  Back doors simply subvert all the other security mechanisms in place.

Regarding network security :SSL/TLS is a biatch to break.  It doesn't take much at ALL to snoop in on ordinary HTTP/SMTP traffic, and if you do anything you would like to keep private you use end-to-end encryption.

"The government" doesn't have any super powers when it comes to software or math.  Everyone plays by the same rules, so there have been very smart people dealing with how to ensure privacy for awhile.  This is why PGP had export controls on it for awhile.
 
2013-04-04 04:57:55 PM  

Uzzah: dittybopper: DanZero:
[imgs.xkcd.com image 448x274]

Assuming this is pointed at me, you can't be expected to remember a long string of random numbers that you destroyed immediately after use.

Makes it a lot harder for you to decrypt if you neither have nor can remember the key, though.

And sure, here's a block of text from a famous historical document encrypted according to my own uncrackable cipher:

1

Just try to crack that one, guys.


Done:

 Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.
 
2013-04-04 04:59:56 PM  

Wittenberg Dropout: Look, all of you obviously know nothing about intelligence work. It's an X-K-Red-27 technique


The Niners couldn't defend that play worth shiat the entire first half of the Super Bowl. At halftime, they modified "double-red shift 86," which lined up the middle linebacker 2 yards deeper on the slot receiver running the crossing route, but still allowed him to stop a play for short yardage if Flacco audibled to Rice up the A gap. I wish they'd figured it out sooner, but there's always next year.
 
2013-04-04 05:01:28 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: It's provably so.

Can it stand up to Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis?


If the pad is destroyed after use and the interrogator can only get a hold of the sender, yes it is.
 
2013-04-04 05:02:15 PM  

mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.


Perhaps my tinfoil hat is on too tightly, but I actually buy this post.
 
2013-04-04 05:03:38 PM  
Meanwhile the NSA chuckles.
 
2013-04-04 05:05:01 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: There's a better way.  Just start talking in Navajo with your friends.  Hey, it worked before...


Yeah, right. Like Rosetta Stone doesn't have a backdoor.
 
2013-04-04 05:05:02 PM  

namatad: why wasnt DEA funding cut by 100%?
absolutely NOTHING would have changed and all that money would have been saved.

I guess that is a question for the small government people. 
WHY does the DEA exist?


Because pot makes you do things that Jebus doesn't like.
 
2013-04-04 05:06:20 PM  

FizixJunkee: mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

Perhaps my tinfoil hat is on too tightly, but I actually buy this post.


Because it makes sense on a number of fundamental levels.
 
2013-04-04 05:07:14 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: There's a better way.  Just start talking in Navajo with your friends.  Hey, it worked before...


It worked out great for the Navajo Indians!
 
2013-04-04 05:07:29 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Lt. Cheese Weasel: There's a better way.  Just start talking in Navajo with your friends.  Hey, it worked before...

Yeah, right. Like Rosetta Stone doesn't have a backdoor.


The Japs made Rosetta Stone?  Has anyone informed the military yet?  We're screwed!  Oh, wait,...we won that one.  Nevermind.
 
2013-04-04 05:07:51 PM  

mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

THAT is the way that Windows now works for out government to take advantage of when they need it.  Heck, for all we know the people in the Clinton Administration saw the future of cyber warfare, tried the pretty-please approach to get their people on the inside of MS, got turned down by Bill Gates, and the anti-trust case was blackmail to hammer Bill Gates into saying YES.


You don't happen to have any evidence of this, do you?
 
2013-04-04 05:14:01 PM  

nocturnal001: namatad: why wasnt DEA funding cut by 100%?
absolutely NOTHING would have changed and all that money would have been saved.

I guess that is a question for the small government people.
WHY does the DEA exist?

Because pot makes you do things that Jebus doesn't like.


Giggle, nap, and eat lovely banana bread?
 
2013-04-04 05:14:20 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: dittybopper: It's provably so.

Can it stand up to Rubber Hose Cryptanalysis?


This, If "any code can be cracked" then governments wouldn't pass laws to force YOU to give up your passwords: they would simply crack the encryption on your device without involving you at all. If the government wants your password, the only thing that's going to get cracked is your skull.

(Distributed.net use to run cracking contests. It took 10,000 computers nearly 3 months to brute-force a 56-bit key. 128 bit keys are the current minimum standard for Internet banking and programs like truCrypt can encrypt with 4096 bit keys. )
 
2013-04-04 05:15:38 PM  
I am sure the article is meant to see Apple in shining armor to all the hipsters chatting about PBR

Govt just has to ask for it for security reasons and Apple coughs everything up.
 
2013-04-04 05:16:31 PM  

nocturnal001: namatad: why wasnt DEA funding cut by 100%?
absolutely NOTHING would have changed and all that money would have been saved.

I guess that is a question for the small government people. 
WHY does the DEA exist?

Because pot makes you do things that Jebus doesn't like.


like help poor people?
 
2013-04-04 05:17:12 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Lt. Cheese Weasel: There's a better way.  Just start talking in Navajo with your friends.  Hey, it worked before...

Yeah, right. Like Rosetta Stone doesn't have a backdoor.

The Japs made Rosetta Stone?  Has anyone informed the military yet?  We're screwed!  Oh, wait,...we won that one.  Nevermind.


No, they were too busy stormin' the beach at Normandy.

/ he's on a roll
 
GBB
2013-04-04 05:20:43 PM  
Or, it's super easy to crack and the DEA is trying to get more people to use it for nefarious reasons so they can be spied on.
 
2013-04-04 05:25:55 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: I am sure the article is meant to see Apple in shining armor to all the hipsters chatting about PBR

Govt just has to ask for it for security reasons and Apple coughs everything up.


I didn't care about personal privacy or the 4th amendment before it was cool to not care about it.
 
2013-04-04 05:28:48 PM  

Infernalist: FizixJunkee: mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

Perhaps my tinfoil hat is on too tightly, but I actually buy this post.

Because it makes sense on a number of fundamental levels.


Obviously you skipped a few posts that make even more sense. People who believe there are secret Government-accesible backdoors in Microsoft products usually don't understand 1) how software works 2) how two-way network communications work and 3) the unbelievable level of culpability on Microsoft's part should something like that be compromised, allowing unfettered access to hundreds of millions of computers worldwide.

There is no "backdoor" in Windows. There just isn't. Period. There are, however, a bajillion different ways to create backdoors into Windows, many of which probably are only known to the people that use them. That is a very different thing, however.

Not only does the idea not make sense on a fundamental level, it literally flies in the face of reason.
 
2013-04-04 05:33:45 PM  
I communicate only with emoji, break that code boys!
 
2013-04-04 05:36:40 PM  

UnspokenVoice: mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

THAT is the way that Windows now works for out government to take advantage of when they need it.  Heck, for all we know the people in the Clinton Administration saw the future of cyber warfare, tried the pretty-please approach to get their people on the inside of MS, got turned down by Bill Gates, and the anti-trust case was blackmail to hammer Bill Gates into saying YES.

You don't happen to have any evidence of this, do you?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability#section_ 6
 
2013-04-04 05:39:29 PM  

dittybopper: HR MSG NR 1 GR 9 BT
05231 05231 90079 02269 13953  55743 44189 77571 89058
AR


ladybaseballopinions.files.wordpress.com
cdn.gunaxin.com
 
2013-04-04 05:46:10 PM  

dittybopper: Meh.  I can do better with paper and pencil, something not even the NSA can crack.  Ever.


And that's just your regular handwriting!


/understands
 
2013-04-04 05:46:14 PM  

libranoelrose: UnspokenVoice: mrmopar5287: WhoopAssWayne: It's long been rumored that Microsoft has placed backdoors in Windows for government surveillance.

Rumored?  I think that's pretty much confirmed.  And not just surveillance: you can expect that Microsoft has NSA affiliated programmers hired into staff to put backdoors and zero day exploits into the code of every version of Windows.

You remember how that huge anti-trust case just disappeared?  It probably went something like this: NSA and other government people approached Bill Gates and flat-out told him that if MS agreed to hire X number of programmers into the core Windows team, they would make the anti-trust stuff go away.  Not that the G-men were going to do anything like steal trade secrets, but just to have them there for "emergencies" or other issues of National Security.  Like, oh, I don't know, maybe the day that they need to code a worm that can destroy some Iranian uranium centrifuges.

THAT is the way that Windows now works for out government to take advantage of when they need it.  Heck, for all we know the people in the Clinton Administration saw the future of cyber warfare, tried the pretty-please approach to get their people on the inside of MS, got turned down by Bill Gates, and the anti-trust case was blackmail to hammer Bill Gates into saying YES.

You don't happen to have any evidence of this, do you?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability#section _ 6


Do you know what you are linking?  Did you read past the second paragraph?  Do you understand the difference between exploiting a bug and  intentionallycoding in a back door?

From the second paragraph : The vulnerability is located in gdi32.dll and exists in all versions of Microsoft Windows from Windows 3.0 to Windows Server 2003 R2. However, attack vectors only exist in NT-based versions of Windows (Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003). Exploits taking advantage of the vulnerability on Windows NT-based systems facilitated the propagation of various types of malware, typically through drive-by downloads.

From the "Accusations" sub section :An independent examination of the vulnerability by Steve Gibson of Gibson Research had suggested that the peculiar nature of the 'bug' was an indication that the vulnerability was actually a backdoor engineered consciously into the system.[10] Some sources have questioned this conclusion.[11][12][13] Steve Gibson has since clarified[4] that his use of the term backdoor was never intended to imply anything done by malicious intent. He still maintains that the backdoor was intentional, though not necessarily intended by Microsoft (e.g. an employee may have put it in without Microsoft's knowledge).
 
2013-04-04 05:47:43 PM  

ceebeecates4: Do you know what you are linking? Did you read past the second paragraph? Do you understand the difference between exploiting a bug and intentionallycoding in a back door?


Yes I understand all of that. That's why I linked directly to section 6.

It's been done before, why couldn't it be done again?
 
2013-04-04 05:59:03 PM  

UnspokenVoice: You don't happen to have any evidence of this, do you?


All I do is look back to when I thought "A telecom company would NEVER just hand over their internet traffic to the government.  They have respect for privacy in the responsibility they have when carrying private communications."

And we all know how that turned out.  So why would you expect Microsoft to have unimpeachable morals?
 
2013-04-04 06:00:58 PM  
besuretodrinkyourovaltine
 
2013-04-04 06:02:39 PM  
besuretorefreshbeforeposting
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report