5 ms·
The article asserts: > It would, in my view, be abject insanity not to > assume that half a dozen or more nation-states (or > their associated cont
by peteretep 11y ago
The article asserts:
> It would, in my view, be abject insanity not to
> assume that half a dozen or more nation-states (or
> their associated contractors) have code execution
> exploits against popular basebands in stock.
To me this ignores the flip-side of the argument. If US intelligence services really thought the Chinese and Russians could remotely and invisibly hack all/most smartphones then no-one with access to sensitive information would be allowed to do work on one, unless they're very confident that they've managed to secure their devices without leaving a stone unturned.
Soz Hilz[0].
[0] http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2015_10/913276/150303-hillary-clinton-text-mn-1100_c4f740ee15e6224bb75a5f58fecc072a.jpg http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2015_10/913276/150303-...
- CaptSpify 11y agoCouldn't that same argument be used on routers/switches/other equipment that we find back-doors in all the time?
- reirob 11y agoFollowing your logic, then any other sovereign non-US states must forbid their their citizens and companies to use US technology in order to avoid US stealing the data. At least they should forbid it to those organisations and citizens who as you say access sensitive information. Still, even after Snowden, the whole world uses Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Google technology everyday. This is not a prove that your logic is wrong, but I am wondering how much today's intelligence services are interested in protecting their own companies and citizens from data breaches. It might be that they are more interested into stealing as much data as possible themselves in order to be able to negotiate with foreign states/services.