3 ms·

If the FBI were a private organization, I'd agree with you, but the FBI is paid by the public and is supposed to be protecting the public, so they should not le

If the FBI were a private organization, I'd agree with you, but the FBI is paid by the public and is supposed to be protecting the public, so they should not leave the public open to a gaping security hole in a product that millions of people use. They can't even pretend that the technique would never be utilized by "bad guys" outside of the USA government since whatever the technique is, it's already available for purchase.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
They are protecting the public. Just a question if it's the best decision to make for the public. Without backdoors, 0-days are a legit tool for law enforcement. Even Bruce Schneier likes it as a compromise IIRC.
marcoperaza 11y ago
Yeah, and British intelligence should have just called up the Germans to tell them that their Enigma machines weren't configured correctly.
- kmonsen 11y ago
  I'm guessing you are just trolling, but still going to address this. Every time an american agency finds a vulnerability they are faced with a choice: - Use it, possibly against foreign targets - Share it with american vendors to make the country and its businesses safer It should be clear that in most cases the value of protecting american interest is vastly more valuable than attacking foreign interests. It's like Clinton lobbying cruise missiles at Afghanistan, whatever they destroyed was worth a lot less than the missile itself. If for example Apple and Google can be protected that is probably worth a lot more than whatever can be gained by using this offensively. And note that every time a cyber weapon is used there is a large risk that the entity being attacked can learn how the attack worked and use this back at your interests.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    You're absolutely right that there's multiple interests being balanced here. That's the point I was trying to make. I think the FBI is making the right call here. An exploit that requires physical access to the phone and that sells for a million dollars per use is not a big risk to anyone.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

They are protecting the public. Just a question if it's the best decision to make for the public. Without backdoors, 0-days are a legit tool for law enforcement. Even Bruce Schneier likes it as a compromise IIRC.

marcoperaza 11y ago

Yeah, and British intelligence should have just called up the Germans to tell them that their Enigma machines weren't configured correctly.

kmonsen 11y ago
I'm guessing you are just trolling, but still going to address this. Every time an american agency finds a vulnerability they are faced with a choice: - Use it, possibly against foreign targets - Share it with american vendors to make the country and its businesses safer It should be clear that in most cases the value of protecting american interest is vastly more valuable than attacking foreign interests. It's like Clinton lobbying cruise missiles at Afghanistan, whatever they destroyed was worth a lot less than the missile itself. If for example Apple and Google can be protected that is probably worth a lot more than whatever can be gained by using this offensively. And note that every time a cyber weapon is used there is a large risk that the entity being attacked can learn how the attack worked and use this back at your interests.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  You're absolutely right that there's multiple interests being balanced here. That's the point I was trying to make. I think the FBI is making the right call here. An exploit that requires physical access to the phone and that sells for a million dollars per use is not a big risk to anyone.