64 ms·

> Before Snowden, we were told investigatory powers were "restricted" as well. Then we learned linux journal readers were put on watch lists as extremists, and

> Before Snowden, we were told investigatory powers were "restricted" as well. Then we learned linux journal readers were put on watch lists as extremists, and system administrators are routinely targeted for compromise. Again, I'm sorry but none of this is true at all. I could absolutely believe that a journalist misunderstood something they read in a leak and then made such a claim (Happened with most of the Snowden leaks), but that does not make it true. > The point being, there's no technical reason to stop them from intercepting the 2FA over SMS, so they will. That's been clearly demonstrated by earlier leaks. Those people weren't fired/jailed/etc. They'll just do it again. To the contrary. When you say "clearly demonstrated by earlier leaks" I believe you may be mixing up an inquiry made to NSA with regards to improper access to DNI (Or perhaps that was not supposed to be a public response and was indeed leaked? Not certain). Action was taken against these individuals who "tested the system" by trying to look up themselves and/or someone they knew, even if the system blocked the query from actually running due to the fact that they were prevented from targeting US persons. I believe you are being genuine about your concerns, but again, it can be harmful to spread falsehoods when people reading these comments may not know better and could believe what you're saying to be true (Especially in a thread like this).

danjoc 10y ago
>Again, I'm sorry but none of this is true at all. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/are-you-extremist http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/are-you-extremist It's you against the world here. Trying to rewrite history? >I could absolutely believe that a journalist misunderstood something they read in a leak Literally, the document title is "I hunt sys admins" https://theintercept.com/2014/03/20/inside-nsa-secret-efforts-hunt-hack-system-administrators/ https://theintercept.com/2014/03/20/inside-nsa-secret-effort... There's nothing to misunderstand. They used automated attacks on readers of Slashdot and LinkedIn. http://www.ibtimes.com/edward-snowden-reveals-quantum-insert-nsa-gchq-used-fake-linkedin-slashdot-pages-install-spyware http://www.ibtimes.com/edward-snowden-reveals-quantum-insert... Compromising system admins is a routine part of their job. It's one way they collect private keys to decrypt internet traffic. That is an established fact from the Snowden leaks.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  1. It is a false claim. Their evidence is an XKS configuration file which they decided to add unsubstantiated context to, not sure why. Linux Journal then appears to have responded as they trusted the reporting website to be telling the truth. 2. The article you've linked contains no evidence to indicate "system administrators are routinely targeted for compromise" though. It contains evidence showing his methodology of accessing target systems by looking into the sysadmins who manage it (You are free to have your opinions on this practice of gaining entry to a target, but it is dishonest to change the context to indicate something being done on a wide scale). 3. When you say "They used automated attacks on readers of Slashdot and LinkedIn" I would counter that the sentence is poorly phrased. If you mean "all readers of Slashdot and LinkedIn" then that is false. If you mean specific employees at the targeted company, who were targeted and had their connections MitMed, there does indeed appear to be evidence that it was used as a successful access method on the specific target(s). If your opinion is that you do not like IC agencies using CNE, you absolutely have a right to that opinion of course. My only issue with that claim is that the phrasing could be misinterpreted.

danjoc 10y ago

>Again, I'm sorry but none of this is true at all. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/are-you-extremist http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/are-you-extremist It's you against the world here. Trying to rewrite history? >I could absolutely believe that a journalist misunderstood something they read in a leak Literally, the document title is "I hunt sys admins" https://theintercept.com/2014/03/20/inside-nsa-secret-efforts-hunt-hack-system-administrators/ https://theintercept.com/2014/03/20/inside-nsa-secret-effort... There's nothing to misunderstand. They used automated attacks on readers of Slashdot and LinkedIn. http://www.ibtimes.com/edward-snowden-reveals-quantum-insert-nsa-gchq-used-fake-linkedin-slashdot-pages-install-spyware http://www.ibtimes.com/edward-snowden-reveals-quantum-insert... Compromising system admins is a routine part of their job. It's one way they collect private keys to decrypt internet traffic. That is an established fact from the Snowden leaks.

willstrafach 10y ago
1. It is a false claim. Their evidence is an XKS configuration file which they decided to add unsubstantiated context to, not sure why. Linux Journal then appears to have responded as they trusted the reporting website to be telling the truth. 2. The article you've linked contains no evidence to indicate "system administrators are routinely targeted for compromise" though. It contains evidence showing his methodology of accessing target systems by looking into the sysadmins who manage it (You are free to have your opinions on this practice of gaining entry to a target, but it is dishonest to change the context to indicate something being done on a wide scale). 3. When you say "They used automated attacks on readers of Slashdot and LinkedIn" I would counter that the sentence is poorly phrased. If you mean "all readers of Slashdot and LinkedIn" then that is false. If you mean specific employees at the targeted company, who were targeted and had their connections MitMed, there does indeed appear to be evidence that it was used as a successful access method on the specific target(s). If your opinion is that you do not like IC agencies using CNE, you absolutely have a right to that opinion of course. My only issue with that claim is that the phrasing could be misinterpreted.