3 ms·

>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

by 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.

by danjoc 10y ago

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.