24 ms·

I can only hope they actually find a smoking gun implicating Taylor as a true conspirator in this case. Because the picture painted by the article puts a whole

by zaroth 10y ago

I can only hope they actually find a smoking gun implicating Taylor as a true conspirator in this case. Because the picture painted by the article puts a whole new meaning on 'chilling effect'. Did he pick the wrong place to advertise his code? HackForum could just have easily been Hacker News. According to the article Taylor actively worked to defend against malicious use of his software; deactivating accounts he found were using the software to launch attacks, and eventually removing functionality like password scraping and keylogging which ultimately proved too alluring to black hats. The tool has obvious non-infringing use. That it can also be used maliciously cannot be a factor. If NanoCore is a criminal conspiracy, I'd hate to think what the FBI thinks of Metasploit or Tor. The article puts forward a good theory for how the FBI might have found themselves in this position. They are used to barging into these guys houses, crawling through all their equipment, and finding actual evidence of collusion with black hats. They are used to pressing these guys to turn state's witness and in the past it's worked out great when a trusted malware provider landed them 100 convictions. I am shocked, shocked let me tell you, the FBI would, upon not finding any real evidence of a conspiracy, press on with charges against a sole developer with $60,000 to their name. Taylor Huddleston might not exactly be Aaron Swartz, but if the truth is anything like how The Daily Beast is telling it, Taylor is going to need a lot of help and a lot of support to get through this, and I hope he gets it.

bitJericho 10y ago
If you're shocked it just means you haven't been keeping up with how the US treats it's so called citizens.
- zaroth 10y ago
  It's a Casablanca quote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
  - bitJericho 10y ago
    Aha good one.
Strom 10y ago
You say that the tool has obvious non-infringing use and the article claims that security experts who have examined NanoCore say there’s nothing in the code to disprove Huddleston’s claim that he intended it for lawful use. I looked at a youtube video of NanoCore [1] and it's immediately obvious that all of the above is bullshit. This is just a modern version of Sub7. [2] Some features that NanoCore offers: * Disable webcam indicator light * Lock computer with a password of your choosing and show a message on the computer. The youtuber says it's for ransom. * Swap mouse button functions * Open CD tray * Keylogger * Extract passwords of various applications * Send SYN floods from all your controlled computers What exactly is the legitimate use of disabling the webcam indicator remotely? Combine this with the fact that NanoCore was originally launched on HackForums and I'd say this is a slam dunk case of a tool being purpose built for illegal activity. Now whether someone should be held accountable for building such tools without using it themselves is an interesting question. However please don't try to act like this tool was built for anything other than malicious activity. -- [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1uzu6hzSQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1uzu6hzSQQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub7
- beardog 10y ago
  While i'm not going to sit here and pretend that this RAT was built for law activity, metasploit payloads don't provide any indication to the 'victims' that their system has been infected either.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  I am inclined to agree with you, but man, it still scares me.
- irq-1 10y ago
  > What exactly is the legitimate use of disabling the webcam indicator remotely? I want to do that on a Pi camera at a remote location so animals aren't disturbed, or the people aren't aware they're being filmed. > ...a tool being purpose built for illegal activity. Intent isn't determined by how others use something, or what a YouTube video says the intent is.
emodendroket 10y ago
I imagine their argument would be that his claim that the tool was not for illegal use was just a subterfuge, given the forum. Isn't this kind of the same reason a head shop doesn't want you to even mention anything but tobacco?
wcummings 10y ago
>Did he pick the wrong place to advertise his code? HackForum could just have easily been Hacker News. Spoken like someone who hasn't spent a lot of time on HackForum. 99% of the content is super low quality and/or obviously criminal. Lots of money changes hands.
jmcdiesel 10y ago
It couldnt be "hacker news" .. becuase hacker news has nothing to do with unethical hacking, which is a primary topic of where he advertised and supported his product. If the product was talked about there, used there, etc, that would be different. The fact that he actively engaged in that community as the author of this software demonstrates pretty clearly which of the "dual use" sides he was intending on cashing in on...
samirillian 10y ago
It is a bit of a red flag that "handgun" was the analogy of choice. It says to me that there is unlikely to be a morally legitimate use, only a possibly legally legitimate use.
- mattnewport 10y ago
  Most branches of moral philosophy and ethics consider self defense morally legitimate.
  - samirillian 10y ago
    Sure. The main question I'm asking is, "why that particular analogy"? I mean, he could've even said hunting rifles (where legitimate use is more obvious). Why handguns? IMO, it's a matter of explicit vs implicit functionality. The explicit function of a handgun is to do violence to other humans. Self-defense is only implicit/secondary. So, to analogize this software to a handgun is to acknowledge that the most obvious use for the software is to hurt others, while "self-defense" is only secondary.
    - SolarNet 10y ago
      Because it's come up recently and congress voted it down and the courts dismissed it. It's established case law and congressional law that supports his case strongly. This software is used for self-defense. If you install it on your laptop and someone steals it you can lock them out and take pictures of them, etc. (it is your property after all).
dacox 10y ago
I guess this is why we have people like Satoshi, and now the MimbleWimble(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiUGu48JTd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiUGu48JTd0) team all working under Potter-esque pseudonyms

by zaroth 10y ago

bitJericho 10y ago

If you're shocked it just means you haven't been keeping up with how the US treats it's so called citizens.

zaroth 10y ago
It's a Casablanca quote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
- bitJericho 10y ago
  Aha good one.

Strom 10y ago

You say that the tool has obvious non-infringing use and the article claims that security experts who have examined NanoCore say there’s nothing in the code to disprove Huddleston’s claim that he intended it for lawful use. I looked at a youtube video of NanoCore [1] and it's immediately obvious that all of the above is bullshit. This is just a modern version of Sub7. [2] Some features that NanoCore offers: * Disable webcam indicator light * Lock computer with a password of your choosing and show a message on the computer. The youtuber says it's for ransom. * Swap mouse button functions * Open CD tray * Keylogger * Extract passwords of various applications * Send SYN floods from all your controlled computers What exactly is the legitimate use of disabling the webcam indicator remotely? Combine this with the fact that NanoCore was originally launched on HackForums and I'd say this is a slam dunk case of a tool being purpose built for illegal activity. Now whether someone should be held accountable for building such tools without using it themselves is an interesting question. However please don't try to act like this tool was built for anything other than malicious activity. -- [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1uzu6hzSQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1uzu6hzSQQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub7

beardog 10y ago
While i'm not going to sit here and pretend that this RAT was built for law activity, metasploit payloads don't provide any indication to the 'victims' that their system has been infected either.
0xfeba 10y ago
I am inclined to agree with you, but man, it still scares me.
irq-1 10y ago
> What exactly is the legitimate use of disabling the webcam indicator remotely? I want to do that on a Pi camera at a remote location so animals aren't disturbed, or the people aren't aware they're being filmed. > ...a tool being purpose built for illegal activity. Intent isn't determined by how others use something, or what a YouTube video says the intent is.

emodendroket 10y ago

I imagine their argument would be that his claim that the tool was not for illegal use was just a subterfuge, given the forum. Isn't this kind of the same reason a head shop doesn't want you to even mention anything but tobacco?

wcummings 10y ago

>Did he pick the wrong place to advertise his code? HackForum could just have easily been Hacker News. Spoken like someone who hasn't spent a lot of time on HackForum. 99% of the content is super low quality and/or obviously criminal. Lots of money changes hands.

jmcdiesel 10y ago

It couldnt be "hacker news" .. becuase hacker news has nothing to do with unethical hacking, which is a primary topic of where he advertised and supported his product. If the product was talked about there, used there, etc, that would be different. The fact that he actively engaged in that community as the author of this software demonstrates pretty clearly which of the "dual use" sides he was intending on cashing in on...

samirillian 10y ago

It is a bit of a red flag that "handgun" was the analogy of choice. It says to me that there is unlikely to be a morally legitimate use, only a possibly legally legitimate use.

mattnewport 10y ago
Most branches of moral philosophy and ethics consider self defense morally legitimate.
- samirillian 10y ago
  Sure. The main question I'm asking is, "why that particular analogy"? I mean, he could've even said hunting rifles (where legitimate use is more obvious). Why handguns? IMO, it's a matter of explicit vs implicit functionality. The explicit function of a handgun is to do violence to other humans. Self-defense is only implicit/secondary. So, to analogize this software to a handgun is to acknowledge that the most obvious use for the software is to hurt others, while "self-defense" is only secondary.
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    Because it's come up recently and congress voted it down and the courts dismissed it. It's established case law and congressional law that supports his case strongly. This software is used for self-defense. If you install it on your laptop and someone steals it you can lock them out and take pictures of them, etc. (it is your property after all).

dacox 10y ago

I guess this is why we have people like Satoshi, and now the MimbleWimble(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiUGu48JTd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiUGu48JTd0) team all working under Potter-esque pseudonyms