2 ms·

>There's no evidence the CIA has ever done this. This is pure conjecture based on the fact that there's demo code showing that the library supports Unicode. Wh

by elif 10y ago

>There's no evidence the CIA has ever done this. This is pure conjecture based on the fact that there's demo code showing that the library supports Unicode. Where is the conjecture? the exact quote is "this would permit" not "this has happened" > They're pretty obviously trying to push the idea that attribution of hacks (such as the DNC hack) can be really easily spoofed, and you shouldn't trust them. They are ~revealing~ the capability and intent of attribution obfuscation. I disagree with your assessment that they are ~pushing~ something, implying that there is something which is not self-evident which requires some kind of coercion for belief.

sigmar 10y ago
>They are ~revealing~ the capability and intent of attribution obfuscation. This framework is used to obfuscate. The document itself seems to suggest they built this framework to be very generic and prevent attribution. Where in this document do you see Wikileaks is misdirecting attribution? It is possible the CIA does miss-attribution, but none of these documents suggest that (which is not in line with how Wikileaks is framing it)
learc83 10y ago
Stop being obtuse. Human communication is more nuanced that formal programming language. The context in which you say something is just as important as the content. It is very easy imply something and push a specific agenda without technically lying. What if I take out an add that says: "elif regularly participates on hacker news--a forum for computer programmers and 'hackers', and he is a programmer who can create malicious programs. The libraries he uses support multiple languages, like Chinese and Russian, giving him the capability to make it look like these programs were created by foreigners." I'm just describing your capabilities. But the way I said it implies to non-experts that your actually writing malicious code, because they lack the context to understand what they're reading. They don't understand that all programmers have the capability to create malicious programs. And most importantly, just like the readers of Wikileaks commentary, they don't realize that supporting Unicode is very common, and it's necessary if you want to parse text written in it. It's not a specialized capability that you'd only want if you intended to write in Russian or Chinese.
112-123 10y ago
They're ~revealing~ the capability for computers to store text in foreign languages, even if the programmer doesn't speak that language natively? All the source docs say is that if a programmer wrote text in a foreign language, the code isn't going to blow up. Wikileaks is implying -- heavily enough that every news article I've seen mentions it (some, even, without the "might" or "could") -- that the main reason the CIA would support Unicode is so that they can trick people into thinking they're Chinese. Mentioning (the quite obvious fact) that it's possible to include foreign text in code as an effort to confuse adversaries, while discussing an actual implementation of text obfuscation, will confuse reasonable people who lack the technical understanding of what this is into thinking the software obfuscates text by somehow changing the language it's in. Here's a more egregious example: This doc (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_13763790.html https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_13763790.html) contains one line "Vehicle Systems (e.g. VSEP)." It doesn't elaborate what "Vehicle Systems" they mean or define "VSEP," but given the other projects worked on by the same team (all using embedded systems to spy on you), the most reasonable interpretation to me is that they'd be trying to intercept GPS and other sensor data, including voice and video from cameras and microphones. Wikileaks wrote "As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations." In this case, they added the word "control" from nothing, making the completely unsupported claim that the CIA is investigating the possibility of assassinating people by hacking their cars (which, hey, might be true... but there's nothing supporting that idea here). Sure enough, dozens of article were written about how the CIA is killing people by driving their cars off cliffs.

by elif 10y ago

sigmar 10y ago

>They are ~revealing~ the capability and intent of attribution obfuscation. This framework is used to obfuscate. The document itself seems to suggest they built this framework to be very generic and prevent attribution. Where in this document do you see Wikileaks is misdirecting attribution? It is possible the CIA does miss-attribution, but none of these documents suggest that (which is not in line with how Wikileaks is framing it)

learc83 10y ago

Stop being obtuse. Human communication is more nuanced that formal programming language. The context in which you say something is just as important as the content. It is very easy imply something and push a specific agenda without technically lying. What if I take out an add that says: "elif regularly participates on hacker news--a forum for computer programmers and 'hackers', and he is a programmer who can create malicious programs. The libraries he uses support multiple languages, like Chinese and Russian, giving him the capability to make it look like these programs were created by foreigners." I'm just describing your capabilities. But the way I said it implies to non-experts that your actually writing malicious code, because they lack the context to understand what they're reading. They don't understand that all programmers have the capability to create malicious programs. And most importantly, just like the readers of Wikileaks commentary, they don't realize that supporting Unicode is very common, and it's necessary if you want to parse text written in it. It's not a specialized capability that you'd only want if you intended to write in Russian or Chinese.

112-123 10y ago

They're ~revealing~ the capability for computers to store text in foreign languages, even if the programmer doesn't speak that language natively? All the source docs say is that if a programmer wrote text in a foreign language, the code isn't going to blow up. Wikileaks is implying -- heavily enough that every news article I've seen mentions it (some, even, without the "might" or "could") -- that the main reason the CIA would support Unicode is so that they can trick people into thinking they're Chinese. Mentioning (the quite obvious fact) that it's possible to include foreign text in code as an effort to confuse adversaries, while discussing an actual implementation of text obfuscation, will confuse reasonable people who lack the technical understanding of what this is into thinking the software obfuscates text by somehow changing the language it's in. Here's a more egregious example: This doc (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_13763790.html https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_13763790.html) contains one line "Vehicle Systems (e.g. VSEP)." It doesn't elaborate what "Vehicle Systems" they mean or define "VSEP," but given the other projects worked on by the same team (all using embedded systems to spy on you), the most reasonable interpretation to me is that they'd be trying to intercept GPS and other sensor data, including voice and video from cameras and microphones. Wikileaks wrote "As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations." In this case, they added the word "control" from nothing, making the completely unsupported claim that the CIA is investigating the possibility of assassinating people by hacking their cars (which, hey, might be true... but there's nothing supporting that idea here). Sure enough, dozens of article were written about how the CIA is killing people by driving their cars off cliffs.