3 ms·
You seem to miss the part where I say >If the collection wasn't incidental, what mechanism could the FSB exploit to non-naively identify tools that it didn't a
by seabird 9y ago
You seem to miss the part where I say
>If the collection wasn't incidental, what mechanism could the FSB exploit to non-naively identify tools that it didn't already have, and flag them for retrieval?
Emphasis on "non-naively." Antivirus seems like a highly ineffective tool for espionage of the sort being claimed in the article. You either have to blindly fish for something or already have a fingerprint of what you're looking for.
- tptacek 9y agoObviously, they have fingerprints of what they're looking for.
- seabird 9y agoTo have a hash of a file, you need the file (or a large portion of the file), especially in the context of antivirus, which searches for very specific files and needs to have a very low false positive and false negative rate. Consequently, they would already have to have the tool (or a large portion of the tool) to find it and retrieve it. A little non-productive, don't you think? Saying that they "obviously have fingerprints of what they're looking for" is an active attempt to make the events fit a narrative.