5 ms·

I share GP's opinion. Snowden changed a lot. The internet really has a global passive attacker that can control US-based companies like puppets, and is doing so

by madez 9y ago

I share GP's opinion. Snowden changed a lot. The internet really has a global passive attacker that can control US-based companies like puppets, and is doing so. William Binney said the companies are paid money for providing data and access. How is that not subsidizing that industry? Financial helps are a first-class reason for other governments to impose duties, restrict international trade and subsidize local competitors. Yet, there is no reaction in Europe. Microsoft can freely sell their OS and Intel is free to have their monopoly, and uses that to backdoor everybody. It is creepy that european countries don't take action. LiMux was a good example of moving in the right direction. Recently it was abandoned. I didn't see big unseen powers at play there, just the harsh reality that most people don't understand computers and don't care.

ajross 9y ago
> global passive attacker that can control US-based companies like puppets, and is doing so. And... this is where the deluded conspiracy theorist accusations the upthread poster was complaining about come from. There's no evidence for any of that[1]. The ME's capabilities (low level system controller with access to all memory and hardware, with special access to network hardware that can operate cleanly along with a running OS) have been known and even advertised by Intel for years. The news of the moment is that it's subject to a few rather embarrassing exploits. But that's rather better explained by incompetance instead of evil. Yet everyone jumps to "back door" because that sounds more fun I guess. (In fact, to the extent there is evidence of government involvement here, it's in the opposite direction: the NSA appears to have demanded an "off switch" for the ME). [1] Edit to clarify: I'm talking about the ME folks. Yes, the government does bad things. The EC flaws under discussion in this subthread are not among them, so citing them as evidence paints you as a conspiracy nut and not someone serious about security.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > Yet everyone jumps to "back door" because that sounds more fun I guess. IME is (by construction) a backdoor. It's primary purpose is as a management tool, but all management tools are by necessity backdoors. The only distinction between the two is whether the person using the backdoor has ownership over the machine. > In fact, to the extent there is evidence of government involvement here, it's in the opposite direction: the NSA appears to have demanded an "off switch" for the ME. It also shows that the NSA is in communication with Intel and is capable of getting them to implement something that large corporations like Google were unable to convince them to do. Which should be concerning, because it makes you wonder what else the NSA might've asked as well. Also these really aren't conspiracy theories anymore. We know that the NSA and CIA do these sorts of things thanks to the information we learned from Snowden and other whistleblowers.
  - linkregister 9y ago
    No, the Snowden leaks showed that NSA did do something, not that it does every malicious thing that people accuse it of. How does it help anything by making unfounded accusations? Historically, Australia has heavily interfered in PNG affairs. Should you be accused of espionage or subversion if you decide to hike a portion of the Kokoda Trail? Would it be appropriate for Indigenous People to accuse you of attempting to steal their children, a practice that occurred until the 1970s?
    - m-p-3 9y ago
      It's hard not to assume the worst, especially when you have no concrete reports on their capabilities. And when assessing the threat it creates, you can't really ignore the possibilities by that lack of knowledge.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        But you have tons of concrete reports from the Snowden leaks and prior leaks. Dual_EC RNG is the worst example anyone can think of, something that has been red-flagged since 2007. Assuming a supposedly* adversarial agency has unlimited resources and ability will only cause you to focus on that threat instead of more immediate ones. Or worse, make you needlessly complacent when there is so much that can be done to harden against APTs and other, more immediate threats. * supposedly because if you're a U.S. citizen, the government works for you. If you're outside of FVEY (AU,CA,UK,US,NZ) and are a government official, military member, have interesting technical infrastructure, or operate an interesting company, then yes you should include NSA in your threat model.
    - traineater 9y ago
      > No, the Snowden leaks showed that NSA did do something, not that it does every malicious thing that people accuse it of. How does it help anything by making unfounded accusations? It shows they'll do anything within their power, legal or illegal, in order to get at more people's data. Of course they have involvement with this, why wouldn't they? > Historically, Australia has heavily interfered in PNG affairs. Should you be accused of espionage or subversion if you decide to hike a portion of the Kokoda Trail? > Would it be appropriate for Indigenous People to accuse you of attempting to steal their children, a practice that occurred until the 1970s? Bizarre points in support of your initial comment I think.
- madez 9y ago
  > There's no evidence for any of that. Have you heard about PRISM? Have you heard about Lavabit? Have you heard about the FISA court and its practice? > But that's rather better explained by incompetance instead of evil. Have the ME in all products, not deactivatable, and not replaceable is not a trivial thing to do, so it surely isn't incompetence. What is it then?
  - emmelaich 9y ago
    > [ .. ] not deactivatable, and not replaceable ... Because they don't want people bricking their computers.
    - madez 9y ago
      There are other ways to prevent bricking. For that you don't need an updatable and extensible OS with Ring0-invisible access to network and hardware. And even if bricking were possible, so it is with many other computers, so what? I have yet to hear a good reason for the ME that makes it possible to argue that it is not for backdooring of and having power over all x86 machines.
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  I wouldn't say that there's no evidence of this behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG We also have a fair amount of evidence that there have been attempts in china to implement hardware back-doors
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > There's no evidence for any of that. Oh there is: Dual_EC_DRBG, and that took years to get proof. Also, NSA and AT&T room 641A, plus the packet interdiction programs of the NSA - and I mean physical packets containing DC hardware, that then was modified by NSA. And we don't have any overview what the US government forces companies and people with NSLs to do... only the sliver of info we got with the Lavabit case.
- throw2016 9y ago
  There is already overwhelming evidence of abuse of power, bad faith and surveillance. Attempting to brush it aside as 'incompetence' is brazenly disingenuous. What's the point of asking for more 'evidence'? Do you expect Snowden levels of sacrifice and disclosures every month? Apologists will continue to do this untill it's too late to do anything about surveillance, at which point they will shrink into the thicket and leave everyone else hanging onto a surveillance state. Those who care about surveillance, privacy and democracy have every responsibility to be alert and act now.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Inslaw, PROMIS, and the murder of Danny Casolaro indicate you are wrong.
- indrax 9y ago
  > the NSA appears to have demanded an "off switch" for the ME). This is not incompatible with them encouraging or exploiting a back door, and it is strong evidence that ME is a security risk.
linkregister 9y ago
Do you think that the U.S. government has enough money to influence Intel and Microsoft? It is the other way around: both companies spend tens of millions on lobbyists. William Binney said something. Does it mean that it applies to all companies? Did he mention which companies? Is he a credible source for things that occurred after he left NSA? Is he even a credible source outside his expertise? Do you think that European countries don't take action? What would you call the anti-trust suit against Google, GDPR, anti-tax haven lawsuit against Apple, and other actions? Having a narrow set of news sources can lead a reasonable person (you) to your conclusion. I urge you to look at a variety of sources. Some good ones: Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, NPR, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The South China Morning Post.
- madez 9y ago
  You ask interesting questions. > Do you think that the U.S. government has enough money to influence Intel and Microsoft? I think the government uses (legal) force and threats to get what they want. The laws are in place to leave no options for the company. The money is more a compensation than a bribery. It could make the companies comply without needing to go nuclear. Also, it supports local companies. > It is the other way around: both companies spend tens of millions on lobbyists. Do these lobbysist have any influence on the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., either directly or remotely through the government? I don't think so. > William Binney said something. Does it mean that it applies to all companies? Did he mention which companies? Is he a credible source for things that occurred after he left NSA? Is he even a credible source outside his expertise? All companies? I don't know, and it doesn't even matter. He talked about his time at the NSA. I consider him a credible source, since I have no reason not to. > Do you think that European countries don't take action? What would you call the anti-trust suit against Google, GDPR, anti-tax haven lawsuit against Apple, and other actions? Yes, I think they don't take sufficient and adequate action. The GDPR is a good step, but the race is not won by a step. It reminds me of an anti-corruption office in a one-party communist regime. A good thing, but not enough. Please don't meddle this with taxes. That is a totally different outrageous clusterfuck.
  - linkregister 9y ago

by madez 9y ago

ajross 9y ago

> global passive attacker that can control US-based companies like puppets, and is doing so. And... this is where the deluded conspiracy theorist accusations the upthread poster was complaining about come from. There's no evidence for any of that[1]. The ME's capabilities (low level system controller with access to all memory and hardware, with special access to network hardware that can operate cleanly along with a running OS) have been known and even advertised by Intel for years. The news of the moment is that it's subject to a few rather embarrassing exploits. But that's rather better explained by incompetance instead of evil. Yet everyone jumps to "back door" because that sounds more fun I guess. (In fact, to the extent there is evidence of government involvement here, it's in the opposite direction: the NSA appears to have demanded an "off switch" for the ME). [1] Edit to clarify: I'm talking about the ME folks. Yes, the government does bad things. The EC flaws under discussion in this subthread are not among them, so citing them as evidence paints you as a conspiracy nut and not someone serious about security.

cyphar 9y ago
> Yet everyone jumps to "back door" because that sounds more fun I guess. IME is (by construction) a backdoor. It's primary purpose is as a management tool, but all management tools are by necessity backdoors. The only distinction between the two is whether the person using the backdoor has ownership over the machine. > In fact, to the extent there is evidence of government involvement here, it's in the opposite direction: the NSA appears to have demanded an "off switch" for the ME. It also shows that the NSA is in communication with Intel and is capable of getting them to implement something that large corporations like Google were unable to convince them to do. Which should be concerning, because it makes you wonder what else the NSA might've asked as well. Also these really aren't conspiracy theories anymore. We know that the NSA and CIA do these sorts of things thanks to the information we learned from Snowden and other whistleblowers.
- linkregister 9y ago
  No, the Snowden leaks showed that NSA did do something, not that it does every malicious thing that people accuse it of. How does it help anything by making unfounded accusations? Historically, Australia has heavily interfered in PNG affairs. Should you be accused of espionage or subversion if you decide to hike a portion of the Kokoda Trail? Would it be appropriate for Indigenous People to accuse you of attempting to steal their children, a practice that occurred until the 1970s?
  - m-p-3 9y ago
    It's hard not to assume the worst, especially when you have no concrete reports on their capabilities. And when assessing the threat it creates, you can't really ignore the possibilities by that lack of knowledge.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      But you have tons of concrete reports from the Snowden leaks and prior leaks. Dual_EC RNG is the worst example anyone can think of, something that has been red-flagged since 2007. Assuming a supposedly* adversarial agency has unlimited resources and ability will only cause you to focus on that threat instead of more immediate ones. Or worse, make you needlessly complacent when there is so much that can be done to harden against APTs and other, more immediate threats. * supposedly because if you're a U.S. citizen, the government works for you. If you're outside of FVEY (AU,CA,UK,US,NZ) and are a government official, military member, have interesting technical infrastructure, or operate an interesting company, then yes you should include NSA in your threat model.
  - traineater 9y ago
    > No, the Snowden leaks showed that NSA did do something, not that it does every malicious thing that people accuse it of. How does it help anything by making unfounded accusations? It shows they'll do anything within their power, legal or illegal, in order to get at more people's data. Of course they have involvement with this, why wouldn't they? > Historically, Australia has heavily interfered in PNG affairs. Should you be accused of espionage or subversion if you decide to hike a portion of the Kokoda Trail? > Would it be appropriate for Indigenous People to accuse you of attempting to steal their children, a practice that occurred until the 1970s? Bizarre points in support of your initial comment I think.
madez 9y ago
> There's no evidence for any of that. Have you heard about PRISM? Have you heard about Lavabit? Have you heard about the FISA court and its practice? > But that's rather better explained by incompetance instead of evil. Have the ME in all products, not deactivatable, and not replaceable is not a trivial thing to do, so it surely isn't incompetence. What is it then?
- emmelaich 9y ago
  > [ .. ] not deactivatable, and not replaceable ... Because they don't want people bricking their computers.
  - madez 9y ago
    There are other ways to prevent bricking. For that you don't need an updatable and extensible OS with Ring0-invisible access to network and hardware. And even if bricking were possible, so it is with many other computers, so what? I have yet to hear a good reason for the ME that makes it possible to argue that it is not for backdooring of and having power over all x86 machines.
pdelbarba 9y ago
I wouldn't say that there's no evidence of this behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG We also have a fair amount of evidence that there have been attempts in china to implement hardware back-doors
mschuster91 9y ago
> There's no evidence for any of that. Oh there is: Dual_EC_DRBG, and that took years to get proof. Also, NSA and AT&T room 641A, plus the packet interdiction programs of the NSA - and I mean physical packets containing DC hardware, that then was modified by NSA. And we don't have any overview what the US government forces companies and people with NSLs to do... only the sliver of info we got with the Lavabit case.
throw2016 9y ago
There is already overwhelming evidence of abuse of power, bad faith and surveillance. Attempting to brush it aside as 'incompetence' is brazenly disingenuous. What's the point of asking for more 'evidence'? Do you expect Snowden levels of sacrifice and disclosures every month? Apologists will continue to do this untill it's too late to do anything about surveillance, at which point they will shrink into the thicket and leave everyone else hanging onto a surveillance state. Those who care about surveillance, privacy and democracy have every responsibility to be alert and act now.
arca_vorago 9y ago
Inslaw, PROMIS, and the murder of Danny Casolaro indicate you are wrong.
indrax 9y ago
> the NSA appears to have demanded an "off switch" for the ME). This is not incompatible with them encouraging or exploiting a back door, and it is strong evidence that ME is a security risk.

linkregister 9y ago

Do you think that the U.S. government has enough money to influence Intel and Microsoft? It is the other way around: both companies spend tens of millions on lobbyists. William Binney said something. Does it mean that it applies to all companies? Did he mention which companies? Is he a credible source for things that occurred after he left NSA? Is he even a credible source outside his expertise? Do you think that European countries don't take action? What would you call the anti-trust suit against Google, GDPR, anti-tax haven lawsuit against Apple, and other actions? Having a narrow set of news sources can lead a reasonable person (you) to your conclusion. I urge you to look at a variety of sources. Some good ones: Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, NPR, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The South China Morning Post.

madez 9y ago
You ask interesting questions. > Do you think that the U.S. government has enough money to influence Intel and Microsoft? I think the government uses (legal) force and threats to get what they want. The laws are in place to leave no options for the company. The money is more a compensation than a bribery. It could make the companies comply without needing to go nuclear. Also, it supports local companies. > It is the other way around: both companies spend tens of millions on lobbyists. Do these lobbysist have any influence on the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., either directly or remotely through the government? I don't think so. > William Binney said something. Does it mean that it applies to all companies? Did he mention which companies? Is he a credible source for things that occurred after he left NSA? Is he even a credible source outside his expertise? All companies? I don't know, and it doesn't even matter. He talked about his time at the NSA. I consider him a credible source, since I have no reason not to. > Do you think that European countries don't take action? What would you call the anti-trust suit against Google, GDPR, anti-tax haven lawsuit against Apple, and other actions? Yes, I think they don't take sufficient and adequate action. The GDPR is a good step, but the race is not won by a step. It reminds me of an anti-corruption office in a one-party communist regime. A good thing, but not enough. Please don't meddle this with taxes. That is a totally different outrageous clusterfuck.
- linkregister 9y ago