5 ms·

Hardware tampering is't performed on a mass scale. It's always a targeted attack. What the author actually forgot to do was to add some honey into the honeypot

Hardware tampering is't performed on a mass scale. It's always a targeted attack. What the author actually forgot to do was to add some honey into the honeypot. I.e. become an attractive target.

rl3 8y ago
>What the author actually forgot to do was to add some honey into the honeypot. I.e. become an attractive target. Preicsely. All the author had to do was use his best broken English and pretend to be a member of The Shadow Brokers. The article would have been far more exciting had it involved speculating which three letter agency compromised the laptop the most, or the finer points of writing an article while being physically hunted by a snatch and grab team.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >The article would've been far more exciting had it involved speculating which three letter agency compromised his laptop the most, rather than simply mulling over a bunch of "what if" scenarios. If you would find this more exciting, there's no shortage of fiction already available on similar subjects. This article was about detailing the current risks, and the author's attempt to catch the attack in action. Not as exciting, but important information for people that may be at risk of a similar attack.
  - rl3 8y ago
    Thank you for that sombering reminder of why I rarely post here anymore. >If you would find this more exciting, there's no shortage of fiction already available on similar subjects. Any recommendations?
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      I was trying not to be overly rude, but your post read like "this journalism would be better if it had more wild speculation rather than reporting proven facts."
      - rl3 8y ago
        Nah, just a failed attempt at humor. I mean, trying to impersonate TSB as a way to attract attention from intelligence agencies is insane on the face of it. The article was great; no qualms with it whatsoever.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
He's a board member of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a position also held by Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. Additionally, he has helped develop SecureDrop and various other tools to enable the anonymous spread of information. Finally, he works for The Intercept, an organization that has a history of receiving leaked information. Seems like a plausible target to me.
- ComodoHacker 8y ago
  I didn't know that, thank you. Nevertheless, as his experiment have shown, that was not enough.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    Or it shows that it was enough, and the tester was not able to detect it. It's also possible he was already compromised in a different manner, making the entire ordeal useless.
- blueprint 8y ago
  But was there any specific thing during the course of his trial run that would have enticed an attacker? And given the fact that a supposed attacker would ostensibly be able to detect the existence of honey before the attack, would they not also be able to detect the absence of it? (And perhaps its simultaneous absence during the course of the trial) Seems like an experimental bias to me
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    This is a journalistic experiment not a scientific experiment. Experimental bias isn't a large concern, they're trying to record something happening not prove something.

Hardware tampering is't performed on a mass scale. It's always a targeted attack. What the author actually forgot to do was to add some honey into the honeypot. I.e. become an attractive target.

rl3 8y ago

>What the author actually forgot to do was to add some honey into the honeypot. I.e. become an attractive target. Preicsely. All the author had to do was use his best broken English and pretend to be a member of The Shadow Brokers. The article would have been far more exciting had it involved speculating which three letter agency compromised the laptop the most, or the finer points of writing an article while being physically hunted by a snatch and grab team.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
>The article would've been far more exciting had it involved speculating which three letter agency compromised his laptop the most, rather than simply mulling over a bunch of "what if" scenarios. If you would find this more exciting, there's no shortage of fiction already available on similar subjects. This article was about detailing the current risks, and the author's attempt to catch the attack in action. Not as exciting, but important information for people that may be at risk of a similar attack.
- rl3 8y ago
  Thank you for that sombering reminder of why I rarely post here anymore. >If you would find this more exciting, there's no shortage of fiction already available on similar subjects. Any recommendations?
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    I was trying not to be overly rude, but your post read like "this journalism would be better if it had more wild speculation rather than reporting proven facts."
    - rl3 8y ago
      Nah, just a failed attempt at humor. I mean, trying to impersonate TSB as a way to attract attention from intelligence agencies is insane on the face of it. The article was great; no qualms with it whatsoever.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

He's a board member of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a position also held by Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. Additionally, he has helped develop SecureDrop and various other tools to enable the anonymous spread of information. Finally, he works for The Intercept, an organization that has a history of receiving leaked information. Seems like a plausible target to me.

ComodoHacker 8y ago
I didn't know that, thank you. Nevertheless, as his experiment have shown, that was not enough.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Or it shows that it was enough, and the tester was not able to detect it. It's also possible he was already compromised in a different manner, making the entire ordeal useless.
blueprint 8y ago
But was there any specific thing during the course of his trial run that would have enticed an attacker? And given the fact that a supposed attacker would ostensibly be able to detect the existence of honey before the attack, would they not also be able to detect the absence of it? (And perhaps its simultaneous absence during the course of the trial) Seems like an experimental bias to me
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  This is a journalistic experiment not a scientific experiment. Experimental bias isn't a large concern, they're trying to record something happening not prove something.