5 ms·

1: What is sophisticated for a non-state actor may be semi-trivial for a state actor. Why? State actors demand access to the source code of proprietary software

1: What is sophisticated for a non-state actor may be semi-trivial for a state actor. Why? State actors demand access to the source code of proprietary software; state actors circumvent laws that bind mere mortals like ourselves. If you own the playing field that which is sophisticated for even the most competent and knowledgeable coders may be semi-trivial for the spooks. 2: In my opinion Stuxnet is an act of war. If Iran doesn't consider itself to be at war with Israel and the US (even though there has been no formal declaration of war) then they are not thinking straight. If I were to enrich uranium I wouldn't let a Windows PC within a mile of the centrifuges, I'd only use locked down versions of Linux.

wepple 8y ago
> State actors demand access to the source code of proprietary software So, when China or Russia are building windows exploits, they just demand Microsoft hand over source? Also, the idea that “locked down” Linux would do any better than windows is ridiculous. The Linux codebase is enormous and complex and full of bugs. At least if you’d said some type of high security microkernel, you could put forward forward some logical arguments.
- igravious 8y ago
  > So, when China or Russia are building windows exploits, they just demand Microsoft hand over source? Yes in fact they do. https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/C/A/BCAFF3F5-5DB5-4AB4-9AAB-5CF0814E0948/GovernmentSecurityProgram.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/C/A/BCAFF3F5-5DB5-... “Throughout the history of the company, Microsoft has worked with national governments around the world to help them build and deploy more secure IT infrastructure and services to protect their citizens and national economies. In 2003, Microsoft built on these efforts to create the Government Security Program (GSP). The scope of the program has grown over time, and continues as a cornerstone of Microsoft’s efforts to help address the unique security requirements of more than 30 national governments around the world.” (Russia and China included) https://www.zdnet.com/article/does-microsofts-sharing-of-source-code-with-china-and-russia-pose-a-security-risk/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/does-microsofts-sharing-of-sou... > Also, the idea that “locked down” Linux would do any better than windows is ridiculous. The Linux codebase is enormous and complex and full of bugs. At least if you’d said some type of high security microkernel, you could put forward forward some logical arguments. It's not a `logical' argument, it's a pragmatic argument. A sufficiently tech-savvy admin can dictate the hardware on the network, roll their own kernel so that USB drivers cannot be loaded, have that image as the boot image, and use TPM if totally necessary. The reason you wouldn't want to run a high security microkernel is because those can't run regular desktop software like LibreOffice and what have you.

wepple 8y ago

> State actors demand access to the source code of proprietary software So, when China or Russia are building windows exploits, they just demand Microsoft hand over source? Also, the idea that “locked down” Linux would do any better than windows is ridiculous. The Linux codebase is enormous and complex and full of bugs. At least if you’d said some type of high security microkernel, you could put forward forward some logical arguments.

igravious 8y ago
> So, when China or Russia are building windows exploits, they just demand Microsoft hand over source? Yes in fact they do. https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/C/A/BCAFF3F5-5DB5-4AB4-9AAB-5CF0814E0948/GovernmentSecurityProgram.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/C/A/BCAFF3F5-5DB5-... “Throughout the history of the company, Microsoft has worked with national governments around the world to help them build and deploy more secure IT infrastructure and services to protect their citizens and national economies. In 2003, Microsoft built on these efforts to create the Government Security Program (GSP). The scope of the program has grown over time, and continues as a cornerstone of Microsoft’s efforts to help address the unique security requirements of more than 30 national governments around the world.” (Russia and China included) https://www.zdnet.com/article/does-microsofts-sharing-of-source-code-with-china-and-russia-pose-a-security-risk/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/does-microsofts-sharing-of-sou... > Also, the idea that “locked down” Linux would do any better than windows is ridiculous. The Linux codebase is enormous and complex and full of bugs. At least if you’d said some type of high security microkernel, you could put forward forward some logical arguments. It's not a `logical' argument, it's a pragmatic argument. A sufficiently tech-savvy admin can dictate the hardware on the network, roll their own kernel so that USB drivers cannot be loaded, have that image as the boot image, and use TPM if totally necessary. The reason you wouldn't want to run a high security microkernel is because those can't run regular desktop software like LibreOffice and what have you.