3 ms·

I think that's the point the comment you are replying to made: if it was legitimately a microsoft key that just serves a different purpose, it would be trivial

I think that's the point the comment you are replying to made: if it was legitimately a microsoft key that just serves a different purpose, it would be trivial for microsoft to prove it by just signing a message or anything with the corresponding private key. The fact that they haven't reinforces the argument that they don't own the private key (likely, the NSA does as the conspiracy goes)

ziftface 7y ago
Well I don't know if that would necessarily prove anything, since in this scenario, microsoft and the nsa are working closely enough together to modify one of their drivers. In that case, couldn't the point of contact at microsoft simply send the message to the nsa to have it signed, and then show it as proof that the key is owned by microsoft?
mlyle 7y ago
> it would be trivial for microsoft to prove it by just signing a message or anything with the corresponding private key. It would also be trivial for Microsoft to call up the NSA and say "they're ON TO US and it looks bad to our customers, can you please sign this message?" That is, the test you suggest proves nothing-- you can't prove that only you hold a private key.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  FISA orders only work one way.
smolder 7y ago
> (likely, the NSA does as the conspiracy goes) Pardon my pedantry but I think you meant conspiracy theory. Conspiracies happen all the time, and by itself the word doesn't imply anything far-fetched or unproven, just plotting to do harm.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  At least someone's allowed to point it out. Maybe next time I'll write a paragraph shrugs Time for me to find another community.
  - smolder 7y ago
    I don't understand this post.
    - ta999999171 7y ago
      I was being somewhat subtle about my bitching re: my comments being killed that pointed out the same thing.
      - smolder 7y ago
        Oh. :/
celticninja 7y ago
Surely the NSA could just give MS the key to sign a message with and then generate a new key for themselves to replace it.

ziftface 7y ago

Well I don't know if that would necessarily prove anything, since in this scenario, microsoft and the nsa are working closely enough together to modify one of their drivers. In that case, couldn't the point of contact at microsoft simply send the message to the nsa to have it signed, and then show it as proof that the key is owned by microsoft?

mlyle 7y ago

> it would be trivial for microsoft to prove it by just signing a message or anything with the corresponding private key. It would also be trivial for Microsoft to call up the NSA and say "they're ON TO US and it looks bad to our customers, can you please sign this message?" That is, the test you suggest proves nothing-- you can't prove that only you hold a private key.

ta999999171 7y ago
FISA orders only work one way.

smolder 7y ago

> (likely, the NSA does as the conspiracy goes) Pardon my pedantry but I think you meant conspiracy theory. Conspiracies happen all the time, and by itself the word doesn't imply anything far-fetched or unproven, just plotting to do harm.

ta999999171 7y ago
At least someone's allowed to point it out. Maybe next time I'll write a paragraph shrugs Time for me to find another community.
- smolder 7y ago
  I don't understand this post.
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    I was being somewhat subtle about my bitching re: my comments being killed that pointed out the same thing.
    - smolder 7y ago
      Oh. :/

celticninja 7y ago

Surely the NSA could just give MS the key to sign a message with and then generate a new key for themselves to replace it.