4 ms·
Why is it illegal to store a file that may cause a buffer overflow in software that should not be reading my data?
by batch12 5y ago
Why is it illegal to store a file that may cause a buffer overflow in software that should not be reading my data?
- alisonkisk 5y agoBecause your "should not" is the law's "should", in a lawful search and seizure.
- PeterisP 5y agoIntent matters. It's prohibited to alter data on someone else's computer systems (CFAA), so what matters if that file was placed there with the hopes that it would overwrite someone else's Cellebrite database, and it doesn't matter if you placed it on your phone or sent it over a phishing email. And as a separate crime, it's forbidden to destroy or conceal evidence or things that would be used as evidence, no matter if that evidence is files on your phone protected by such a buffer overflow, or a gun that you throw in a river. In essence, storing such a file is illegal if the jury gets convinced that you placed such a file with the goal to have that buffer overflow to actually happen on someone else's machine.
- batch12 5y agoI would not be the person destroying evidence. If the examiner used a toolkit not riddled with flaws, the files would mean nothing. Also, if I placed the files on my device as a general deterrent-- since cellebrite's forensic software is not limited to just LE usage, it would be difficult to prove I had a specific target in mind.
- PeterisP 5y agoIf you actually placed the files on your device as a general deterrent, then that would be fine - intent matters. However, if you did place it to try and prevent evidence gathering (I mean, this is in context of someone being detained for some other crime, not just a random person), and just assert this claim, realistically, it would not be that difficult to convince a jury that you intended it to deter LE and not some hypothetical target. For an exaggerated example, if someone is tried (among other things) for routinely performing some illict acticity (i.e. they clearly had an expectation that they might be arrested and their phone analysed by LE) and has prior arrests in which their phone was actually analysed, which they knew and didn't like and after one such arrest they just "place the files", then it would be straightforward to get a conviction; and on the opposite direction if a privacy activist using all kinds of interesting features has had this thing on their phone for years and then gets detained for something unrelated to that (i.e. not a case of e.g. putting these files in the morning before going out to do some activism that's likely to get them arrested, but perhaps before going to Saudi Arabia - deterring foreign agents instead of local LE would be a legitimate purpose), then indeed it would be difficult to prove that they had a specific target in mind.
- batch12 5y agoI still am not convinced and we most likely won't come together on this, but I find your arguments well put and appreciate the discussion.