4 ms·
> the sender has committed no crime > they've done nothing illegal Perhaps that's true in the narrowest sense, but aren't the odds of generating a colliding f
by mLuby 5y ago
> the sender has committed no crime
> they've done nothing illegal
Perhaps that's true in the narrowest sense, but aren't the odds of generating a colliding file so low as to all but rule out coincidence and therefore strongly indicate premeditated cyber-attack (which is illegal)?
If I were law enforcement, at the very least I'd want to keep tabs on these sources of false positives. Probably easy enough to convince a judge that someone capable of the "tech wizardry" to collide a hash can un-collide one too, and therefore more thorough/invasive search warrants of the source are justified.
- XorNot 5y agoYour argument is "the technology is flawed, there let's also arrest anyone who we suspect of generating false positives". Like security researchers. Or the people currently inspecting the algorithm. And also frankly what are you going to do about overseas adversaries? The most likely people looking at how to exploit this would explicitly be state-sponsored Russian hackers - this is right up the alley of their desire to be able to cause low level chaos without committing to a serious attack. And at the end of the day you've still succeeded: the point is that by the time you've established it was spurious, the target has already been through the legal wringer. The legal wringer is the point.