7 ms·

What evidence do they have?

by diogenes4 3y ago

creato 3y ago
If you don’t believe them, you’re free to ignore the advisory.
- marricks 3y ago
  Surely you see how evidence is necessary for something to be believed right
  - foota 3y ago
    It's a warning, you don't even have to believe it to take action. If someone told me a missile was going to hit my apartment I probably wouldn't believe them, but I might go grab coffee
    - sebastiennight 3y ago
      I can tell you with full sincerity that no missile is going to hit the one of these two places (home and coffee shop) where you won't be at 8PM. Now maybe I'm with the NSA and I know where you'll be. Maybe I'm just an informant and I know where the NSA thinks you'll be. What will you do?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Foota, a missile is going to hit your apartment. Really! You can believe me! Unlike the NSA, I have no history of lying to you! Hope there's a 24-hour Starbucks close by (but not too close).
  - creato 3y ago
    That depends on what is being asked of me as a consequence. Read the actual advisory: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-270a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... If I administered commercial routers, the request would seem reasonable to me.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    One if by land, two if by sea. Either way, let's wait for the video, I don't believe Paul that the Brits are here.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    Not necessarily. That’s where trust and reputation comes in and in this case I’m willing to believe the agencies.
    - shmde 3y ago
      > Trust and Reputation > 3 Letter Agencies Pick one.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        The world isn't black or white.
  - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
    Depending on how we model a system, we don't necessarily need direct evidence in order for indirect events to influence our beliefs (see: abductive reasoning).
rockskon 3y ago
For something like this - the NSA and FBI have been trying to gain industry trust by releasing these advisories. The NSA at least has publicly admitted to this being one of the big reasons they do so given they've not managed to regain trust post-Snowden. They have no incentive to lie here. But see this for what it is: An attempt at gaining trust so more people will voluntarily work with them and give them data.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  I do not understand your position. "The trust they gain from making this unsourced claim is a clear benefit, so they have no incentive to lie about it." Wouldn't the gained trust be an incentive? You could argue if they lied the incentive wouldn't be worth the risk, but proving they lied about this would be difficult and that's a seperate argument from the one you made.
  - rockskon 3y ago
    I am arguing the incentive to lie isn't worth the risk in this case. And they're not likely to give sources because of the whole "protecting sources and methods" bias they have to not reveal how they know what they know. I'm making an argument about their motive here. The damage they'd face from lying is great (what if another leak comes out? What if a backdoor is found in the patch communicating with NSA infrastructure?) and the possible benefit relatively small.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      These people lie professionally. It is their job to conceal and misrepresent their activities. They've lied to everyone already at some point. They certainly lie to people outside the US, they've lied to people in the US, they've lied to their oversight committees in Congress and they've lied to the president. It seems likely they're lying to each other for office politics reasons. How are they supposed to take damage from lying? They have no credibility to lose. The NSA Wikipedia page takes a while to scroll through and is a saga of backdoors and skullduggery. "Spies lied, news at 11" will read the headline. I'm not saying this specific thing is true or not, what do I know. But if it turned out to be a lie, who could claim to be surprised? It has entered the public record that they developed tech to pretend to be foreigners like the PRC when conducting their cybercrime activities.
kube-system 3y ago
The link at the bottom of the article has a pretty good explanation of how it works and how to mitigate it. What part of it exactly do you need evidence for?
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
If you were actually interested in evidence you'd be able to find it, as I have, in a minute or two of following links. For example: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-270a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v13/techniques/T1021/004/ https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v13/techniques/T1021/004/ > G0098 BlackTech BlackTech has used Putty for remote access.[2] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/palmerworm-blacktech-espionage-apt https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-... > The Threat Hunter Team at Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), has uncovered a new espionage campaign carried out by the Palmerworm group (aka BlackTech) involving a brand new suite of custom malware, targeting organizations in Japan, Taiwan, the U.S., and China.

What evidence do they have?

creato 3y ago

If you don’t believe them, you’re free to ignore the advisory.

marricks 3y ago
Surely you see how evidence is necessary for something to be believed right
- foota 3y ago
  It's a warning, you don't even have to believe it to take action. If someone told me a missile was going to hit my apartment I probably wouldn't believe them, but I might go grab coffee
  - sebastiennight 3y ago
    I can tell you with full sincerity that no missile is going to hit the one of these two places (home and coffee shop) where you won't be at 8PM. Now maybe I'm with the NSA and I know where you'll be. Maybe I'm just an informant and I know where the NSA thinks you'll be. What will you do?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Foota, a missile is going to hit your apartment. Really! You can believe me! Unlike the NSA, I have no history of lying to you! Hope there's a 24-hour Starbucks close by (but not too close).
- creato 3y ago
  That depends on what is being asked of me as a consequence. Read the actual advisory: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-270a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... If I administered commercial routers, the request would seem reasonable to me.
- theultdev 3y ago
  One if by land, two if by sea. Either way, let's wait for the video, I don't believe Paul that the Brits are here.
- huytersd 3y ago
  Not necessarily. That’s where trust and reputation comes in and in this case I’m willing to believe the agencies.
  - shmde 3y ago
    > Trust and Reputation > 3 Letter Agencies Pick one.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      The world isn't black or white.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  Depending on how we model a system, we don't necessarily need direct evidence in order for indirect events to influence our beliefs (see: abductive reasoning).

rockskon 3y ago

For something like this - the NSA and FBI have been trying to gain industry trust by releasing these advisories. The NSA at least has publicly admitted to this being one of the big reasons they do so given they've not managed to regain trust post-Snowden. They have no incentive to lie here. But see this for what it is: An attempt at gaining trust so more people will voluntarily work with them and give them data.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
I do not understand your position. "The trust they gain from making this unsourced claim is a clear benefit, so they have no incentive to lie about it." Wouldn't the gained trust be an incentive? You could argue if they lied the incentive wouldn't be worth the risk, but proving they lied about this would be difficult and that's a seperate argument from the one you made.
- rockskon 3y ago
  I am arguing the incentive to lie isn't worth the risk in this case. And they're not likely to give sources because of the whole "protecting sources and methods" bias they have to not reveal how they know what they know. I'm making an argument about their motive here. The damage they'd face from lying is great (what if another leak comes out? What if a backdoor is found in the patch communicating with NSA infrastructure?) and the possible benefit relatively small.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    These people lie professionally. It is their job to conceal and misrepresent their activities. They've lied to everyone already at some point. They certainly lie to people outside the US, they've lied to people in the US, they've lied to their oversight committees in Congress and they've lied to the president. It seems likely they're lying to each other for office politics reasons. How are they supposed to take damage from lying? They have no credibility to lose. The NSA Wikipedia page takes a while to scroll through and is a saga of backdoors and skullduggery. "Spies lied, news at 11" will read the headline. I'm not saying this specific thing is true or not, what do I know. But if it turned out to be a lie, who could claim to be surprised? It has entered the public record that they developed tech to pretend to be foreigners like the PRC when conducting their cybercrime activities.

kube-system 3y ago

The link at the bottom of the article has a pretty good explanation of how it works and how to mitigate it. What part of it exactly do you need evidence for?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

If you were actually interested in evidence you'd be able to find it, as I have, in a minute or two of following links. For example: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-270a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v13/techniques/T1021/004/ https://attack.mitre.org/versions/v13/techniques/T1021/004/ > G0098 BlackTech BlackTech has used Putty for remote access.[2] https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/palmerworm-blacktech-espionage-apt https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-... > The Threat Hunter Team at Symantec, a division of Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), has uncovered a new espionage campaign carried out by the Palmerworm group (aka BlackTech) involving a brand new suite of custom malware, targeting organizations in Japan, Taiwan, the U.S., and China.