4 ms·
The difference is AV vendors use it for defensive purposes while the USG uses it for offensive (read: destructive) purposes.
by ihsw 13y ago
The difference is AV vendors use it for defensive purposes while the USG uses it for offensive (read: destructive) purposes.
- untog 13y agoIt gives the ability for the government to use it for offensive purposes. I don't see any evidence that they've used it for such purposes.
- danielweber 13y agoRight. Disclosing to some people first before you blow the patch out to the public can be of great defensive benefit. But it has to be people you trust not to blab about it, deliberately or accidentally. Apparently USG is in that category. This may allow the USG to also perpetrate attacks. But we really need some evidence of that.
- kryten 13y agoWould you know or be able to provide evidence that it hasn't been used? Probably not.
- untog 13y agoYou're asking if I can prove a negative? No, I cannot. I think that dolphins are actually secret arsonists who set fire to oil rigs. Prove me wrong.
- im3w1l 13y ago1. Oil rig fires actually occur with the same frequency in water without dolphins (making data up to go along with your example). 2. I can not see what motive dolphins could have for torching oil rigs (usg has a motive) 3. I don't think they are able to do it, we have never seen evidence them being able to harness the power of fire. (usg has access to 0days) 4. Dolpins have no record of performing other crimes or acts of sabotage before (usg has)
- untog 13y ago1. Doesn't prove anything. Correlation != causation. 2. Because they like fire. Prove me wrong. 3.Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. They've had a lot of time to figure it out (they don't even have jobs) 4. They're clever animals. How can you say they wouldn't? ...to be more serious about it, I was using an extreme example to make a point. It is next to impossible to prove that someone has never done something, so when you start arguing on a basis like that you just descend into an abyss of unanswerable mess.
- bkmartin 13y agoStuxnet? Is it too far of a stretch to think that this could have aided in the development? Obviously I have no evidence that it actually did, but I wouldn't be surprised and personally think its likely.
- lostnet 13y ago> Stuxnet? Probably not, once a vendor is aware the bug has a relatively short life and using it increases the possibility of detecting your attacks. To avoid constant maintenance, one must review code for new exploits and then not inform the vendor. More likely they watched for indications that their bugs were independently detected to keep ahead once they were operational.
- alan_cx 13y agoHad you even heard for PRISM two weeks ago? I'd suggest waiting a while.