3 ms·
Silently sabotaging LEOs efforts like that would be rightfully highly illegal. "Perverting the course of justice" in the UK. I assume there's a US equivalent.
by rlpb 13y ago
Silently sabotaging LEOs efforts like that would be rightfully highly illegal. "Perverting the course of justice" in the UK. I assume there's a US equivalent.
It's just not worth a company risking this kind of tampering. They could go to jail for that.
By all means, companies should fight back legally, and it sounds like they all are. I applaud them for that. But I think it's unreasonable to expect them to break the law for you.
- EnderMB 13y agoYou're absolutely right. However, is it a crime that could be tracked, without an employee explicitly whistle-blowing to the feds? Even then, could the feds prove this? I'm no expert, and I'm probably wrong in saying this, but in my mind it'd be near impossible to prove that a provided hash had been tampered with, instead of a user just changing their password. It's morally wrong, and obviously I'm not saying it's the way to go. It's just a theory that I had, and I wanted to know if it was feasible for a company to do this.
- TomNomNom 13y agoFWIW if a fed has an account with the service (which is fairly likely for big services like Gmail et al), and knows the hashing algorithm (if they've successfully got the passwords this is pretty likely too) they could prove it easily by hashing their password themselves and comparing it to the stored version.