Asking if it's possible for such malware to exist is the wrong question (albeit, a fun thought experiment on its own). The right question is, why do you think y

Asking if it's possible for such malware to exist is the wrong question (albeit, a fun thought experiment on its own). The right question is, why do you think you are infected? Just because it's possible for someone to pick my lock, doesn't mean my belongings have been stolen. To conclude that my belongings have been stolen, we must first establish that they are actually missing, and that I did not lose them on my own. We do not immediately focus on the viability of lock picking. Everybody wrapped up in this story skipped this important step when examining the circumstances. It turned out that when Dragos supplied what he thought was an "indicator of compromise" as it's called in the industry, or suspicious activity, in every instance it in fact was not suspicious at all, and Dragos either made a technical error or misunderstood what he was looking at. You don't have to be a paranoid crazy to make this mistake, so the John Nash comparisons are over the top. I've been there in my career, which is partially why I recognize it in him. Unfortunately he has committed too strongly to this position, so he's not able to walk himself back from his early conclusions. I'm not at all naive or misinformed as to what malware capabilities could be (and I have some healthy paranoia myself), it's just that it's completely besides the point in this case.