3 ms·
What's so interesting? They have a default value, most likely for testing. I find it very hard to believe anyone thinks "child_porn.avi" is a compelling filena
by MichaelGG 11y ago
What's so interesting? They have a default value, most likely for testing.
I find it very hard to believe anyone thinks "child_porn.avi" is a compelling filename for child pornography. I'd imagine they'd be more like "<age> <gender> <explicit act>.mp4".
- bobcostas55 11y agoIt's software sold to law enforcement/intelligence agencies, and it is designed explicitly to plant false evidence. Even post-Snowden I think that qualifies as interesting.
- MichaelGG 11y agoCan you elaborate on "design explicitly to plant false evidence"? I don't know what the program does, but those path names are zero evidence, come on.
- yAnonymous 11y agoThe file explicitly said "evidence" in the first line. It's deleted now.
- sathio 11y agoyes, I thought the same exact thing, but then I've read this: > better evidence generation https://github.com/hackedteam/rcs-common/commit/7059fb04a189b40eed125493973f7ea6752544cc https://github.com/hackedteam/rcs-common/commit/7059fb04a189... probably those are just placeholders but the intent seems at least a bit shady
- MichaelGG 11y agoLook at the change. They went from a unix-like file system path name to a Windows one. Considering they call to_utf16le_binary_null I'm going to guess they just wanted it to look reasonable (and perhaps not crash?) on Windows.