Today, 9 November 2017, WikiLeaks publishes the source code and development logs to Hive, a major component of the CIA infrastructure to control its malware.
Hive solves a critical problem for the malware operators at the CIA. Even the most sophisticated malware implant on a target computer is useless if there is no way for it to communicate with its operators in a secure manner that does not draw attention. Using Hive even if an implant is discovered on a target computer, attributing it to the CIA is difficult by just looking at the communication of the malware with other servers on the internet. Hive provides a covert communications platform for a whole range of CIA malware to send exfiltrated information to CIA servers and to receive new instructions from operators at the CIA.
Hive can serve multiple operations using multiple implants on target computers. Each operation anonymously registers at least one cover domain (e.g. "perfectly-boring-looking-domain.com") for its own use. The server running the domain website is rented from commercial hosting providers as a VPS (virtual private server) and its software is customized according to CIA specifications. These servers are the public-facing side of the CIA back-end infrastructure and act as a relay for HTTP(S) traffic over a VPN connection to a "hidden" CIA server called 'Blot'.
The code shows how the CIA could impersonate Kaspersky Lab:
According to WikiLeaks, CIA used these fake certificates to impersonate existing entities including Kaspersky Lab. "The three examples included in the source code build a fake certificate for the anti-virus company Kaspersky Laboratory, Moscow pretending to be signed by Thawte Premium Server CA, Cape Town. In this way, if the target organization looks at the network traffic coming out of its network, it is likely to misattribute the CIA exfiltration of data to uninvolved entities whose identities have been impersonated," noted WikiLeaks.
Also at The Register (follow-up).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @06:34PM (6 children)
this is because of the "cloud" and the myriad of registrations on a single IP and domain at a hosting provider.
back when companies controlled their hardware and services, it was possible to know who you were talking to.
now, for security purposes, you have to ferret out where the connections should be going and permit those, or at least document them, and then not allow connections to other stuff.
it shouldnt be so hard to use the internet and it didn't used to be when it wasnt run for profit
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @06:51PM (3 children)
i worked with tom sizemore and he is the fucking worst. just a greasy, unrepentantly gross manchild. i have several friends who've also worked with him, or p.a.'d on sets he's been the "star" of.
quick anecdote: ended up going for a ride with him on a film i was in (small role), because my friend - also a p.a. - had to drive him back to his house to find a shirt. we sat at his coffee table, covered in about 2409r782374 ash trays and seven boxes of half eaten mike & ikes. what seems like an hour later of uncomfortable stillness he comes barreling out of his bedroom, a little sweaty, panting, and drops fuckin STACKS of vhs tapes on the table in front of us. we were both pretty confused at the point. he then pops one in his combo vhs/dvd player and it's him getting blown by some poor chick with really fuckin terrible roots, he then puts the shirt over his slovenly body, turns to my friend and says, "this good?"
it is one of the most surreal, ridiculous moments of my life.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:01PM
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/90220338/ [4plebs.org]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @08:03PM
i worked with Anonymous Coward and he is the fucking worst. just a greasy, unrepentantly gross manchild. i have several friends who've also worked with him, or p.a.'d on sets he's been the "star" of.
quick anecdote: ended up going for a ride with him on a film i was in (small role), because my friend - also a p.a. - had to drive him back to his house to find a shirt. we sat at his coffee table, covered in about 2409r782374 ash trays and seven boxes of half eaten mike & ikes. what seems like an hour later of uncomfortable stillness he comes barreling out of his bedroom, a little sweaty, panting, and drops fuckin STACKS of vhs tapes on the table in front of us. we were both pretty confused at the point. he then pops one in his combo vhs/dvd player and it's him getting blown by some poor chick with really fuckin terrible roots, he then puts the shirt over his slovenly body, turns to my friend and says, "this good?"
it is one of the most surreal, ridiculous moments of my life.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by edIII on Wednesday November 15 2017, @12:23AM
I'm right there with you. That being said though, in my head it was Tom Sizemore playing the role of Tom Sizemore, and he nailed it. I did not need to suspend disbelief at all.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:04PM (1 child)
Profit had nothing to do with it.
You can't hearken back to those halcyon days of a research network (funded by the defense advanced research projects agency), and pretend that it got all dirty only when it move into a for profit universe.
Nor can you assume having your own IP range and inspecting every single bit of outgoing traffic against a master list was ever a solution, was ever actually practiced in the real world. We invented laptops for a reason fella!
When it was just you and your neighbor buddy talking on the tin-can-and-string telephone your mom's were still listening.
This whole idea of Certificates is just a symptom. Security was bolted onto the internet, and IP addresses could be spoofed and were never intended to be a personal identifier any more than a street sign was.
Its time to rethink this mess. I'm beginning to think these guys [temperednetworks.com] may actually have something in their implementation of identity defined networks (in depth pdf [temperednetworks.com]. Its been around a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_Identity_Protocol [wikipedia.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:20PM
"it's time to rethink this mess"
I politely disagree. Fuck no. There exists no method, to make right what is crooked in such a way. Without totally rebooting whole of society, without merging Man and Machine, without executing every capitalist supporter of this horrible religion known as economics, the Internet will remain a slave to the commercial interests.
There is no saving that which doesn't want to be saved. There is no technical solution to a social problem. I'm sorry.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:01PM (40 children)
If the CIA does this, then they are doing what they are chartered to do. This is their mission.
If they actually perform their mission instead of blowing the money on conferences and fancy chairs and worse, then they are being good.
Malware is bad. That "mal" part should be a hint. Since this stuff would be good (see above), it can't be malware.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:04PM
What's good for the CIA is always good for the American people.
This is goodware. Until it gets used by the "bad guys".
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:05PM
Somebody mod this up +10 doubleplusgood!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:07PM (30 children)
True.
The problem is that the M-16 was designed for legal use by trained military personnel, and we now that it's widely available to the public, have lots of unstable people hurting innocents.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:19PM (26 children)
Erm... You're not a gun person, are you? The difference between a plain old deer rifle and an AR-15 is pretty much entirely cosmetic. The difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is the former has an automatic setting and the latter most certainly does not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:28PM (20 children)
Yes, I know the difference, and the fact that it is not relevant to the point, as we have twice seen recently.
Also, my grandpa would kick our asses if he saw us hunting deer with an angular black 5.56 semi-auto with a 30-round clip.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:39PM (17 children)
Oh it most certainly is relevant. Looking scary is what is irrelevant. I get that you and the other people having cows lately are scared. It's a perfectly reasonable response. Letting your emotions control your mind though, that is the exact opposite of the meaning of the word "rational".
And the only two things your grandfather would have objected to would be the color (which is easily remedied) and the fact that a .223 round performs somewhat poorly for deer hunting. Everything else about the rifle is objectively better suited to hunting than the rifle he carried as a young man.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:56PM (6 children)
Does black hide residue better? I have heard of the rare pink AR-15, but that's it. Black, black, black...
I'd expect the norm to be camo, both regular and deer-hunter-orange.
I'd expect a wide variety of polished metals to be popular: chrome, titanium, silver...
Some bastard needs to make one mostly out of bright translucent plastic, with a white barrel showing through, and an orange tip. :-)
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 14 2017, @08:17PM (5 children)
For military use, polished metals are out because they're too visible from a distance and can give your position away to the enemy. Matte black eliminates that problem. You could do camo, but that probably costs more, it probably wasn't available back when the M-16 was new (I see it now on hunter's guns, but I've only been seeing it in the last decade or so, probably because of improved paint technology--gun barrels get really hot), and the military probably doesn't want to mess with it because black is simple and works well.
For civilian use, they probably don't use polished metals on military-style rifles because then they wouldn't be military-style any more. Civilians buying military-style guns want everything to look "tactical", because they seem to think they're one day going to need to use those guns to shoot at alien invaders or zombies or something. Civilians who are into fancy guns get ones that aren't military-style (i.e. AR-15 derivative), and those frequently do have polished metals in places. There's a bunch of ultra-fancy (and expensive) shotguns with chrome or nickel plated barrels and hardware, dark walnut woodwork, etc. There's also nickel-plated handguns that'll blind you from the glare. I guess it just depends on what you're into: if you think you're going to have to fight off zombie hordes in 5 years, then a black AR-15 is going to be your gun of choice. If you're trying to impress people at the country club, then nickel-and-walnut is going to be your style.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:24PM
Well here is one that is not going to survive the zombie apocalypse! Matte black so as not to give your location away to zombies? The ones with rotten or missing eyeballs? Actually, the reflected glare is actually quite effective at repelling zombies. Thus the nickel-plate for the Country Club. I
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:43PM
A matter of taste, I know, but I do prefer AK series.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:57PM (2 children)
I'll let you in on a secret. Civilians who've always been civilians buy military-looking weapons almost exclusively because they look cool. Veterans, when they buy the civilian model of their service weapon, do so because they know the thing like the back of their hand.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:10PM (1 child)
> Veterans, when they buy the civilian model of their service weapon, do so because they know the thing like the back of their hand.
And/or they buy it because of the memories of who they were and what they did, when wielding that weapon was their identity.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:51PM
Some nostalgia there too, yeah.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @08:07PM (3 children)
> I get that you and the other people having cows lately are scared.
I was just drawing a parallel between two set of weapons designed for war, ending up in untrusted hands.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:23PM (2 children)
Right but you seem to be under the misapprehension that guns "designed for war" are more deadly than "ordinary" guns. They're not. Truth of the matter is, a good hunting rifle is better suited to a round of "snipe the innocent bystander" than an AR-15 ever will be. Why? Because they're heavier. Less muzzle movement during recoil, so it's faster to re-aim. There is precisely one thing on an M-16 (excluding automatic fire) that makes it any more dangerous than any other rifle: the bayonet mount. And that's not been used in any mass killings that I've heard of.
Most of the differences that make something an assault rifle? They're there because of conditions unique to war and offer little to no benefit to a civilian; even a wackjob, murderous civilian. Mud, sand, dirt resistance. Daily use for extended periods of time. The need to fire all night long without giving the barrel a chance to cool down. Lighter thus easier to carry over endless miles. Things like that. The differences make for a better service weapon but they don't make it any more deadly.
High capacity magazines are another matter but they're by no means unique to military-styled weapons. You can get a thirty round magazine for an ordinary deer rifle. M-16s by contrast, use a twenty round magazine. The military figured out long ago that the longer springs in the thirty round M-16 magazines wore out too quickly to be useful to them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @11:03PM (1 child)
You seem to imply that there is no reason whatsoever why civilians should have access to derivatives of military weapons, since there is no benefit outside of a formal war zone. (grin, as he says)
> a good hunting rifle is better suited to a round of "snipe the innocent bystander"
If you're going for one target.
But "spray the churchgoers with 450 bullets in a few minutes" is a game that is unquestionably better played with those weapons that have been optimized to optimize the lethality of each soldier on the battlefield, even without mods to avoid the hassle of semi-auto.
To get slightly back on topic, the CIA/NSA code leaks similarly make script kiddies (and pros, local or foreign) a whole lot more dangerous than they would be without the big-budget weaponized hacks, which they now get without even a pretense of "semi-auto" conversion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @11:42PM
No, I would never imply something like that. That presupposes that civilians need permission to own weapons.
Exactly the opposite. If you're aiming and going after multiple targets, a heavier rifle will always get you a higher kill count.
You're thinking full-auto. You can't spray with any kind of semi-automatic; no matter how scary it looks. You aim, fire into a crowd so densely packed that you literally can't miss, or miss with any semi-automatic weapon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:19PM (5 children)
George Nelson: "Cows! I hate cows worse than coppers!" Delmar O'Donnell: "Oh, George... not the livestock."
Anybody using their scaredy-cat looking wanna-be soldier gun on cattle deserves to be hung. Just saying. And, you are not being rational, Buzzie. I suspect it is the ammosexual in you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:27PM (4 children)
When I was about six years old, I asked my dad when cow season was. He got a good laugh out of that.
Just an FYI though: I own one firearm and have yet to put a single round through it since I got it. I'm more of a liberty-sexual.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:20AM (3 children)
Is that like Freedom Fries?
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:16AM (2 children)
Nah, I have a thing for that New York chick with the torch.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:00AM (1 child)
She's a legal immigrant, yet they never let her get past Ellis Island.
Discrimination against the French, I guess.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday November 16 2017, @04:51AM
Now that I have learned that not only is The Mighty Buzzard not really a Native American, but that also he only owns one gun, that he has never fired? Oh My Gawd! What kind of anarchist right libertarian can you be with a questionable racial purity, but more importantly a lack of actual ammosexual orgasmic activity, shared with lots of other men, um, in a totally firearms and not at all gay way? I am just asking. Are you not a total fraud, TMB? A complete "internet" libertarian, all talk, and no ammo. I should have known. TMB's attempt to censor me just expose the fact that he has never fired his weapon. If he had, he would understand what I am talking about, instead of being taken in by the purveyors of right-wing homosexual homo-phobic propaganda.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)
Which is why its already illegal to hunt with that big magazine.
He'd probably kick your ass for wasting that much meat, because 5.56 does exactly that. Ballistic Gel wound track [youtube.com].
Varminting? That's another story.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:02AM
A big magazine might work on small game, but you have the problems of distance and accuracy, and the critter being somewhat flattened by any magazine sized enough to be lethal. For larger game, such as White-tailed deer, I guess you could take one, if the magazine had many pages and you got close enough, and landed the magazine in the right spot, more difficult when antlers are involved. But still, that is no reason to make hunting with a large magazine illegal! Back in the day, Gramps kilt a bear with the Sears-and Roebucks catalog! Kids these days and their need for auto-reloading rifles and auto-matic transmissions and auto-correct phones. . . . Gramps would cry if he could see this. Make America Grate Ag'in! Legalize hunting deer with magazines!!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 14 2017, @08:10PM (4 children)
The difference between a plain old deer rifle and an AR-15 is pretty much entirely cosmetic.
I'm quite sure this is entirely wrong. A plain old deer rifle is going to be in some caliber in the .30 range, probably either .308 for a newer one, or .30-06 for a really old one. Who uses 5.56mm to hunt deer? The 5.56 round was designed for combat use in battlefield rifles, as it's small and lightweight, letting you carry more ammo than the older .308 rounds used in WWII-era M1 rifles. It's also less powerful so it's easier to shoot. The downside is the range is lower, but that's not really important for what it's used for; if you're sniping, you'll be using a different rifle (one that's a lot more similar to that deer rifle).
Also, *old* deer rifles are usually bolt-action, not semi-auto. Bolt-action rifles are more accurate, though the difference these days is probably a more slight than it was when the M-16 was first deployed. Bolt-action rifles are also a lot cheaper, since they're so simple.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:46PM (3 children)
I did mention that .223 was ill suited for deer hunting, didn't I? I thought I did anyway. It does more damage but gives you less of a chance at an instant kill, thus making you have to follow a blood trail and likely have to drag your deer a hell of a long way. The caliber was irrelevant to the comparison though.
FYI: "plain old" == "ordinary". There's no age aspect to the phrase.
As for carrying more ammo, you're correct in theory but incorrect for practical purposes, including mass shootings. It's not difficult to carry enough loaded magazines to kill so many people that you just get tired of killing them and want a nap; regardless of caliber. Though I'll grant you your back will thank you later if you choose a .22 as your implement of death.
Hope that cleared things up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:51AM (2 children)
You completely ignored the whole bolt-action vs. semi-auto point I made. "Plain old deer rifles" are not semi-auto (esp. if they're "old").
As for carrying ammo, you're forgetting that actual soldiers generally do a LOT of walking, so an extra several pounds of weight is significant. The weight of the gun itself is significant too (smaller-caliber rifle = lighter-weight rifle), both for carrying and for firing. And actual soldiers don't kill a lot of people: almost all the ammo they expend doesn't hit the target, is used as cover fire, etc. Deer hunters don't have these factors: they don't need much ammo, they carry their rifles on their backs with a sling (they're not exactly worried about being ambushed by deer), they don't really need semi-auto capability (and in fact that means a more complicated gun that's less accurate for distance shots and needs more maintenance).
The military guns that actually do resemble deer hunters' rifles a lot (and many in fact are derived from them) are the ones that snipers use.
Hope that cleared things up.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:30AM (1 child)
Depends on your definition of old. Fifty years ago you would have used a semi-auto unless you personally needed the extra accuracy or you just thought bolt-action was sexier.
Trust me, I didn't forget the weight. Every single unit I was in stuck me with an M-60 within a month of my arrival. We're specifically talking about civilian weapons and ammo needs here though. Carrying five rounds or fifty hunting doesn't make enough of a weight difference to matter; might as well take fifty. Caliber and weight addressed elsewhere.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:24AM
People like you either give hunters a bad name, or enable mass-murderers. Hunters, unless they are on the long hunt, only need two rounds. One for the shot, another for the Coup d'Grace. Now, you may think hunter needs more, for in case the miss the first shot. Usually, when a hunter misses the first shot, there is no second shot, because the hunter is really no hunter at all. So there it is. Anyone carrying fifty rounds, with or without magazines to carry some fraction of that, needs to be shot down immmediately! Because they are no hunter, they are a mass murder! And you would have known that if you knew their family and the history of domestic abuse and the support for Trump and general anti-social misogynist tendencies that accompanied the accumulation of really pathetic .22 caliber guns (really, what kind of real man shoots anything below .30 cal? Are these High School warriors we are talking about here? Wolverines?) of a high rate of fire, which indicates cowardice and mental instability. If anyone owns a AR-15, in any, and I do mean ANY, of its civilian guises, we need to find that person, lay down a field of suppressive fire, and hope that we can take the poor crazy pathetic coward alive, by only wounding him. Yes, it is always, ALWAYS, a guy. I suggest targeting the left nut. Nothing says "you ought to surrender" more than having your left nut shot off. Unless, it is having your right nut shot off. Either way. Find these crazed violent bastards, before they strike again. Clock is ticking on this week. . . .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @08:12PM (2 children)
"designed for legal use by trained military personnel"
which is exactly the kinds of arms the framers said the public should have, as being able to defend against an out of control gov was the main point of the 2nd amendment. they might not have even bothered if it was just about hunting as that was just expected to be a given. they never imagined slaves like you might exist one day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:13AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @12:34PM
That one is a strawman*, but better question is (and has been, since the founding fathers) "So do we have civilian artillery yet?", or in this age and day "So do we have civillian tanks, fighter jets, ground attack aircraft, SAMs, ... and all the other things needed to counter a well-armed standing military, if need be."
*(Nuclear weapon, or any WMD for that matter, is weapon to inflict terror upon enemy civilians in order to scare them into submission or just extinguish them. It is of no use to civilians against their government, which is presumably relatively small in numbers and not so geographically separated and concentrated)
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:09PM (2 children)
Their mission was never to spy on American Citizens.
Yet I wager most of their efforts were centered here in the US, because its easier to sneak stuff onto a computer on Wall Street than it is to sneak it onto a computer in Bagdad or Moscow.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:50PM (1 child)
You are assuming they'd risk discovery of everything just to look into a local place where somebody could simply send the SWAT team. That's absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:28PM
Yes, it's absurd. Which is why it has been proven that our governments conducts unconstitutional mass surveillance on the populace. Does the NSA ring a bell? Maybe Edward Snowden? Oh, but I'm sure the CIA would never do this, because they're special. They're special, just like you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:59PM (3 children)
I'm not sure if you're a Poe (I've heard this argument made in good faith IRL), but if your definition of "malware" changes based on which country it's being used in then it isn't a very useful definition to be using in a global dialogue; note that we're on the internet. The "harm" part of malware should be relative to the interests of the user, not any particular government. I've never seen a formal definition of the word that mentioned legality, though I'd be interested if you know of any.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:17PM (2 children)
Most people on soylentnews are in the USA. Nearly all of the rest are in countries that are pretty well aligned with the USA, such as the FIVEEYES countries.
So something the USA deploys against a random country is likely good from the perspective of a typical soylentnews reader. For example, a reader in Australia might benefit from something deployed in Indonesia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @08:53AM
First of all, the US spies on its allies too.
Second, it also spies on it's own citizens.
Neither of the above is good from the perspective of the people being spied on.
And third, malware IS defined from the point of view of the owner. So the only way what the government wants comes into play is if you define the government as the owner of the citizens. And that would mean living in a monarchy or dictatorship.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:32PM
What? You realize that people don't have to agree with their government, right? Your way of thinking is bizarre. Especially here, many people despise what the government is doing, even to foreigners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:00PM
Quite impossible to miss them failing. If there is talk about fake certs fooling anyone, there is something else that is fake.
Especially the words "pretending to be signed" do not make any sense at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @11:19PM (2 children)
To keep a balanced, modern, politically correct, no-discriminatory policy, WikiLeaks should now go full out to UP THE FUN. We need a big juicy leak of Russian and Chinese intel spycode and a leak of Norkies naughty pen-tools for malware deployment. Goal and challenge laid out, now get to it WikiLeakers!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:22AM
WikiLeaks is only as good as its sources, and state-sponsored hackers are typically the most resourceful. Russia and China employ criminal hackers to add a little deniability and get access to top notch talent, and they seem to have no problem using them to dump hacked stuff online. The NSA's TAO on the other hand is losing talent and morale [nytimes.com], and is too bureaucratic and hostile towards WikiLeaks to utilize it as their own dumping grounds. They also want to keep vulns/tools secret and stockpiled because they had the best collection... at least until recently.
Will the U.S. execute Reality Winner? Unlikely. Try leaking in Russia or China and see what happens if you get caught.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @08:56AM
The difference is unlike the other countries mentioned the US claims the moral high ground. And is the biggest player as of now.
However since the US tortures and massively surveils people they certainly have no moral superiority and it's perfectly OK to spy and torture US citizens. If you dislike this logic, you should be rather angry at the US politicians who used this reasoning for their actions... And such affronts can never be repaired ever.