doctorow — 2014-08-22T10:01:03-04:00 — #1
boundegar — 2014-08-22T10:24:33-04:00 — #2
So you can imagine one part of GCHQ is trying to break Tor, the other part is trying to make sure it's not broken because they're relying on it to do their work.
Clever. But if they identify a weakness, it does not follow that GCHQ is vulnerable. That's only when the opponent identifies a weakness. I don't think they share these things.
jandrese — 2014-08-22T11:05:15-04:00 — #3
In computer security if you find a flaw you have to assume that you are not the first person to find it, especially if it can be exploited without giving itself away. Sitting on a flaw only makes sense if you don't use the software.
lemoutan — 2014-08-22T11:06:32-04:00 — #4
But they're spies. Sharing is one of their known unknowns - I mean unknown knowns.
lemoutan — 2014-08-22T11:09:01-04:00 — #5
Or if you use it to disseminate misinformation. Assuming you know the arity of your opponent's agency.
sanford_may — 2014-08-22T12:40:20-04:00 — #6
The "vast number" of NSA analysts disgruntled over spying on Americans is likely vastly overstated. It's a job. It's a good job with good pay and good benefits and the heat works real well in winter. People will go a long way to justify what they do at a good job, no matter how reprehensible it may seem on its face. It's a nice fantasy to believe the spies are on our side but they're not: they're on their side, which is also their employer's side.
tekna2007 — 2014-08-22T12:49:16-04:00 — #7
I agree with that, for the vast number of cases. The good news here (if the assumption about the source of the bug reports is correct) is that the number of spies with an alternate view is not zero, and as we've all seen, just one can do a lot of good. Some is way better than none.
doctorow — 2014-08-27T10:01:05-04:00 — #8
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.