Slashdot Log In
McAfee Will Ignore FBI Spyware
Posted by
chrisd
on Sat Nov 24, 2001 08:22 PM
from the big-brother-tries-on-a-pink-shirt dept.
from the big-brother-tries-on-a-pink-shirt dept.
Drew writes: "The Washington Post is reporting on the FBI's new spyware called 'Magic Lantern.' According to their article, 'At least one antivirus software company, McAfee Corp., contacted the FBI on Wednesday to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a criminal suspect.' It is ridiculous that the software companies that are supposed to help us protect computers purposefully leave in loopholes for the FBI to operate their spyware."
Related Stories
[+]
Will Security Firms Detect Police Spyware? 269 comments
cnet-declan writes "A recent appeals court case dealt with Drug Enforcement Administration agents using a key logger to investigate a suspect using PGP and Hushmail. That invites the obvious question: Will security companies ever intentionally overlook police spyware? There were somewhat-muddled reports in 2001 that Symantec and McAfee would do just that, so over at News.com we figured we'd do a survey of the top 13 security firms. We asked them if it is their policy to detect policeware. Notably, Check Point said it would 'afford law enforcement' the courtesy of whitelisting if requested. We've also posted the full results, with the companies' complete answers. Another question we asked is if they have ever received a court order requiring them to overlook police key loggers or spyware. Symantec, IBM, Kaspersky, and others said no. Only Microsoft and McAfee refused to answer."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Fucking Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Fabulous, I hope everyone feels safer already.
Re:Fucking Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Best thing: Download software from trusted companies and entities only, make backups of your registry and boot drive often, don't open attachments in email from those you don't fully trust not to carry viruses, and keep up to date on what new viruses are out there and how they operate.
This doesn't affect me much. Just wish we knew how the FBI's virus would work so it could be stopped at the router or mail server level.
Re:Fucking Great (Score:3, Insightful)
I end up relying not only on you, but on the people you claim to be trusted.
This is remarkably similar to trusting physically promiscuous people to not carry something transmittable to me.
I approve of the steps you take, but how can I be sure all the people you trust take those steps as well?
Re:Fucking Great (Score:3, Funny)
Magic Lantern benefits crackers! (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, these aren't loopholes for the FBI. McAfee will ignore this loophole, and that will allow CRACKERS to get into your system. This program, which is intended to prevent people from getting into your computer, will happily ignore all cracking that takes place through the same loopholes as this so-called Magic Lantern.
Oh well... Next time, use OpenBSD.
Re:Magic Lantern benefits crackers! (Score:3, Redundant)
It certainly raises the possibility ... but if McAfee is competant, it's only a small one. Magic Lantern is probably going to log information passively, and maybe send it to fbi.gov . It's not going to open up ports with shells attached to them. It's not going to propagate itself. It's not going to mail passwords to leet@haxors.ru . It's basically not going to do anything that a self-respecting malware author wants.
So sure, maybe you could write Amazing Lightbulb, that McAfee can't distinguish from Magic Lantern. But it probably couldn't do anything interesting, because if it tried, McAfee would know it isn't Magic Lantern.
(Ultimately, of course, malware versus anti-malware is an arms race, and a sufficiently clever hack can no doubt evade McAfee. Possibly, Magic Lantern code in McAfee might make it marginally easier; but anyone who's smart enough to evade McAfee can probably do it either way. And in a week or three, McAfee will issue an update, and the next round will begin.)
FWIW, my take is that if court-authorized spyware warrants get the FBI to relax their anti-encryption stance, they're probably a good thing.
Re:Magic Lantern benefits crackers! (Score:3)
It's still based on signatures, not operating patterns.
Re:Magic Lantern benefits crackers! (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct. This is one of the major problems with virus scanners, they tend to be vulnerable to The New Virus.
Yes. McAfee calculates the signature from the code. Presumably, the way it works around Magic Lantern is by some code that looks like this:
if virusSignature == magicLantern then return(1);
else doCleanVirus();
Therefore, if an enterprising virus writer can synthesize a virus that does something different, but causes McAfee to detect the same signature, it's happycakes time.
That said, McAfee has always sucked donkey donuts. Norton is better; however, the only PC-based antivirus product I ever really had a lot of respect for was IBM AntiVirus, partly because it was the only one that could detect virii it didn't already know about. Sigh. It's long gone though.
Re:Magic Lantern benefits crackers! (Score:3, Troll)
- Mail all passwords to me@fbi.org
This particular example is silly: any software smart enough to detect and stop outgoing mail would probably 1) use the IP address of fbi.gov to allow Magic Lantern and 2) flag the modification of the hosts file as suspicious. However, ...
Virus writers are smart. Very smart some times... keep this in mind please ;-)
(Heck, if Magic Lantern does send mail to spooks@fbi.gov, and you can subvert the router on the victim's network, you can just infect him with the real Magic Lantern and you win!)
a call for a document (Score:2, Interesting)
does anyone know of a URL for a well-written anti-microsoft screed that would be understood by my grandmother? something that intelligently synthesizes arguments against hailstorm/passport/closed source/key escrow/etc. and for the adoption of free software?
Re:a call for a document (Score:2)
If you find one, let me know. My experience is there aren't any. Pretty much most documents I've read on the subject either fall WAY too heavy on the "FREE AS IN SPEECH" aspect of things (which I don't agree with - not *every* piece of software should be FREE like that imo), or it falls into the "micro$haft"-style of writing - making overly broad criticisms of MS and overpomising on the benefits on 'non-MS' stuff.
"My Lunix box has been up for 8 years without a reboot!" doesn't really mean jack-squat to most people, especially when they don't often experience downtimes with Windows. I can match every "WindoZe sux!" story with equally painful Linux experiences (X basically sucking, software crashing, etc.)
There does need to be some more good literature on this topic - the Cathedral and Bazaar wasn't bad, but I lost my copy and we need more anyway!
What about linux users? (Score:4, Funny)
So I guess for linux users, the email would probably look like the following:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please make sure you are root when you execute this file.
Thanks,
The FBI
Re: linux user could be vulnerable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about linux users? (Score:4, Funny)
I think it is more likely that the trojan would look like:
if(uptime()>3500000) {
ExploitLocalRootHole();
DoEvilStuff();
} else {
WaitUntilNextLocalRootHoleDiscovered();
ExploitNewLocalRootHole();
DoEvilStuff();
};
Parent
Some potential ways to protect oneself from Magic (Score:2)
Another option: I wonder what a port sniffer/firewall would see while the Magic happened? If anyone posting to slashdot thinks the Feds might want to shine a Lantern on them, could you try this experiment? We won't know whether you really have ML installed until you're disappeared, of course, but at that point your data might prove useful.
Re:Some potential ways to protect oneself from Mag (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a hell of a bet to make if you're a criminal. There are a reasonable number of remote-root exploits for Linux, and it's possible that they're may be unknown ones out there.
I mean, Christ, the FBI isn't that stupid, I'm sure they have the resources to port software to different platforms, even if they need a totally new codebase.
US dictating foreign users rights as well? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I really need to get this off my chest here.
How will this affect copies of software sold countries outside the US? Will my AV software end up crippled and able to be exploited by those who have reverse engineered the "FBI Friendly" code?
Why is this acceptable? Because the good old US Government wishes to remove the much-lauded freedom of its citizens, the rest of the world also loses those freedoms. Will McAfee for example really bother to have a US-only version with the FBI-lover code in it, and remove that code from all other versions? Even if they say they have, how will we know???
Grrrrrrrrr....
Re:US dictating foreign users rights as well? (Score:2, Insightful)
Beyond Here Lies Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
For those that would point out that convincing someone to click on an attachment is social engineering and not really an exploit, I'd like to point out that there are mechanisms that can be put in place both at by the OS or the mail reader to make things like clicking attachments less dangerous (automatically running attachments as a user with minimal privileges is one of them). But given that the FBI is relying on OSes not to make doing this easy would applications or OSes that tend towards security start to face the same stigma and negative association that encryption has faced since the events of 9-11?
Re:Beyond Here Lies Paranoia (Score:2)
It doesn't need to be as complex as that. They could just require that all computers contain a user account named 'fbi', group 'root', password 'jedGaRHoOVer'. Simple.
Failure to support the account would be considered an act of harboring terrorists. Civilians using this account would be considered impersonating a federal agent: that's illegal, so there won't be a problem with unauthorized access.
Re:Beyond Here Lies Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we all have a reason to be paranoid...
"REAL SMART" (NOT) (Score:2)
I'm glad the PC world feels safe with virus scanners installed.
Here's McAfee's contact page (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mcafee.com/aboutus/contact_us.asp? [mcafee.com]
McAfee.com Corporate Headquarters
McAfee.com
535 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
USA
Telephone: (408) 992-8100
Fax: (408) 720-8450
Why? (Score:2)
Or is that the NSA?
But honestly, if virus writers can bypass virus-scanners, why can't the Feds?
Is There a Difference? (Score:5, Funny)
They've been ignoring viruses for years. Why change now?
;)
Knunov
Norton won't do this (Score:3)
If McAfee does not, then they should be investigated by the FTC for marketing a low quality product.
FBI - Classic magician's trick? (Score:4, Insightful)
It just may be that the FBI's so-called "Magic Lantern" is a classic magician's trick. They are telling the whole world that this Magic Lantern is a technology that will seek out and destroy every dangerous criminal on the face of the planet. They're marketing it as an unbeatable technology that works on EVERY SINGLE COMPUTER IN THE WORLD (that is, every one that's running Windows). They're causing lusers to think that there really is some kind of crimefighting technology when it's really nothing more than a bug which allows crackers to compromise Windows.
Then, the criminals who are trying to avoid the FBI see this and talk to someone who understands computers. That person tells them how to patch their system to remove the vulnerability.
Here's where the classic trick takes place. The criminal thinks he's immune from the Lantern, so he goes on with business as usual. He writes down his drug trafficking records or whatever, and then the FBI goes in behind his back, using some other system that nobody knows about, and gets the information.
I'm not saying this is what's going on. On the contrary--government people are really stupid, and even more so when it comes to computers. But I'm saying this is a possibility, and I'll try not to discount the FBI's intelligence just yet.
Oh well.
Re:FBI - Classic magician's trick? (Score:3, Informative)
I'll assume you are talking about American Government.
The government in America does have one, very special, magical power that you seem to be neglecting, it has the support of the people it is regulating. This is from where it derives its power, and its authority to use such power. So in one sense, sure the government is just a bunch of people, a bunch of people who have the support of a majority (well...) of the rest of the people
--Alex Fishman
Anti-virus isn't security (Score:2)
In this case, they'll probably just not write a detector for ML, and it won't get caught. If someone writes something similar to ML, they'll probably just test their detector to make sure it only catches the intended virus and not ML.
McAfee is in the business of stopping particular exploits, not of fixing anything. That's why people keep getting new viruses that aren't significantly different from old viruses.
Of course, ML doesn't seem to be designed to spread all over the net, so McAfee probably wouldn't do anything about it anyway, any more than they do anything about other non-automated security breaches.
Evidence of Cluelessness at Every Level (Score:3, Interesting)
But moreover, it shows an economic cluelessness, inviting competitors to provide a service they do not. Even worse, it is one thing to sell a "here's some filters, we're trying to keep the buggers out," program, but another thing entirely to sell one KNOWING that it will permit viruses to go undetected. That additional scientermight even invite litigation from companies injured by their recklessness.
In short, it is amazing what a little jingoism can do to get people to lose their minds.
All they have done is make a nation weaker. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Net result is that we have made an internet security infrastructure even weaker than it was before. While this overall approach is not likely to beat up on well-informed criminals and terrorists, it does weaken everybody else's system, making the nation even more vulnerable to actual cyberterrorism than it was before.
All we have done is to make a nation weaker.
Interesting Situation (Score:5, Informative)
1) signatures -specific byte patterns which are searched for in files, and
2) heuristics - in this case algorithms which seek unlikely looking data to determine whether the user should be alerted to a possible intrusion attempt.
McAfee can of course omit signatures for this 'Magic Lantern' (ML) software from their database. However, in the case of the heuristics, avoiding user notification of ML requires either:
a) a weakening of the heuristic(s), presumably to such an extent that other viruses may penetrate the system or
b) the presence of a special signature in the McAfee software which (on recognizing ML) can 'override' the heuristic
Case (b) is interesting. If McAfee do this with a simple byte pattern search this will immediately provide viruses with a neat little 'binary tag' which permits them to evade McAfee's software
The alternative must be to use a cryptographic hash which can be used to identify ML but which cannot be readily forged by other virus code. Using this checksum technique also demands that the ML 'payload' remain unchanged. Very restrictive for code which needs to be stealthy.
But the most important side-effect of both of these techniques - and any others McAfee might choose to use, would be that it provides an easy route for developers to produce software which can check for ML.
In other words, McAfee cannot both provide useful levels of virus detection and avoid alerting the user to Magic Lantern without giving other developers a blueprint to locate it.
I'm going to vote with my dollars.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Will be interesting to see what the marketplace thinks of this move when their stocks start trading again on Monday.
F-Prot [f-prot.com] isn't based in the States, and maybe they will provide the protection users want.
How long will it be... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can lock a UNIX box down tighter than a virgin whore if you know what you're doing. And with the current IT job shortage, I bet Don Parcheesi can find a pet UNIX geek or three dirt cheap. Or some trustworthy ones for a bit more.
The real irony. (Score:3, Funny)
Trust is absolutely necessary to have democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to protect ourselves vigorously from crime. However, creating secret agencies who are able to commit crimes themselves is not the way to protect ourselves.
Already there is a serious problem with people committing some destructive act and claiming it was done by the CIA or other U.S. government secret agency. There is no good defense against this, because people worldwide know that the U.S. government secret agencies routinely break the law. How could it be proven that the FBI, CIA, or NSA, or some other secret agency didn't do a particular crime?
The U.S. FBI, CIA, and NSA are now worldwide surveillance agencies. They are supported by Americans who are not allowed to know how much of their money is spent on surveillance. United States citizens are not allowed to know what the U.S. government secret agencies are doing, so they don't know if the agencies are doing things they would now support.
The people who work for the FBI are often not smart people. They don't realize that trust is absolutely necessary in a democracy. They have often in the past not shown understanding of the other needs of democracy. They have often acted like secret police. They often believe in killing or other ways of being destructive as a way of curing some ill in society.
Now they will be attacking computers like the criminals. They will say that they are doing it only to solve crimes, but it is socially impossible to control this kind of thing. Once the principle is established that a secret agency can break the law, there is in practice no limit to what some people in that agency might feel "justified" in doing. Consider your own experience. When has the boss had complete knowledge and complete control over the actions of employees? Never. A company's only good policy is to hire open and honest people and to encourage honesty and genuine caring.
The FBI's influence will mean that the U.S. taxpayer's money will become a powerful force in preserving security holes, instead of closing them. Generally, this kind of software has had holes of its own. You may be attacked by a cracker exploiting a security hole created by FBI software. Governments will detect FBI snooping software and feed the FBI erroneous information.
This is all support for people who like snooping and sneaking. It is not actually a way to reduce crime. It is for adults who like to treat the whole world as a video game. It is for the kind of people who think of themselves as James Bond, who like the idea of being able to kill other people legally.
How U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Multiple abuses of Magic Lantern.(Long) (Score:3, Interesting)
Do illegal stuff online, and be conspicuous about it. If you are already involved in organized crime, this will be easy. Do all your stuff using PGP on a Windows 2000 base install. Regularly talk on the phone to your buddies about those idiot FBI agents who can't read your encrypted email. Make sure to do everything with LCD montitors so that the FBI has to crack the email instead of just tapping your CRT. Get a geek to learn a lot about virus operation so that he can regularly check the system and snag the virus.
As soon as the virus pops up, keep playing along. Send out encrypted crap messages that make no sense, and appear to be written in code words so that the FBI spends more time trying to crack THAT code after cracking the message. At the same time, decompile the virus and figure out how it works. Alter the virus to be self-propigating and extremely malicious, destroying all filesystems on infected machines and shutting them down while residing only in memory to prevent people from finding the virus on disk.
After a few days, set up an online store selling anti-virus software at $19.95 a seat licensing. Encrypt everything the program contains with the exception of an executable, so that no other virus company can figure out how it works without violating the DMCA.
Laugh at the FBI agents who are too busy trying to figure out what all your code words are to notice you raking in millions with a foreign company selling anti-virus software, move to Zug, and retire.
I admit, that scenario is a bit of a stretch. A more likely scheme (And what will likely happen very soon.) is a few good crackers decompile antivirus software from McAffee and Norton, both American companies that will allow the FBI virus through, and compare it with antivirus software from foreign firms, which will likely block the FBI virus to prevent the USA from spying on their companies as the USA does with echelon. Bingo, killer virus in no time flat, watch it take the world by storm. And before any of you bother to post about how the FBI will manage to keep all the details secret so that this doesn't happen, think about this; if the FBI could manage to keep a secret, we would not know about things like Magic Lantern and Carnivore to begin with.
I want to thank the FBI for fucking over America with their inability to realize the dire consequences of their poorly-planned actions. By doing this the FBI is screwing over:
1- All of the companies around the world, especially in the US, that will spend a ton of money dealing with the downtime caused by the first virus to exploit the Magic Lantern backdoors.
2- All of the American antivirus software companies who will lose market share to foreign software companies who do not leave FBI backdoors in their products.
3- Microsoft, who will likely be accused of leaving FBI backdoors in Windows, and who will lose market share when a virus sweeps the Windows world on a level that shames Code Red I and II.
4- All the Windows admins out there who will now have to rebuild all of their compromised machines, and switch to antivirus software by companies that do not leave backdoors for the FBI.
An alternative problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that occurs to me is that, back when I was an easily amused kid I used to capture computer viruses, dissect them and study them. If Magic Lantern is genuinely going to be an effective way to retreive data -- and if it's a virus designed by a team of top-level professionals, which it is likely to be, then it should be so -- then how long a matter of time is it going to be before everyone and his mad bastard cousin starts to make copies of this virus and mutate it for their own ends? This seems like it would quickly become a valuable corporate espionage tool, and then a personal espionage tool, and then just a total disaster area.
The problem with this is, if they design a powerful cracking tool which by its nature must be primarily built out of code resident on the target's machine, it's only a brief matter of time before such software and any upgrades thereof enter the mainstream of black-hat equipment.
Frankly, I'm not looking forward to script kiddies with tools like this...
Remember the Constitution! (Score:4, Interesting)
Owning a weapon is a priviledge, let alone owning a weapon and carrying it on your person. "The right to bear arms." You need specific reason now to carry a concealed weapon, why is that? I'm an american citizen, if I want to carry a
Sorry using an example of the breakdown of our constitutional rights.
This really disturbs me. Between Carnivore and now Magic Lantern, we have pretty much given up all rights to privacy on the internet. I know that most of you will say that its been likely that the government has been monitoring traffic for some time anyways secretly, now we are publically accepting this as "ok in the name of our safety." Don't think they monitor your cell phone calls? Explain how they got voice recordings of the conversations of the doomed flight to Sommerset, PA.
This is disgusting. We are just handing over our freedom and very few people are saying a word. Funny how not all that long ago, the Supreme court ruled that aquiring search warrants based upon thermal readings from a house was illegal and yet they haven't said a word about anything the FBI has been doing.
Its really fscking sad that the alleged "war on terrorism" is really just a lame excuse to quickly remove a good deal of our rights. People in New York City are being searched randomly in Manhattan. What the hell is that? In 10 years can I expected to be searched if I walk down my street? If I have something illegal, is the search unreasonable, or does the court care more about me just having something illegal? If our phones and computers are tapped (lets assume for the moment that they are for the most part) where does the government stop? They can see what I am writing and talking about....why shouldn't they be allowed to see what I am doing in my home without a search warrant? The best part of it is, nobody would even know if they were being watched. I know this has been something people have complained about over the years (as the government has slowly crept into their privacy), but now its really in our faces. 1984 is not very far away indeed.
Let's take Magic Lantern for instance. If one were to disassemble it, it would violate the DMCA ruling. If one were to circumvent it (which likely anyone in their right mind will), the techniques used would likely violate DMCA. (Remember Skylarov?.....)
Can anyone think of software they might use that might possibly violate the DMCA ruling? I can think of a few, and I am not talking about cracking software. Also this makes me wonder about Windows....does DMCA make WINE illegal?
Indeed, the whole issue is a lot like a runaway train coming down the hill. People see it from the distance and don't realize how dire their situation is and eventually the train comes pummeling down into their sleepy little town and destroys it. I wonder how long before we lose all faith in the government entirely. Too bad we decided that we are too weak and lazy to take the government back into our own hands. What's so sad is that the more disillusioned we become with our government the more likely we will feel that it is out of our control. Judging by the recent elections and the completely disgusting turnout, it seems we are just about there. What do we do in 10 years when we don't even have enough voters voting to elect an official?
Its really time to either:
A) Do something about the slippery path we have slid on
or
B) Walk away from it, buy a huge ranch/estate/tract of land, start a community of like minded individuals, and ignore what the government does. I suggest some western states that do not tax their land so you can totally live government free.
Just some random infuriating thoughts I've had lately.....
Zos/Xavius.23
zos[@]winwood.net
Art is the realization of truth - AOS
Logical (Score:4, Funny)
silly - loophole has always been there... (Score:3, Informative)
Most keyloggers don't get reported by most "virus" programs. I think Norton AV does, but then again its "Corporate Edition" might not - keylogging is something a lot of corporations do, believe it or not, and that might be against their target market.
People really concerned with privacy should be using software with anti-keylogging features, which on Windoze machines includes products like Scramdisk (freeware! and with crypto module plug-in support, though not fully tested by the community), its successor DriveCrypt (commercial and untested by the community so far, but made by people who maintained Scramdisk), and I think possibly BestCrypt(commercial but tested somewhat). These all have the ability to mask input against keylogging, to varying degrees. Read the documentation and enable it.
And again, remember. For them to use the keylogger, they have to install it on your system, and have some way to retrieve the info.
Practice good data hygiene, like you should be doing anyway, and you should be fine. If you want to test whether the programs mask effectively, install some program like Back Orifice and have it log while you create and mount containers. If the log shows your password, obviously it's not working.
long history of "official" trojans not detected (Score:3, Insightful)
So, besides magic lantern, you could have the SMS part of Back Office installed, too. And with its weak encryption, it's a greater security risk than BO2K.
More BO2k docs [sourceforge.net] and info [nwinternet.com]
Re:more difficult then it sounds... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:McAffee (Score:4, Informative)
The problem, in my opinion, is that sales of McAfee's products will NOT drop because of this. You're forgetting that 99% of the people who buy that product do so because of FUD--Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. These are people who do not understand computers, viruses, bugs, worms and all kinds of other "marketing" names. They buy McAfee because it will prevent "hackers" (who should be called "crackers") from entering their system and causing their CPU to melt. These people will say, "Well of course McAfee shouldn't detect the FBI's crimefighting behavior." They simply don't know that this is a loophole for crackers (the "hackers" they're afraid of) to take advantage of. And they'll never consider that a possibility.
THAT is the problem with things like this. Just wait a few more days and we'll probably get a Slashdot story about a press release by the FBI telling of a new "technology" (a 4KB program that plugs this loophole) that empowers criminals to rub the Magic Lantern and make a wish that the FBI will leave them alone.
Parent
Re:McAffee (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really true.
Most of the people who buy antivirus software do so because they know they are at risk.
You've seen you rapidly viruses can spread in the time between they're released and the time the AV companies release detection.
And you know that even after the AV companies detect the virus, the virus doesn't die out straight away because there are enough computer users who aren't running AV software to keep it alive.
If you were running IT for a large company, wouldn't you want to be protected from Sircam say, which you know is out there and you know will forward internal documents when it spreads?
The rest is right though
Re:McAffee (Score:2)
I've got even better advice than not running virus protection programs at all: Get FreeBSD, install it, configure a good firewall, maintain the system properly, make backups of your files often, and don't run as root. You won't even need virus protection programs--the system is protected by design.
OH WELL.
Um...what? (Score:3, Offtopic)
-Waldo Jaquith
[1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictio
[2] http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/anthrax.htm [defencejournal.com]
Re:It sounds like Anthrax story (Score:3, Informative)
There is one implied point that I can agree with - development of offensive techniques can come back to bite one. However, the example of anthrax is increadably lax in fact.
Others have already pointed out that anthrax is a natural agent. It is one of few agents known that could be deadly enough to be used as a weapon. Research in this agent have been towards defense against the weapon as well as creating a more effective strain.
One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that this is not the sole realm of the US military nor Mr. Bush (either one). Anthrax research began over 80 years ago. And not just by the US. The Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention produced many signers agreeing to prohibit offensive biological weapons research and production. But it has done little good. There are numerous states and autonomous groups (ie: terrorists) continuing development of biological weapons. And two major signers of the convention, Iraq and the former Soviet Union, later acknologed continued offensive biological weapons programs. Today, there are believed to be at least 17 nations with offensive biological weapons programs.
Iraq itself has claimed to have produced "weaponized" anthrax. There are fears that former USSR scientists have been hired by external interests for their knowledge of anthrax based weapons. And of course, it is unknown how many terrorist organizations have their own biological weapons programs. One known group Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for release of sarin in a Tokyo subway station, attempted to release anthrax and botulism throughout Tokyo on 8 occasions with (thankfully) negative resaults.
The US Army and Mr. Bush may not be helping the situation with the state of biological threats in the world. But they are far from the only cause of this threat.
The threat offered by Magic Lantern is a bit different than anthrax. Defense against biological weapons are, for the most part, a resonsiblity of the State. However, security of private networks have been, and really should continue to be, the resonsibility of those who own those networks. If those in the industry who provide key solutions to private security conserns wish to hamstring their products, then those who are responsible for their benifactor's network security should know. And adjust their contracts / purchases / strategy accordingly.
You assume too much... (Score:3, Insightful)
For all you know, it uses a simple 8-bit checksum.
Not just flamebait, you're wrong, too. (Score:3, Informative)
- The security of an iterative hash algorithm cannot be any better than that of its compression function. (Source: Menezes, Van Oorschot and Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography)
- MD5 is an iterative hash function. (Source: Schneier, Applied Cryptography Second Edition; also, Menezes)
- Collisions can be generated in MD5's hash algorithm (Dobbertin, 1996).
- Dobbertin's compression-function collision algorithm executes in just a few hours on a 586 (Dobbertin, 1996).
- Therefore, collisions in the full MD5 algorithm can be generated in the same time or less. (This is known to be true as a logical consequence of what's already been proven; if anyone has actually used Dobbertin's attack on the full algorithm, they've kept quiet about it.)
... Next time, before you quote Applied Cryptography, you might want to ask a cryptographer what the latest research in the field is.