On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 12:24:29 -0500
Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
 

> 
> 1)  An as-yet undetected and unpatched vulnerability affecting Firefox
> and/or the TOR router was used - and the defense team knows it.


        That seems a plausible explanation to me. Web 'standards' and
        web browsers are poorly designed pieces of bloatware and thus
        full of holes.

        However, I think there's a more interesting issue at hand. 

        One would expect the creators of the tor cyberweapon to do some
        sort of 'quality control' no? So if they were actually
        interested in providing security for their users, it would be 
        TRIVIAL for them to constantly monitor a site like the one that
        was allegedly hacked, and so get a copy of whatever malware was
        allegedly served. But it seems that they did not such thing.

        The tor project should be monitoring and protecting 'high
        value' 'targets' like those that carry so called 'child
        pornography' but of course they do no such thing. Because they
        are on the pentagon's payroll.


> 
> 2)  The defendant may have traded some information or cooperation, or
> may have an "insurance file" with enough evidence to convict someone
> at FBI or DOJ of his same charges or worse.
> 
> 3)  The FBI decided to pick one suspect to kick loose with a bogus
> story indicating an as-yet undetected and unpatched vulnerability, for
> propaganda purposes.


        Not sure about those two. Another explanation could be this : 

        there wasn't any malware served, and the users of the site were
        identified using plain old traffic analysis. That's certainly
        something that both the government AND the tor mafia would like
        to sweep under the rug. 


> 
> The fog of physical war is hard enough to see through, but with
> network warfare that fog is hiding... more fog.

        Hehe, indeed.


> 
> :o/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYvuzMAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqqdYH+wQAyPNymKAPOaIkXF/Y3A7V
> Ri1rA6XXvxNx6aISrc8yG3xKfqRocGRKmXprRUE7nLrXt92soLSZB5x2Zze3epCn
> 4wrOFA+Cno3Ig+S1cgmlwf8c59TfYHXRU2S5iUnO7PyRKoG/6VQzMo2PZeglcmQ3
> 8P31AMl9Za6Hct/rlc84pLBvEHwLQX4Zy2dyrpoLJMKM2jAV4Rwrr4pIXtNjobY/
> KxsX3MLyau/BbDNPI/Ev8v5en3lgzYjhu2OUMrsH8cAwmyooZCxnSvyZETQmAm5F
> CPcOHuRPUK/8TnEROMny6NDaUC+eRbPQJEWhpgJ41DsSy3S3Qf01lsJ0wM52zC4=
> =2Nz6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to