10 ms·

Malware isn't bad, like guns, it depends on the one using it. There are legit uses, e.g. governments or simulations of real attacks.

DocTomoe 4y ago
- coffeeblack 4y ago
  Until you realize that states (after a more or less transparent process) have access to data stored by private companies.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Sure, but not necessarily the same states (I honestly don't care if Bhutan gets access to my emails - I have no beef with them, and I am unlikely to ever be in their sphere of influence), and not necessarily with no real oversight that something like Finfisher brings.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >On a related note: I trust Google with my data more happily than I trust the German state, for only one of those two has a history of building concentration camps. Do you also own stuff made in China? Like the device you posted this comment from? Because that government is actively running concentration camps right now. Where's the uproar against that? Germany has paid several times of for their mistakes.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    1. If these Chinese camps are really comparable to traditional concentration camps is debatable. 2. I am unlikely to ever get into a situation in which the Chinese state has jurisdiction over me.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > I trust Google with my data That's not true. That is, you know that Google is using your data themselves for psychological exploitation in marketing, and also passing it on / making it accessible to US intelligence agencies. So, what you're actually saying is that you don't care about the misuse of your data.
- m12k 4y ago
  > On a related note: I trust Google with my data more happily than I trust the German state, for only one of those two has a history of building concentration camps. To be fair, the German state has existed quite a lot longer than Google, so they've also had more time to build them - I think it's too early to rule out Google in that race.
allendoerfer 4y ago
Instead of writing a malware exploiting a bug to simulate an attack to defend against the exploit, you could have just fixed the damn thing in the first place.
someotherperson 4y ago
Do we actually have any cases of governments using malware for good? Guns aren't a great comparison because the use can (and usually is) wholly defensive or acts as a deterrent -- i.e if you are known to be armed then you'd be left alone. Malware on the other hand is almost exclusively offensive and governments around the world almost exclusively use it for nefarious reasons (i.e NSO Group's clientele and published usages).
- pelasaco 4y ago
  Well looks like it play a role in the defense strategy from the Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/pegasus-israel-ukraine-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/pegasus-israe... So maybe until now we didn't see a country with cyber in their strategy being invaded by another?
  - someotherperson 4y ago
    Ukraine hasn't acquired NSO Group's software (based on your article) and ultimately it's a seriously corrupt country -- the most corrupt in Europe -- and globally ranks below El Salvador, Brazil, Turkey and even Cuba. Just because it's currently facing an invasion doesn't mean the malware won't be used for nefarious purposes: i.e Ukrainian elites targeting other Ukrainians or the sitting Ukrainian government targeting opposition political parties. During conflicts we often see governments and elites from those countries trying to siphon as much as they can. Just to drive the point: at the same time that they first requested the software (2014) the country was the biggest arms dealer for the Syrian civil war[0]. A large part of the arms they received after what happened in Crimea ended up making its way to countries like Syria[1] and it's likely a driving reason behind why the country was so ill-equipped with the current conflict. There is little doubt that the physical arms will eventually be sold off after this conflict is over, and with malware that can be copied quite easily it's likely it will be sold the moment it's acquired to any bidder that puts their hand up. [0] https://qz.com/211603/how-ukrainian-arms-dealing-connects-to-syrias-bloody-civil-war/ https://qz.com/211603/how-ukrainian-arms-dealing-connects-to... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-insight-idUSKCN1050ZE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-insig...
m12k 4y ago
I think nukes are a better analogy than guns. There's legitimate reasons why you might want your government to develop and own them, but there's no good reason that it should be legal for private companies or individuals to sell or buy them.
keikobadthebad 4y ago
It's called malware, because it IS bad.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> There are legit uses, e.g. governments I'm astonished that there are so many people here that are willing to defend government use of malware. Malware is software deliberately designed to cause devices to malfunction. Since when is it legitimate for any government to deliberately break the property of a private citizen who hasn't been convicted of any offence, without at least a court order?
- juanani 4y ago

DocTomoe 4y ago

coffeeblack 4y ago
Until you realize that states (after a more or less transparent process) have access to data stored by private companies.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Sure, but not necessarily the same states (I honestly don't care if Bhutan gets access to my emails - I have no beef with them, and I am unlikely to ever be in their sphere of influence), and not necessarily with no real oversight that something like Finfisher brings.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>On a related note: I trust Google with my data more happily than I trust the German state, for only one of those two has a history of building concentration camps. Do you also own stuff made in China? Like the device you posted this comment from? Because that government is actively running concentration camps right now. Where's the uproar against that? Germany has paid several times of for their mistakes.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  1. If these Chinese camps are really comparable to traditional concentration camps is debatable. 2. I am unlikely to ever get into a situation in which the Chinese state has jurisdiction over me.
einpoklum 4y ago
> I trust Google with my data That's not true. That is, you know that Google is using your data themselves for psychological exploitation in marketing, and also passing it on / making it accessible to US intelligence agencies. So, what you're actually saying is that you don't care about the misuse of your data.
m12k 4y ago
> On a related note: I trust Google with my data more happily than I trust the German state, for only one of those two has a history of building concentration camps. To be fair, the German state has existed quite a lot longer than Google, so they've also had more time to build them - I think it's too early to rule out Google in that race.

allendoerfer 4y ago

Instead of writing a malware exploiting a bug to simulate an attack to defend against the exploit, you could have just fixed the damn thing in the first place.

someotherperson 4y ago

Do we actually have any cases of governments using malware for good? Guns aren't a great comparison because the use can (and usually is) wholly defensive or acts as a deterrent -- i.e if you are known to be armed then you'd be left alone. Malware on the other hand is almost exclusively offensive and governments around the world almost exclusively use it for nefarious reasons (i.e NSO Group's clientele and published usages).

pelasaco 4y ago
Well looks like it play a role in the defense strategy from the Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/pegasus-israel-ukraine-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/pegasus-israe... So maybe until now we didn't see a country with cyber in their strategy being invaded by another?
- someotherperson 4y ago
  Ukraine hasn't acquired NSO Group's software (based on your article) and ultimately it's a seriously corrupt country -- the most corrupt in Europe -- and globally ranks below El Salvador, Brazil, Turkey and even Cuba. Just because it's currently facing an invasion doesn't mean the malware won't be used for nefarious purposes: i.e Ukrainian elites targeting other Ukrainians or the sitting Ukrainian government targeting opposition political parties. During conflicts we often see governments and elites from those countries trying to siphon as much as they can. Just to drive the point: at the same time that they first requested the software (2014) the country was the biggest arms dealer for the Syrian civil war[0]. A large part of the arms they received after what happened in Crimea ended up making its way to countries like Syria[1] and it's likely a driving reason behind why the country was so ill-equipped with the current conflict. There is little doubt that the physical arms will eventually be sold off after this conflict is over, and with malware that can be copied quite easily it's likely it will be sold the moment it's acquired to any bidder that puts their hand up. [0] https://qz.com/211603/how-ukrainian-arms-dealing-connects-to-syrias-bloody-civil-war/ https://qz.com/211603/how-ukrainian-arms-dealing-connects-to... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-insight-idUSKCN1050ZE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-insig...

m12k 4y ago

I think nukes are a better analogy than guns. There's legitimate reasons why you might want your government to develop and own them, but there's no good reason that it should be legal for private companies or individuals to sell or buy them.

keikobadthebad 4y ago

It's called malware, because it IS bad.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> There are legit uses, e.g. governments I'm astonished that there are so many people here that are willing to defend government use of malware. Malware is software deliberately designed to cause devices to malfunction. Since when is it legitimate for any government to deliberately break the property of a private citizen who hasn't been convicted of any offence, without at least a court order?

juanani 4y ago