flyryan

7 ms·

1.
by flyryan 11y ago
I wish I could base my arguments on things that are going to happen 30 years from now.
2.
by flyryan 11y ago
Since Dell holds a ton of government contracts and a good amount of government computers are Dell, you can guarantee they most DEFINITELY "give a shit" about this.
3.
by flyryan 11y ago
This is why I have an issue with Project Zero. You will NEVER patch all the 0days. There are only a few bugs that I've seen that were so impactful (Heartbleed for example) that it made a massive impact to release and patch it. And as y
4.
by flyryan 11y ago
You're stating that the organization "as a whole" is "blatantly" violating the Constitution. Don't you see why your statement is being challenged? It's largely baseless. At most, a small number of programs
5.
by flyryan 11y ago
Patrick Wardle dropped two Little Snitch bypasses at BlackHat [1] this year. [1] https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-15/materials/us-15-Wardle-W... [PDF Warning]
6.
by flyryan 11y ago
The documents regarding that incident were pulled from an Inspector General's folder regarding an open investigation. That hadn't shown themselves to be anything. They were actively looking in to the incident. If anything Manning
7.
by flyryan 11y ago
Fox? He used the Constitution to definite the terms. Are you arguing against the Constitutional definition of what a traitor is? What definition would you want him tried on in court if not the Constitutional one?
8.
by flyryan 11y ago
VMWare. It takes advantage of the fact that VMWare links guest VMs to the host's printers by default and takes advantage of that link. The patch from VMWare even applied to VMWare Fusion even though there hasn't been anything publ
9.
by flyryan 11y ago
Wait... you believe that the NSA is easier to compromise than the computers of reporters from multiple international news agencies with various levels of computer security policies and knowledge?
10.
by flyryan 11y ago
Here's the problem with the Boston Marathon attack; it was planned and conducted by US citizens in the USA without any planning with any foreigners. When someone says "the NSA couldn't even stop the Boston Marathon bombing&qu
11.
by flyryan 11y ago
Where can I find the source? I could actually make use of this.
12.
by flyryan 11y ago
What about the other side of the coin though? there has been an attack -see! the NSA can't even prevent single incident X and are doing NOTHING to protect us! there hasn't been a large scale terrorist attack in north america in 13
13.
by flyryan 12y ago
Schneier is also the one who said these are the types of things the NSA should be doing[1]. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/12/more_about_th...
14.
by flyryan 12y ago
My point is that you were arguing against targeted collection. Going after individual devices is a scoped and precision form of intelligence collection. You were saying that this type of intelligence isn't targeted and was instead insi
15.
by flyryan 12y ago
The USA has never needed a search warrant to conduct foreign intelligence. A search warrant requirement is a 4th amendment protection afforded to US citizens. Foreign intelligence does not require courts unless you're trying to get for
16.
by flyryan 12y ago
"Then if the NSA" That's a big IF and one that will be almost impossible to prove. I don't see how the case holds any merit if they can't prove this happens.
17.
by flyryan 12y ago
Your example isn't a particular good one. Huawei has been accused of backdooring their products for the Chinese government on numerous occasions, including presentations at DEFCON exposing those backdoors. There are also numerous cases
18.
by flyryan 13y ago
"I did not break the official algorithm. I do not know the secret value used to compute the Q constant, and thus cannot break the default implementation. Only NSA (and people with access to the key) can exploit the PRNG weakness."