mailing list archives
From: Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:45:03 -0400
That is far more feasible than mass interception and forwarding of traffic,
though there is (AFAIK) no indication that such a kill switch exists. I
also think that if China wanted to do something nefarious a far better
target would be Lenovo, which still seems to be an accepted vendor in US
government circled judging from the number I've seen in DC this week and
laptops have far more horsepower and storage most pieces of networking
On Jun 13, 2013 1:35 PM, "Mark Gallagher" <markwgallagher () gmail com> wrote:
I think one of the possibilities suggested beyond call-home or backdoors
was that they might have installed a secret kill-switch to be activated
against 'enemy' nodes in time of war was an cyber shock and awe campaign.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
On 06/13/2013 10:20 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Not really, no one has claimed it's impossible to hide traffic. What
is true is that it's not feasible to do so at scale without it becoming
obvious. Steganography is great for hiding traffic inside of legitimate
traffic between two hosts but if one of my routers starts sending cay
photos somewhere, no matter how cute, I'm gonna consider that suspicious.
That's an absurd example (hopefully funny) but _any_ from one of my
routers over time would be obvious, especially since to be effective this
would have to go on much of the time and in many routers. Hiding all that
isn't feasible for a really technically astute company and they're not in
that category yet (IMO).
It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Hijacking many cat
send your cat photo... how deep is your DPI?
Remember also, the answer to the universe fits in 6 bits...