Credit goes to Bruce Schneier, who warned about this when it was first introduced publicly. He predicted exactly what would happen with Microsoft's back doors (also learn about CIPAV), which it foolishly believed it could keep under exclusive police control.
And it's certainly not a back door, as TechDirt claims.
So, who's right about this being a back door? Schestowitz or Schneier?
More interestingly, similar tools are readily available among security professionals or doing forensic analysis of Linux filesystems. Does this mean Linux has back doors? By Schestowitz's definition, it does.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:55:09 -0800, Tim Smith wrote: > Schestowitz:
> Credit goes to Bruce Schneier, who warned about this when it was > first introduced publicly. He predicted exactly what would happen > with Microsoft's back doors (also learn about CIPAV), which it > foolishly believed it could keep under exclusive police control.
> And it's certainly not a back door, as TechDirt claims.
> So, who's right about this being a back door? Schestowitz or Schneier?
> More interestingly, similar tools are readily available among security > professionals or doing forensic analysis of Linux filesystems. Does this > mean Linux has back doors? By Schestowitz's definition, it does.
Considering the number of times Roy Schestowitz's sites have been hacked, you would think he would be a "back door" expert by now!
However, once again Roy proves how little he knows about the subjects he SPAMS, misrepresents and just plain lies about.
Some of it is due to ignorance, but a lot of it is Roy simply believing what he wants to believe rather than looking at *all* the data and reaching a logical conclusion.
Seeing as Roy Schestowitz is trained in science and thus the scientific method and so forth the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that he is lying on purpose because it fits his agenda.
> Credit goes to Bruce Schneier, who warned about this when it was > first introduced publicly. He predicted exactly what would happen > with Microsoft's back doors (also learn about CIPAV), which it > foolishly believed it could keep under exclusive police control.
> And it's certainly not a back door, as TechDirt claims.
> So, who's right about this being a back door? Schestowitz or Schneier?
> More interestingly, similar tools are readily available among security > professionals or doing forensic analysis of Linux filesystems. Does this > mean Linux has back doors? By Schestowitz's definition, it does.
A 'back door' would be access to the file system from the internet or internal network by some irregular arrangement. The Linux NFS system is notorious for lack of security it being intended for 'friendly' networks.
Tools for doing forensic analysis on Linux file systems rely on booting up the computer with an alternative system, such as rescuecd. the free program partimage can then be used to 'dump' a hard disk partition on to a memory stick(s), etc. If you want the whole partition (eg to study allegedly erased clusters) the *nix dd command can be used. These tools work quite happily with fat, ntfs, ext2, ext3 and possibly others. These do not rely on 'back doors' as such.
|
