Let me put my tinfoil hat on

WHAAAT?

But...but...I thought: "Most the evidence points away from backdoors"! Occam's Razor said so!!!

 

As one of the most paranoid, I'm really not very happy about all this

I wasn't paranoid enough, it seems

 

I was just commenting on the humor of some know-it-all here claiming "evidence" points away from backdoors (even though he provided none, and instead insisted that a simple principle — which really amounts to nothing more than a rule of thumb — can suffice in place of actual evidence)...and not two days later an article is published by one of the world's foremost cryptography and security experts stating specifically that there is evidence.

Really reminiscent of a few months ago just before the Snowden leaks, when someone else tried to be all expert and also talked out of their backside, and not days later was also revealed to be full of bullgoki by an actual expert. Just one more example of why it's wise to refrain from talking on things you don't know about.

That being said, I will admit it is a bit odd that Schneier would point to the infamous NSAKEY as evidence, given his original comments on the matter.

I wonder if another decade of experience, and all the revelations in that time (including Snowden) and the information he's been privy to since then have changed his mind. It's kind of like I was saying here, the guy is obviously sharp and has the expertise and experience...it's a wonder it's taken him this long to really start wising up...but also as I was saying, he obviously still has a ways to go.

 

ROFL. The link about Win7 backdoors applies to the link JL already posted.

It's about NSAKEY. This is ond news and holds no foundation.

Actually, this is what B. Schneier thinks when asked:

https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9909.html

Furthermore, BSch points to other problems. Encryption breakthroughs and vuln in AL know OSs.

So why talk about Win7 and read my posts and you'll realise that THIS is the assumed problem--NOT win Backdoors.

Also at the other win8 problem from the Germans was already discussed.

BSI actually dumped a PSA pointed out the lame conspiracy theories:

https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Presse/P...nid=5F95A9EB2307BDADF689B6907EA4F378.2_cid359

& a blanket overview of the entire problem:

http://snarkypenguin.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/yet-another-microsoft-nsa-back-door-article/

 

I don't know what "ond news" is.

Already linked to that, chief. That's what he thought. 14 years ago. As I said, two days ago, he said "there is evidence of a back door in Windows."

If you've got something more recent and more direct, please do share.

 

Err, the evidence hasn't changed in 14 years--that is the linked evidence (NSAKEY).

So, I think you defeated you own point.

Anyhow, troll me now and soon....don't really have time for you...

At picking up on spelling corrections as I crack this out quickly: YOU ARE A TROLL.

Seriously, can you do a better job or can I get another troll??


edit: OMG must correct subject verb agreement....and what's AL know OSs? Oooooooh....got me...

 

I don't think so. My point was:

a) you claimed a logical principle = evidence (which is nonsense...and one reason I'm not sure you are in any position to comment on what qualifies as "evidence")

b) you claimed evidence points away from a backdoor, and two days later a world-renowned security expert said the exact opposite.

That's all. I openly pointed out the oddity that he had a different sentiment 14 years ago. I linked to it before you did. That still doesn't change my two points above.

Was it just a typo? Honestly I didn't know. I looked it up and found this as well as this. Since the Lotus Notes was a known compromised product, I thought you might have been referring to that...or you could have been suggesting the news was "ond" like "owned", as in "debunked" or something like that with the hip slang you kids use. I honestly didn't know, and that's why I said so.

Excuse me for thinking you were more accurate than you actually are.

 

No, man. That was your point--that BSch was irrelevant. I just showed it was. Stop back peddling. Looks so lame.

Yes, obviously a spelling error. A typo. Ond = old. Or is that not obvious enough granted the context.

ORazor. You're keeping that up. The evidence was actually bullet pointed or are you trolling some more

& FYI, your links are broken.

 

Yes, it is.

It might just be the weight of circumstantial evidence. But maybe he has seen something, or has heard something from a whistle-blower, that must for now remain confidential.

 

Yeah but hopefully there are volunteer programmers looking through the code. So it would be much harder to implement a back door. But vulnerabilities would always be exploited...

 

What in the world would make you think my point was that Schneier was irrelevant? The entire reason I brought it up was because he directly contradicted you.

No, esp notwit all ur hip abbrevs.

Really? Where? All I saw was you say "Evidence? Occam's Razor." (Again, as if something that is basically a rule of thumb can be evidence (or at least substitute for it).)

...And then you go on to list (what one would assume to be your own) personal musings. The simple conjecture of "no need" is not evidence. Here again I'm not really sure you understand what that term actually means.

Yeah, only kind of. They simply lack the base URL ("wilderssecurity.com/"), but the tails are correct (i.e. if you input that base, you'll get to the intended page). Not sure how the base got removed, but I didn't bother to change it just in case you felt the need to accuse me of going back to add the Schneier Cryptogram link after the fact...as again, you presented nothing new in your post, as I already openly linked to his original comments from 14 years ago and admitted it was an odd shift.

You however seem to completely ignore his more recent statement, linking to his decade-and-a-half-old newsletter and claim that's what he "thinks"...when clearly he has changed his view at least somewhat, given the fact that he literally states, and again I quote: "there is evidence of a back door in Windows." (While linking to the NSAKEY story.)

The only reason I can see that you would continue to ignore this (and won't even acknowledge his statement) is the very reason I introduced it in the first place: it directly contradicts...you.

 

You were saying that his post 14 years ago is irrelevant. Amicorrrect? It is getting old hashing everything out for you granted this was YOUR OWN point--wasn't it. Or why mention the dates and say "this" is what he thinks now etc etc??

Now that I've explained your own point back to you~~

Contradicted? He'd be contradicting himself. But that's not the case; you are just once again, and for the 10th time at least, mis-comprehending what is being said and making gross assumptions that result in obvious error. Furthermore, you're the one additionally/originally citing someone who "contradicts" themselves.

No? Where do your lackings end.

It's rather sad that your most thorough response thus far is on your link posting incompetency. Man, go bother someone else.

No, I used Occam's Razor to highlight the following evidence which was obviously bulleted. You chose not to accept it. Mirimir understood the problem here....so should you.

I can not prove the NSA does not have a backdoor. My evidence must be inductive--as was BSch's "evidence" for NSAKEY being overstated. It is not evidence. I can not ever provide that because my argument has that intrinsic handicap.

But you're handicapped too You must prove NSA backdoors exist--which you haven't.

Bruce saying "there is evidence" and linking old news he already refuted is not true evidence. You must separate his journalistic usage of the word, and when you do that you'll realise how daft you're being. He didn't contradict himself unless you assume what he means--and improperly.

He cited that"evidence" because errr, that is the evidence. It is weak. BUT he supposedly has more evidence down the pipe. So hey...why don't you wait. Oh--I know. You're trolling. & at this point grasping for straws trying to save face.

Well, please focus on those musing rather than Occams Razor because it's a usage you just learned 3 days ago and yes warrantless if you continually regard my evidence as musing or just outright don't see it. Note my "musings" are quite similar to Bruce's and how such "musings" would take place. But this seems to be your first time and thus the slow progression.

I will hold you hand no longer.

You've managed to miss my entire point. Not that a backdoor does or does not exist, but how we react to it. I suggest you "do not care" when doing your common activities. The NSA does not care, and you, for what it is worth, should not care; you have "no expectation of privacy" on most services, unfortunately. However, when trading state secrets--use better security which assumes all your gear is poisoned. Go figure.

So talk about that with me. Or stop talking to me.