Dumbo: CIA system to take over webcams, microphones

Confirmation that this is something real and not a theoretical risk. Similarly to Snowden, it wasn't newsworthy because it was possible and probably done, it was newsworthy because it existed and was currently done. (obviously the scope of this news is much more reduced)

If you are a US citizen, that tells you how you tax money is being spent. If you are a foreigner, you may have a few more ammunitions to get the funding for whatever security project you are working on.

Even on HN very few front page items are really worthy of anything more than procrastination material and it succeeded perfectly well at that: both you and I had better things to do than comment on this article.

That's a very blasé attitude btw, reminds me of the first time I have seen a wild tortoise, my family just commented: "yeah I see them all the time on TV, what's the interest?"

From my comment, the SPECIFIC details of the tool's concepts of operation, implementation, and capability.

The field guide provides great detail on operations and limitations of a specific existing tool (sample GUI screen shots, potential detection threats from personal security products and full crash dumps, detection of cam software process restarts, abilities to stall NIC cards, abilities to BSOD, ability to corrupt existing files, limitations based on cam emulation, limitations of previously saved cam files, the tool's PE names(32bit wscupd.exe, 64bit running outside of system32 wermgr.exe. GUI.exe present in the same folder as above PEs), example of the log.txt file written to the attacking USB, information on differences between winXP requirements vs other systems(scanner.sys driver needs)).

> sharing information in totality with foreign agencies as quid-pro-quo to achieve the same (Five Eyes)

But this is exactly how it works under the precise legal framework you've laid out. This is the problem.

To attack allies internal enemies needs to be prohibited.

> As long as the various intelligence agencies are not operating within the borders of their own countries, targeting their own citizens or sharing information in totality with foreign agencies as quid-pro-quo to achieve the same (Five Eyes)

You mean the U.S. wholesale spying on the British for the British to circumvent British privacy laws and the British doing the same for the U.S.?

In a situation like this, there's little point in saying that intelligence agencies can't spy on Americans, because they're doing it anyway, they're just using a proxy to do so to bypass American laws.

> Frankly, I think this is an unrealistic expectation. The whole point of spying/intelligence is that you operate in foreign environments without their knowledge with the assumption they may have a hostile response if you're discovered.

Here is an article from yesterday's Hollywood Reporter where a "genealogist" who just happens to work for the US federal government and has a Top Secret security clearance and claims to use "a global network of public databases" proudly talks about stalking and doxing a local Los Angeles celebrity:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/angelyne-la-billbo...

Here is some old news about NSA analysts stalking spouses/girlfriends/women they were interested in:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24...

CIA/NSA analysts now think that abusing their illegal domestic surveillance programs to stalk and dox people is a fun hobby.

With the various NSA leaks, we've seen that this is exactly the process. One suite of tools to compromise different types of hardware, and another suite of tools to be loaded depending on what outcomes are desired.

Well, the first several tweets in their stream right now are: Project Dumbo (this story, a leak against the CIA), a leaked series of documents on Swedish arms sales to India, a link to leaked transcripts of Trump's calls with Mexican and Australian leaders, a criticism of the Washington Post's decision to leave "minor spelling and grammatical errors" in the leaked documents intact (as these could be useful in identifying the leaker), a criticism that U.S. interference in Venezuela has worsened their governance crisis, and finally, two tweets that link to leaked phone calls which strongly imply Seth Rich was Wikileaks's source for the Podesta mail dumps.

That seems to be pretty much what you'd expect from Wikileaks, no? A bunch of links to raw documents and cited critiques on international meddling and journalistic practice? That stream includes a criticism of U.S. meddling in international affairs, two leaks against the Trump admin, and a criticism of the WaPo's incompetence in sanitizing their leak, thus risking their inside man.

How does it reveal "the side" that Wikileaks is on? If it's simply a matter of willful blindness, please enlighten me; I've got my eyes open here.

They are on the side of transparency and seek to correct propaganda spread about them. They did not choose to be the left's whipping boy, but are in a position of defense.

> Right - it seemed like they supported "the people" in the early days. They exposed Bush and Obama when they had things worth exposing.

Well they're still supporting "the people", just not the ones you align with. Which of course means they've lost all credibility and we should ignore them now, right?

plus it's really only American/+hegemony "leaks" they traffic in these days. I'm sure there's much more juicy Russian/Putin-esca malware and intelligence tools, policies, etc. Granted, those are often obscured in black market, or other 3rd parties, at least based on what we know of, but Brian Krebs is doing a much better job in "exposing" things than Assange at this point.

A lot of the problems seem to be connected to Assange's leadership. That was the big reason for the 2010 exodus of Wikileaks members, and it seems like the organization has steadily declined since then (and now they're doing bizarre things like pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy).

Yes. From all sides. It's sad thing to witness because my naive young self viewed social media as the promise of free information flow, honest interaction and entertainment. I guess that was wishful thinking.