“Equation Group” ran the most advanced hacking operation ever uncovered

You are conflating two different nations that happen to share a name and borders. The US trades technology with the Fourth Republic of Germany; The US did not with the Third Reich.

But if the US also helped start the program, I guess it is even "more" responsible, if that is even possible.

In any case, to answer the specific question, we can be pretty sure that our we're not infected with official US government 0day malware by the practical considerations - they go to pretty considerable lengths to keep the spread limited (per the reporting) because once Kaspersky or any other researcher gets their hands on it the utility of the toolsets goes away or becomes highly limited.

Essentially: "no more countries get nukes, those that have them should get rid of them at an unspecified point in the future but get to keep them for now". It is not an ideal solution, nor a particularly fair one, but much better for human survival than "everybody gets a nuke". Unfortunately, it would work better if powerful countries didn't threaten less powerful ones to the point that violating the NPT and getting nukes seems like the only rational response for preserving their own security. Which brings us to why the U.S. unilaterally launching attacks (cyber- or otherwise) against other countries runs counter to non-proliferation goals, whereas coordinated U.N. sanctions/incentives/inspections/interventions have at much better chance of working.

Well, the 5 official Nuclear Weapon States (with capital NWS) asked nicely with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is signed by just about anyone. Not that there ever was a chance of them just giving up their nuclear weapons, but they did ask and the world said yes.

It's not particularly easy to tell facilities for making enriched uranium (viable as fuel) from facilities making weapons-grade HEU.

By this I mean to suggest that such interdiction may not necessarily be truly warrant-less if performed today, even if it is still shady and lacking in accountability.

That was a world war if I recall, and the US didn't even care about the Nazis, or Japan until they were forced to. "we" didn't stop the Nazis, the world stopped the Nazis, with our help.

Don't be so quick to call for World War III, because i'm not at all certain we would have more allies than enemies if we unilaterally decided to declare open war against the rest of the world, which is what it would amount to. Because the truth is, most of the world 'harbors' and 'funds' terrorism to some degree, including the US. And we've already proven to the rest of the world that we're willing to drag it into a war on false pretenses, so I doubt they would be eager to throw themselves into another one on our behalf. That political capital has already been spent.

Which is, of course, why we don't do what you suggest.

Well, from the IRA to the Mujahadeen, it's largely been the folk with the most money to spend.

However most of them live in the USA, so perhaps a local criminal investigation would do to start with before breaking out the tanks on a jolly abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation...

I agree we shouldn't go barging into other countries unilaterally, but are there really people that want to argue it's wrong for the US to use its power to stop other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons?

They're better than launching entire wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, cost unfathomable amounts of money, and last for over a decade, without really achieving the objective of making the country safer.

They're better than torturing people.

They're better than mass surveillance of the entire population of the country - if not the world.

Of all the things the government could be and should be doing, spying on people that in high likelihood are a threat to the US sounds like the one I'm OK with them continuing. You have to admit, slowing down another country's nuclear weapons program with a computer virus is vastly preferable to pretty much any other option on the table - even including "peaceful" sanctions which end up having a human cost.

It's been heartbreaking watching the American reputation decline worldwide while also watching the inverse rise of the amoral and unrepentant technocrat here in America. It's a Golden Age for technology and a Dark Age for culture.

So before we get all high and mighty, we should probably clean up our own act here in Germany. Of course the G10 laws were dictated by the Military control committee, when they relinquished direct control in the 70s. For that reason it will be somewhat hard to simply change, especially because our interior ministers have had an unblemished record in support of more mass surveillance.

What level of freedom is lost here? We're NOT talking about mass surveillance generally but the targeted access described by the OP. It's the difference between the police parking a van outside a suspected gang hideout (hopefully after getting a warrant), and parking a van outside every home in America. Most Americans are OK with the former and NOT OK with the latter. And, IMHO, that's a valid trade-off to make in a democratic society.

You might object to a particular surveillance target (Merkel), which is understandable. But would you object to spying on Putin? I suspect even Germany (especially Germany) would be okay with the NSA conducting targeted surveillance of senior members of the Russian military with ties to Eastern Ukraine.

In an ideal world, there would be no surveillance or any surrender of liberty in any scenario. But the world is not ideal and compromises are made. Germany is not immune to this. Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S. The challenge is not to reject all infringements of freedom wholesale but to identify where lines can be drawn between what can be tolerated and what must not.

I was under the impression that stuxnet had a demonstrably negative impact on the capacity of the Iranian nuclear program to enrich uranium. Of course, there's a whole different argument on whether or not that's in support of "terror".

2. Yes, clearly they do, and also alter the course of some very dangerous activities a la Stuxnet and Iran's nuclear program. Just because it's possible to circumvent these measures, doesn't mean they shouldn't be use either. Firstly, you've made it more difficult for terrorists and other parties to communicate effectively, which is already a win. Secondly, they will of course be updating their methods as well. I doubt very much that what we're seeing here is the be all / end all of NSA's capability. This is implied in the article, where the group hands down certain exploits / technologies for actual implementation, but tends to keep things back. A blow, to be sure, but I doubt we've seen it all yet.

3. ISIS are not the result of the Iraq war. It's very important to understand that ISIS are simply the most recent manifestation of a fundamentalist Islamic sect known as Wahhabism [1]. As convenient as it is to blame them on simple cause and effect, the reality is, as always, far more complex. Essentially this is a group of ultra-fundamentalist muslims, who have for a long time been part of Saudi's political structure. What we are seeing now is a return to their radical roots, backed by disenfranchised and poorly educated muslims across the Middle East. These are people who were left out of the massive oil money influx during Saddam's regime, and are now fighting tooth and nail against any and all transgressors - muslim and Westerners alike.

If anything this makes a case for the NSA's activities, not against it. It's not the US's meddling that caused these issues (although it certainly hasn't helped); these are deeply ingrained philosophies in Middle Eastern culture. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a very good understanding of their power structure and where they're putting out feelers, than not.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism...

That is a ridiculously absolutist statement. Do you really stand by this? It's not possible that some things the NSA does are good and beneficial, because other aspects of that organisation are questionable?

I'm sorry, but your entire post comes off as very partisan - and quoting Greenwald plays into this as well. Hell, I am left-leaning by nature, but I've had to unfollow him on twitter recently, as he portrays everything in the worst, most dramatic light possible. Don't get caught up on the hate train.

All of this being said, capitalism is a game played by multiple parties. If other countries were able to make things like mentioned above as good or preferably better and sell to. Global audience the whole world would be better off. I just wonder why so much tech used everywhere is made in America originally. DARPA has a huge part of what makes this happen I think and like it or not they are part of the security establishment who made things like the Internet.

And these were, more or less, student side projects.

There are a pretty scary set of discovered exploits.

Between that and the massive data centers they are building I'm guessing they have rather impressive capabilities.

Nobody is innocent. The government has enemies both internal and external.

But if we start to systematically check for it, it should be easy to discover via hardware debugging. Find the JTAG interface on the hard disk controller (or whatever debugging interface the specific processor uses), dump the firmware and compare it to firmware dumps from other hard drives of the same model. I don't see how they could fool that process (given that you have a clean machine to read out the firmware).

Of course to be thorough you would have to check pretty much the firmware of every component of the computer.

The malware might remain quiescent unless the examination techniques mimic a computer that is booting.

I might prefer to use an analyzer to monitor the disk channel of a machine that is booting and running.

Building an SATA probe/analyzer is within hobbyist knowledge and skill levels now. If you have money you can simply buy it from LeCroy and many others, or rent it by the month/week.

Most press about itesec is focused on individual vulnerabilities and the tactics used in specific exploits. What we're seeing is tremendous "long game" strategic sophistication. Stuxnet was one example of using many attack vectors to eventually achieve a goal and these revelations suggest that was just the beginning.

Sure, intercepting the mail could be difficult, but all it takes is a few compromised UPS drivers and warrants are no longer needed.

Gee, I missed when HN became a US-only site.

> They are literally working to protect American citizens from violence.

Really?

Ignorance is no excuse, but it is an explanation. I have no doubt that most people at the NSA can accurately claim ignorance.

As they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

You know how politicians have a certain style of rhetoric they use when addressing the public? How when they go on talk shows or try to speak about some platform/policy they are tendering to the public, there's this whole pretense of them actually believing in not only that the policy being tendered could work after you elect them and people like them, but also they have these "American" ethics/values, or even sometimes universal ethics, which form their motivation for wanting to be in politics, and wanting to enact policy?

I'm asking if you notice the gulf between how politicians speak, and what motives they give you the impression they have, versus how they really feel on the inside. One can say I don't knows how they feel on the inside, yet we've been lied to so many times, and we have seen contradictions between their public rhetoric and their private motivations in the past, that we should actually be considered gullible / abused-victim battered-wives if we take the rhetoric and policy prescriptions for, say, the 2016 elections at face value. I can safely predict that these candidates are pushing policies with a pretense of justice and ethics, yet they are for all literal definitions lying about what they say they believe.

I used the sort of politicians you vote for as an example that you should already understand. It shouldn't be controversial that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are actually speaking words from behind a more-electable "persona" that is actually a lie. They effectively "pander" to us by talking about doing things "for America" and "for Americans". We've seen their lies in the past contradicted by their actual actions.

Anyway, military and civilian contractors in positions of power in the government need to be understood in this light.

"In what way are people who work for the NSA not American?"

Simple. No one who is not self-deceived, or deceived by others, works in that way. They are self-interested for the most part. They don't want to help everyone in America; there are millions of people in America they despise. The higher the stakes, the less altruistic they are. Give up your "hard-earned" money in taxes? In private charity? Too high of stakes. They be more likely to help other Americans if the others were "the sort of Americans" they prefer, and they prefer to leave the sort of individuals they don't like, or don't know and don't trust, to fend for themselves.

That applies to low-level workers, and it applies also applies to individuals at high levels of power. The fact that individuals at high levels have to use political-style fake rhetoric and personas to be appointed to their contracts and their stations does not mean they actually believe it. What truly motivates them is usually selfish things: attaining more wealth, ownership, control, more agency to mold their personal worlds to their will (cars, country clubs, whatever), and more agency to mold their greater civilization to their will (forcing other people to exist in ways that are more pleasing, or convenient to the powerful).

You see, there is no America, in reality. The reality that people fundamentally care about, will care about over the deceptive rhetoric when the chips are down, and that the military serves to exist, is wealth, power, and control.

We exist in a planetary civilizaion, but we presently pretend that old national civilizations are what motivate us, even as we take action year-in-and-year-out to further along the globalness of our order: we try to globalize/standardize our finance and governance system over every single individual person in every old nation.

So it's global power that motivates the ones in power, and building and preserving their own individual status in the global order that is what they are really beholden to.

That is why things like "Homeland Security" and NSA domestic information gathering exist: though the people with their hands on the levers of power here say it's to "protect America," they actually don't love all of America. "When the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other, you'll see." They can't possibly save all of Americans, and they're building a lockdown-safe domestic order that will treat non-conforming Americans just as poorly as they treat non-conforming non-nationals.

They are working to protect themselves from violence, not the "Americans" they pander to. You will be protected precisely to the degree that you endorse and support the global regime, and you will be oppressed precisely to the degree that you resist and combat it.

Their professed "to protect America" motive is just a fork-tongued, or sugar-coated, rhetorical device that does not comport to the reality in their own heads when they put their heads down on their silk pillows at night. They are protecting their global economic and political order: corporate power, corporate governance, financialization, ueber alles.

As someone from another country, I'd rather they didn't.

Remember Google's original motto? Whatever happened to that?

Statements like this make it hard to take your comment seriously, but I'm going to try.

> Time for a change of career. I've always wanted to protect our dying forests and species in any case.

What makes you think you can do anything about this? If you're in tech, it's likely that's where your training, experience, and interests lie and so that's where you're likely to be most effective for now. Why not spread awareness of issues that concern you and work with like-minded people to do what you can. Do you think your fancy new career protecting the environment won't involve working against powerful and greedy opponents?

The only war we have at the moment is the one you (assuming you're a shill) created and want to sustain. Because if you don't, it all falls down. Its about the US dollar, and oil.

Not to my knowledge. Indeed, the difficulty involved as well as proprietary nature of the format seems to indicate such an attack vector would be restricted to only the most sophisticated actors. So, it's no wonder that there are no real-world examples, assuming that they even exist in the first place.

> Also, microcode updates aren't retained when the system is powered, ...

While true, I don't necessarily see this as a fatal blow to the attack vector's utility. Without delving into raw speculation, I'm sure there's plenty of clever ways to craft attacks unique to what microcode affords.

That said, it seems likely that microcode attacks would be treated more as a specialized capability augmenting something like what the article outlines, rather than a method of attack unto itself.

There was once a PDF exploit for iOS that made it possible to jailbreak the phone (or run any code) if the user opened a PDF, so the PHP program could have been redirecting to something like this.

Linux malware would probably have a much lower effectiveness / $, so it doesn't pay off for them.

- Iran does not recognize Israel.

- Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,[14] an organization classified by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan as a terrorist organization. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, has said "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran".[15] From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 2001 through May 2008, Hamas launched more than 3,000 Qassam rockets and 2,500 mortar attacks into Israel.[16]

- Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq.[35] In addition, insurgents supported by Iran reportedly committed acts of terrorism.[34][36][37]

Lots more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terror...

I am not claiming these are all fact, but I think there is little doubt that they are at least "implications" as you put it.

(edited for formatting.)