Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> All else is not equal, so it is reasonable assign a high probability to spy agency involvement.

This requires determined effort to ignore the level of sophistication on evidence in the same reports of nation-state level attacks which you cite. Everyone who's read them noted a consistently high level of attention paid to making sure that attacks were both targeted and concealed.

Using “super” as both a username/password for a million devices is the kind of thing you'd expect from incompetence; with the NSA I'd expect something like what they actually did with Dual_EC_DRBG, where the device would show every sign of appearing to be secure but someone with knowledge of a particular constant could save significant effort when cracking the crypto. The last thing they want is for you to notice & patch the hole because some random spammer started exploiting it.




The NSA is not the only spy agency in the world.


You might have missed that the examples cited in the post which I assigned were all NSA programs. That said, any serious program is unlikely to make a rookie mistake like this.

The one remotely plausible explanation would be something like this being a way for a mole to spin a backdoor as an innocent mistake. Even that's stretching it a bit because this is so easy to find that it'd have a pretty high risk of exposure – if you're going to invest that kind of time, a more subtle bug is only a minor increase in difficulty.


You can be also try that




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: