Does kernel 2.6 include an NSA backdoor?

Does kernel 2.6 include an NSA backdoor?

Secure Home | Search | About
 General Computer Security    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Does kernel 2.6 include an NSA backdoor? plenty900 03-04-2008
Posted by cc on March 5, 2008, 11:05 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> plenty...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> It might be more complicated than this. They are said to have back door=
s in
> >> *standard protocols* (Linux included) [1,2,3,4] and these are hard to g=
et by
> >> unless you are a security professional (I'm not). What about hardware-b=
ased
> >> hacks [5] (in which case "Intel" might be just an abbreviation)? Rememb=
er that
> >> they just need to sniff packets and then decrypt successfully in order =
to gain
> >> remote access.
>
> > Finally a mature response. I was beginning to think I was dealing with
> > 11-year-olds.
>
> If you don't think the NSA (or anybody else) gets into your computer,
> how about this, my experience so far. I used a torrent engine to
> download 'Dreamgirls' for my daughter. What I got was a crappy copy and
> a nasty e-mail from the MPAA police.
> About 30 years ago I got a visit from 2 FBI gorillas in $1,000 suits
> knocking on my door (at home, 8:00 P.M.) for a very minor infraction of
> FCC regulations, and they gave me a pink ticket and a warning that if I
> dot another warning it would be a RED ticket. The RED ticket is one step
> from having you license pulled for a year.
> If you don't think the FBI monitors your activities just write something
> that says "A$$a$$inate p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t 'WEED'" in it and wait for the
> FBI at your door.
> I'm not paranoid, I have been hassled over trivial stuff.
> A few years back, like 2004 (I think) I was detained by both DHS and FBI
> agents on duty at Beale A.F.B. for riding my bike on a PUBLIC road and
> taking a few pictures with me 1.2 M Pixel fixed focus el-cheapo camera.
> Even after proving I was born here, 3rd generation, they held me for a
> local Sheriff to pick me up and take me straight home with the bike
> loosely in his trunk.
> They do it because they can.
> Bill Baka

You're obviously a bad seed.

Posted by Bill Baka on March 5, 2008, 11:27 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
cc wrote:
>> I'm not paranoid, I have been hassled over trivial stuff.
>> A few years back, like 2004 (I think) I was detained by both DHS and FBI
>> agents on duty at Beale A.F.B. for riding my bike on a PUBLIC road and
>> taking a few pictures with me 1.2 M Pixel fixed focus el-cheapo camera.
>> Even after proving I was born here, 3rd generation, they held me for a
>> local Sheriff to pick me up and take me straight home with the bike
>> loosely in his trunk.
>> They do it because they can.
>> Bill Baka
>
> You're obviously a bad seed.

Not really. I will argue a point though, which is probably why I got the
'courtesy' ride. I did get irate at the idiot black goon who went
through my pictures to see if I had any 'sensitive' pictures. I think he
was the FBI half of the Keystone cops. Look up Keystone cops and silent
movies if you don't get the reference.
Bill Baka

Posted by Chris Mattern on March 5, 2008, 11:30 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
> It might be more complicated than this. They are said to have back doors in
> *standard protocols* (Linux included) [1,2,3,4] and these are hard to get by

Linux is not a protocol, standard or otherwise.

--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

Posted by Roy Schestowitz on March 5, 2008, 1:20 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
____/ Chris Mattern on Wednesday 05 March 2008 16:30 : \____

>>
>> It might be more complicated than this. They are said to have back doors in
>> *standard protocols* (Linux included) [1,2,3,4] and these are hard to get by
>
> Linux is not a protocol, standard or otherwise.

A kernel does not make an operating platform complete, either. The question
about 2.4 fallback is irrelevant here, but the argument still stands.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 26.0%us, 4.0%sy, 1.0%ni, 64.4%id, 4.1%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

Posted by The Ghost In The Machine on March 5, 2008, 1:37 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Mattern
wrote
on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:30:30 -0000
>>
>> It might be more complicated than this. They are said to have back doors in
>> *standard protocols* (Linux included) [1,2,3,4] and these are hard to get by
>
> Linux is not a protocol, standard or otherwise.
>

Linux does have a protocol -- an implied one.
Communications with the Linux kernel are done using a
callgate/trap mechanism; the mechanisms vary between
processors but Linux is clearly creating a protocol, at
least at the call/return level. For example, to open a
file one has to go through the callgate with the parameters
of filename, open mode, and creation mode. (Most app
developers use higher levels which eventually go through
libc's open() call.)

Depending on the callgate mechanism parameters are in
the registers or on the stack, and additional parameters
may be needed either in registers or on the stack; for
example, in Linux/x86 one has to pass a call identifier
(__NR_open, or the constant 5; these are defined in
/usr/src/linux/asm-i386/unistd.h and correlate with a
dispatch table deep in the kernel) in %EAX. The actual
callgate is INT 80H (or int $0x80 in gas syntax).

There are some issues in binary compatibility which I'd
have to look up but at one point Linux was able to run
old SCO Unix binaries.

Parts of this protocol have been standardized, at
the libc level; for example, POSIX.1-2001 specifies
what open() shall be required to do.

X also has a protocol; one big difference between Linux
and X is that X goes a little deeper, specifying the
actual packets. Since the Linux callgate doesn't bother
with packets to do the actual call, no one's gone to that
detail, although in the case of Linux one can specify
packets of variable size (because of pointers), if need be.

It is far from clear how one would infiltrate the Linux
protocol, though an alternate entrance is available,
namely network packet processing. At this point (AFAIK)
the only leveraging (FSVO) was to crash a running kernel
using the teardrop attack.

This Linux protocol can and has been leveraged; the most
obvious application was UML, which could be construed as
"a linux executable emulating a linux system running a
linux kernel". (QEMU and VmWare run at a lower level,
as I understand it. Note that UML also means "universal
modeling language", which can get a bit confusing.)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Similar ThreadsPosted
Does MD5 include the file name? September 12, 2006, 5:54 pm
Recompiling the kernel July 11, 2005, 3:44 am
HPUX kernel compile??? July 23, 2006, 4:37 pm
Does Windows still have NSA backdoor? January 14, 2007, 8:50 am
HPSBUX02127 SSRT051056 - rev.1 HP-UX Kernel Local Denial of Service (DoS) June 23, 2006, 7:59 am
Secret Sector Backdoor / Security Breach October 22, 2007, 1:02 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy