Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dylan604 1886 days ago
I love this tactic. To me, if this was an actually controlled experiment, the last step in the experiment would be to undo the bugs they intentionally created. If they did not, this would definitely be sabotage. Based on that, they should have no problem being able to identify what they did.

It's kind of a catch-22 for the UMN.
3 comments
dbcurtis 1886 days ago
Indeed. If UMN can't tell how to undo the damage, then it is intentional sabotage, and should be prosecuted as such.
link
squarefoot 1886 days ago
This post might give a hint on where to look to find who would probably benefit from sabotaging Linux security.

https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg12...

link
dylan604 1886 days ago
Fiction writers would have a hard time making something like this up. But at the same time, of course this is what happens. It's one of the oldest plays in the book to infiltrate the group you want to subvert, and then make changes from within so it is no longer a threat.
link
nine_k 1886 days ago
It's like running an experiment by adding a venom in water supply, with a possible later remedial action of offering an antidote.

They seemingly had some success with the first step, until this was duly noticed.

The experiment itself may be a bad idea, but it's a good, useful wake-up call.

link
pweissbrod 1886 days ago
Agreed. It's a cool idea. It's not really computer science as much as a penetration test involving humans and processes.

Of course without any semblance of prior consent it isn't quite sabotage but definitely outside the realm of ethical

link
dylan604 1885 days ago
>without any semblance of prior consent it isn't quite sabotage

I don't follow. You're saying you're supposed to tell me you're messing with me in order for it to be considered sabotage? That doesn't make any sense, so you must mean something different than that. The entire point of sabotage is to do it under the noses of those you've infiltrated.

Edit: I think I re-read to get your meaning. You're saying without consent it's bad but not quite to the level of sabotage. Not sure if sabotage requires intent to cause harm, but they full well knew what they were doing was not good. While that might not have been enough to sink the ship, it sure wasn't trying to help it stay afloat.

link