Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lolinder 746 days ago
The point is that the existence of this code proves that remote access is possible, you just use any one of the many proven malware vectors to get the user to install a binary that does the same thing as this repo does but ships it over the network to your servers.
1 comments
Dylan16807 746 days ago
That seems like an unreasonably broad definition of remote access to me. If installing a local program that proxies data counts, then the only true way to make "remote access" impossible is by installing it in a secure room with no networking and where no other electronics are allowed in. How many people interpreted that claim as SCIF-equivalency?
link
lolinder 746 days ago
> How many people interpreted that claim as SCIF-equivalency?

Basically everyone who isn't employed in tech? This is what the BBC said [0]:

> And it said a would-be hacker would need to gain physical access to your device, unlock it and sign in before they could access saved screenshots.

Those of us here can readily see that this "physical access" claim is bunk, but that's what Microsoft represented to the BBC and what the BBC is telling the world.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwqp6nx14o

link
Dylan16807 746 days ago
If it's just to prove those two words wrong, then this repo seems extremely overblown. "It works like every other program in the world" isn't very exploity.

Also I don't think many people even saw or noticed that particular claim. They just saw the part about it saving everything you do to your computer and were rightfully worried.

link
pseudalopex 746 days ago
> If it's just to prove those two words wrong, then this repo seems extremely overblown. "It works like every other program in the world" isn't very exploity.

The FAQ author explained it worked like every other program in the world. Some people doubted him because why wouldn't he show proof if it was so easy? The tool author called it a very simple tool and no rocket science whatsoever.

> Also I don't think many people even saw or noticed that particular claim.

Fewer people will see this repo. What is the correct number of people before misinformation should be corrected?

link
Dylan16807 745 days ago
> The FAQ author explained it worked like every other program in the world. Some people doubted him because why wouldn't he show proof if it was so easy? The tool author called it a very simple tool and no rocket science whatsoever.

The repo overall makes it sound like it's a way bigger issue than that.

link
pseudalopex 745 days ago
> The repo overall makes it sound like it's a way bigger issue than that.

The repo overall contains a tool the author said 3x was simple or not rocket science, an explanation of what the tool does, and someone else's FAQ about the context.

link