[9881] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: More on Magic Lantern, McAfee, Symantec, and FBI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Rodger)
Fri Nov 30 19:01:21 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011130084252.009f56e0@netmail.home.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:56:44 -0500
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: Will Rodger <wrodger@home.net>
Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011129114107.0234a750@mail.well.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Declan --
While we're all pondering whether or not McAfee talked to the FBI, I have
to wonder: How likely is it the FBI would want to talk to about their
keystroke logger, anyway?
The Trojan horse -- if it indeed exists -- won't likely be seen in the
wild. Wide distribution would defeat the surreptitious nature of the
alleged Magic Lantern. It would also violate Fourth Amendment protections
in ways that would make even AG Ashcroft blush.
We also know that virus scanners are remarkably bad at picking up and
stopping new malware. If they were any good at all, new viri and Trojans
would not spread the way they do.
So -- We have a Trojan horse that
--will likely land on a handful of computers a year
--should not propagate
--will operate silently, and
--whose existence remains classified.
How hard would it be to design a Trojan horse that could get around current
scanners?
I am quite certain that Ted Bridis got his story right. I am less certain
that his sources told him the truth.
Will Rodger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
