Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Used the Linux Distro Designed For Internet Anonymity
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "When Edward Snowden first emailed Glenn Greenwald, he insisted on using email encryption software called PGP for all communications. Now Klint Finley reports that Snowden also used The Amnesic Incognito Live System (Tails) to keep his communications out of the NSA's prying eyes. Tails is a kind of computer-in-a-box using a version of the Linux operating system optimized for anonymity that you install on a DVD or USB drive, boot your computer from and you're pretty close to anonymous on the internet. 'Snowden, Greenwald and their collaborator, documentary film maker Laura Poitras, used it because, by design, Tails doesn't store any data locally,' writes Finley. 'This makes it virtually immune to malicious software, and prevents someone from performing effective forensics on the computer after the fact. That protects both the journalists, and often more importantly, their sources.'
The developers of Tails are, appropriately, anonymous. They're protecting their identities, in part, to help protect the code from government interference. 'The NSA has been pressuring free software projects and developers in various ways,' the group says. But since we don't know who wrote Tails, how do we know it isn't some government plot designed to snare activists or criminals? A couple of ways, actually. One of the Snowden leaks show the NSA complaining about Tails in a Power Point Slide; if it's bad for the NSA, it's safe to say it's good for privacy. And all of the Tails code is open source, so it can be inspected by anyone worried about foul play. 'With Tails,' say the distro developers, 'we provide a tongue and a pen protected by state-of-the-art cryptography to guarantee basic human rights and allow journalists worldwide to work and communicate freely and without fear of reprisal.'"
The developers of Tails are, appropriately, anonymous. They're protecting their identities, in part, to help protect the code from government interference. 'The NSA has been pressuring free software projects and developers in various ways,' the group says. But since we don't know who wrote Tails, how do we know it isn't some government plot designed to snare activists or criminals? A couple of ways, actually. One of the Snowden leaks show the NSA complaining about Tails in a Power Point Slide; if it's bad for the NSA, it's safe to say it's good for privacy. And all of the Tails code is open source, so it can be inspected by anyone worried about foul play. 'With Tails,' say the distro developers, 'we provide a tongue and a pen protected by state-of-the-art cryptography to guarantee basic human rights and allow journalists worldwide to work and communicate freely and without fear of reprisal.'"
What's that? Have any unknown in your life? Just insert the NSA?
Don't have the source code? The NSA must be behind it.
Don't know who spread a worm? Must be the NSA.
Don't know who authored BitCoin? NSA.
Don't know who packaged up TAILS? NSA.
The NSA sent his heavenly son to die for our sins.
May want to keep an eye out in the development community of the OS for a sudden influx of programmers "just wanting to help out." Or existing members suddenly driving new sports cars and acting strange.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Tails bakes in a routing table that makes all traffic go over Tor. It also has built-in I2P support. So, while ISPs can look at your traffic, it becomes quite a tough nut to crack to figure out what you're actually doing. Attacks are possible, but require exponentially more sophistication and resources than just tracking an IP.
Go on YouTube and listen Jacob Appelbaum's (a Tor developer) videos. Something about NSA agents peering into his girlfriend's window at night and various other intimidation tactics..and that's just him..
Tails doesn't store any data locally,' writes Finley. 'This makes it virtually immune to malicious software, and prevents someone from performing effective forensics on the computer after the fact. That protects both the journalists, and often more importantly, their sources.'
Traffic sniffing does not require files on the target and this is the biggest source of data for agencies like the NSA. It may protect you from key loggers being installed (unless they were inserted ahead of time).
I'm pretty sure that part of Snowden's leaked information showed that exploits are occurring at the hardware level as well as software. Entry points like LOM modules were explicitly called out in the leaked presentations.
I'd agree that forensics becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible (memory analysis can still occur). I don't agree that the systems are immune to malicious software at least in a general sense. Immunity would require a lot of control for the hardware running the OS, and monitoring to make sure things have not been tampered with. Relying on a repository build of an OS imaged is still a target for potential a MITM attack feeding a user a kitted image.
It's all good in my opinion, I'm just being picky about the terminology chosen. Immunity implies absolute safety, and very little in the world is absolute.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Incognito Linux did not impress me. You can be more anonymous using Backtrack.
ah no.
Backtrack is for cracking not staying anonamous.
Tails routes all of your traffic through TOR and keeps you anonymous as long as you don't share anything reveling.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Well, personally my first thought after reading the summary was "but how do you trust the BIOS?" A few years ago I'd have immediately said that's conspiracy theory and dismissed it (along with the other items you listed). But after a year of exposure to the Snowden and RSA revelations and everything else, it pains me to say these NSA questions aren't so far fetched any more.
Sure they may not be probable but they could be possible. No matter how rational you think you are, it really messes with one's mind. Subtle paranoia, if you will.
That sounds like something the NSA would post.
Snowden would have had a much harder time had he been using legal Microsoft products.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
There's plenty of ways to defeat stylometric analysis, notably, running things through a translation engine several times through a few languages.