Slashdot Mirror
FBI Dismisses Child Porn Case Rather Than Reveal Their Tor Browser Exploit (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Federal prosecutors just dropped charges against a child pornography suspect rather than reveal the source code for their Tor exploit. Of the 200 cases they're prosecuting nationwide, this is only the second one where the FBI has asked that the case be dismissed. "Disclosure is not currently an option," federal prosecutors wrote in a court ruling Friday. The Department of Justice is still prosecuting 135 different people believed to have accessed an illegal child pornography web site. Before shutting it down, the FBI seized the site and operated it themselves for 13 more days, which allowed them to deploy malware to expose the users' real IP addresses.
Secrecy or Child Pornography...
We report, you decide.
Sounds like there is a very simple formula for defense now and forever for any of their tor tapping. Smart, very smart.
You think the FBI doesn't have access to browser exploits that haven't been patched? That is what we pay our FBI/NSA folks for.
You do know that javascript, java, and flash exploits are still a thing, right?
I would not be surprised if the FBI has learned of an exploit for one of these or in the Tor implementation itself, and has chosen to not disclose it because they can continue to use it for parallel-construction cases, or because their knowledge of it came from another agency that still wants to use it for international crimes.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Interesting, albeit disturbing, insight into the moral compass of the FBI. Secrecy trumps child pornography.
Adobe.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The question is if the FBI is actively seeking the child abusing producers of child pornography or if they are really only interested in catching the people who download it. It's all very distasteful but I'm more interested ending the abuse than throwing every twisted individual in jail for a period of time. I understand that it's a global problem which is why governments should work together to stop the madness.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Or catching 10 trumps catching 1.
Depends on what the browser is:
A modern browser will respond to a to more than http and https. A well crafted request to different media or peering support in a browser might result in the correct IP been sent due to default settings.
Also given what a modern OS had at the time to make the internet work.
The next issue would be a browser in a VM using onion routing?
Finally a full onion routing OS as a computer.
The ability to send commands to a browser expecting it to be working in a normal OS might be all that was needed.
Would an outgoing software firewall help if it was the browser? Software to detect changes to the OS? The browser is running as allowed and expected.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There's also a possibility that they haven't got anything as much to disclose as they'd like us to believe. Maybe some of the evidence supposedly gathered through the exploit, was instead obtained through another, possibly illegal, method or fabricated.
Tor disables javascript, java, and flash by default... so the exploit must have been in the mozilla firefox code base or the onion routing protocol -- unless they run and/or spy on all the Tor nodes to figure out where things are really being routed.
I've read stories where the feds attempted to shake down libraries to get them to close their Tor nodes, yet the feds run their own. If you control all the nodes, it's easy to figure out the real routing through the onion network.
Or letting one more child be raped and murder equals what the fuck exactly? Those child porn rings require content and every time a content producer is exposed, an arrest and rescue should immediately occur, 'IMMEDIATELY', fuck future prosecutions.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That reinforces the banality of technology being a double-edged razor.
Of course it does, even if consider child porn the worst crime imaginable (I would consider going around killing children worse), disclosing this would mean the vulnerability would be fixed and they would no longer be able to use it to find more offenders. You could still identify them this way and then gather other evidence.8
First I heard it was a month.
But anyways, they got zero producers.
Distributed over a million images, which means they revictimized children over a million times. This is their own logic on sharing these images btw.
None of this is effective. None of this is okay. Get the producers FFS or keep the op going until you do.
This doesn't feel right at all.
Tor does NOT disable Javascript by default. It ought to, but it doesn't. The last official statement was they felt nobody would use Tor if it shipped with Javascript disabled, because so much of the web depends on it.
Next time they bring out that tired old line this will be one more thing to point to. Just more do as I say not as I do.
If you look at it rationally, you will see it's the best approach for getting the highest quantity of jailings versus the highest quality of cases. That seems like the most likely justification. This doesn't address whether they are doing more or less harm than good by withholding the information but I think their view should be obvious.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
> Tor disables javascript, by default...
It absolutely does not. It has noscript by default, but you have to make that change. With javascript disabled by default, many websites simply fail to function.
Tor project seems to assume that javascript is simply vulnerable permanently, which is generally what all sane computer users should assume at this point. Their solution seems to be to put some kinda sandbox around it, which should at least give them a bit of a race to run versus attackers.
Your other assumptions are totally reasonable however- run a bunch of nodes and you can break a lot of the assumptions about tor.
A moral compass that begs realignment. Is the FBI capable of sustaining a fifth amendment plea? If not, then burn them at the stake.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
to get these cases dismissed now? I suppose there's lots of folks that can't afford the lawyer needed to file the motions to request the information correctly (two-tiered justice system for the win). But assuming you're not just bullied into a confession you'll be able to use this to get off scot-free...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think it is more of a case that they realise the information they have access to is far more valuable than prosecuting one pervert and losing that access to prosecute just one is not a good use of that resource, at least I HOPE that is the reasoning.
Thank you for using our malware, courtesy of Windows since Win95sp1.
Or letting one more child be raped and murder equals what the fuck exactly?
There are many myths about "snuff films" that record actual murders, but none have ever been verified. In the most famous case Ruggero Deodato was prosecuted for murder, but was acquitted when the actors and actresses that he had allegedly murdered showed up to testify in his defense. It is hard to imagine how some scenes in his films could have been made without killing someone, but they obviously were, since the people "killed" were still alive and healthy.
Simply dropping the charges is not enough. The only exception for not divulging method to the courts is National Security. The accused, even if charges dropped, should be able to pursue disclosure of methods. The government should not be able to pick and choose after filing charges unless a valid national security claim.
Or rather locking people up trumps protecting children. That is also why they kept running the site for 13 days. By the very definition of the DoJ, they committed child abuse for 13 days. Seems to me the FBI is part of the problem now.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is actually some genuine "murder porn" out there: You get to see it on the news, perfectly legally. Think for example, the footage exposed by Manning. It even comes with mocking comments by the murderers while they kill innocent civilians.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Considering that the argument for why distributing and owning (as opposed to producing) child porn is that the images actively harm children, I do not think there is any way to justify the FBI's behavior. I think its been generally established that law enforcement cannot commit felonies in order to gather evidence. Otherwise we could have police informants carrying out gang hits in order to capture higher level crime bosses. This is not the start of a slippery slope, it is well down the slope.
They can't have it both ways. If the images don't do actual harm to children, the people who posses the images are only guilty of a minor crime. If the images do harm children, then the FBI should destroy them as soon as they are discovered to prevent continuing harm .
On the central topic there need to be clear rules about what capabilities we want law enforcement to have. It is probably technologically possible for law enforcement to scan all of the records of the great majority of citizens to look for criminal activity. Is that what we want?
Personally I would vote to reduce surveillance and accept a higher rate of criminal activity.
In the 30+ years that I've been using computers, I've had 4 viruses. Two of them came through Adobe exploits. (Both were served by web ads on mainstream sites, which downloaded and auto-opened PDF files which in turn deployed and opened executables.)
This guy was charged with accessing and possession, not creation. If he had been a content creator then prosecution would not have been stopped.
Lets put this a different way. Would you grant pardon to a person who viewed child porn if it meant you could catch someone who made it? It's the same as offering deals to a street drug dealer to catch their supplier.
That should be the headline in the media.
I wonder how much money they made from distributing Child Porn, and if it was as lucrative as when they sold and distributed hacked Conditional Access cards for the DirecTV system?
Inquiring minds want to know.
(And also why they are not in prison for the crimes they have admitted to committing?)
Exactly. Freedom always includes the freedom to do wrong and a realistic chance to get away with it (depending on the magnitude of the crime). I believe freedom is of critical importance and the only purpose of law-enforcement is to keep crime at a level that society continues to function reasonably well. They are clearly not doing that, or the banksters would all be in prison now for a long, long time. Nobody on recent memory did this much damage to society and individuals.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Good catch! You're right. It instead has NoScript installed, but not even configured properly.
I'm frankly surprised anyone there would even argue to leave it on. Better to have a web site break than have a malicious site track you when the purpose of using it is to NOT be tracked.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/ April 7, 2015
The FBI actually has a policy to drop cases instead of revealing their detection (spying) methods, to avoid public scrutiny of what they're doing.
The new document, which was released Tuesday by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) in response to its March 2015 victory in a lawsuit filed against the Erie County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO) in Northwestern New York, includes this paragraph: "In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings."
That has to do with their 'Stingray' technology, but I'm sure it applies to any kind of digital surveillance.
Besides, if they didn't drop the case the court would have probably ruled against them, like what happened in a case that slashdot mentioned last year: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/13/0411255/us-judge-throws-out-cell-phone-stingray-evidence-for-the-first-time
If you have something with high discover-ability like a Firefox exploit(high because a couple have already been found, patched, and people are presumably actively looking), why would govt need to hide this evidence? Seems to me that it doesn't matter how they identified and took control of a given hidden service, what should be relevant to the case is the bit of JS sent to the perpetrator's browser that pings the government server revealing the user's real IP.
What am I missing? Is it that that exploit has somehow gone unnoticed and is so valuable that it can't be released? Is it that using exploits to gain evidence is not admissible? Seems weird to me.
Maybe, maybe not. Having charges dropped doesn't mean they can't file charges again later as long as it wasn't dismissed with prejudice.
I think either they are currently using this exploit for other active investigations or they used an illegal exploit and don't want to implicate themselves.
More likely they're still using the exploit and don't want to tip their hand. They could be monitoring another ring, terrorists, etc. If they give up the code, Tor would release a patch, and they'd be done. Stating that they can't offer up the code "at this time" is their key phrasing... as if there's something important riding on this code remaining a useful tool. Or, I could be wrong and they just want to keep using the tool when and where they can and manufacture alternate evidence to point the finger to the bad guys without disclosing the true source of intel.
Uhh there was one busted in Australia not too long ago who was raping, torturing, and murdering kids on a private darknet PPV. I can't remember the guy's name but they gave the "genre" a name..."hurtcore" because it was as much about causing pain and suffering as it was the rape. The article I read about the case said it was shit that made "A Serbian Film" look tame and it was all real.
I don't want to search too actively for the terms that would bring up the article for obvious reasons but I did find an article about their web admin being busted where they mention hurtcore.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Where is the point where the crime is so egregious that the FBI is willing to publish the exploit? I presume their keeping the exploit secret because once it's known, it will be fixed and they will no longer be able to monitor the "deep, dark, black, web"?
What if there was a terrorist attack and the FBI knew about it and sat on it because they thought the expected value of the property and lives lost was less than the value of the exploit and the intelligence received from it?
Would the FBI (and the US government) be liable for damages because they could have prevented the crime?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
It's funny how often child porn is used as a justification for more spying.
But when actually dealing with child porn goes against more spying, well, fuck children, literally.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. The point is not about blaming people, the point is that Tor is not more secure than a typical bank infrastructure.
lucm, indeed.
Uhh there was one busted in Australia not too long ago who was raping, torturing, and murdering kids on a private darknet PPV.
Peter Scully. He is accused of murdering one girl, but he didn't film it. The things he did film were horrific, but did not include any killings. So no "snuff film".
"Where is the point where the crime is so egregious that the FBI is willing to publish the exploit? "
Probably prosecution of a live, thwarted US citizen terrorist that they couldn't deport to Gitmo or rendition and could only deal with in US courts.
They probably looked at the kiddie porn guy and decided he wasn't a high threat based on a propensity of evidence. It makes sense to save this exploit (which all the CIA/US assets already probably have a workaround for) and keep using it against significant criminals who are attempting to conceal their identities on the web.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Should the FBI have the ability to not prosecute in a child porn case ? In California there are several types of cases that failure to pursue result in criminal liabilities for the prosecutor's, among them spousal abuse, child abuse, child porn. It is one thing to lack the evidence or documentation to pursue, or to continue to investigate but to dismiss with jeopardy attached should be a crime in itself.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Or rather, does that point even exist? They may feel that it is worthwhile to keep using it to catch as many as they can and just dismiss the cases with competent defense.
Run the browser in a separate VLAN and only allow that VM to communicate with a VM that runs the node. There would be no way for the browser VM to find out the real IP. The node can also be made to use a VPN service or something to complicate matters more.
That's how they did it. They didn't exploit TOR directly, all they did was planting a 'tracking beacon' on the target computer, then wait for the target to reconnect outside of TOR
We did it during WW2 and it seemed to work out fine. As soon as we'd broken the enigma code we had the chance to prevent attacks we were learning about but couldn't unless we wanted the Germans to know we'd cracked their code. We let people die so we could save more down the line. A great man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I'm willing to assume this is what is happening here.
There was this guy too:
Luka Rocco Magnotta (born Eric Clinton Kirk Newman; July 24, 1982) is a Canadian murderer, convicted of killing and dismembering Lin Jun, a Chinese international student, before mailing Lin Jun's limbs to elementary schools and federal political party offices.[9] This act gained international notoriety. After a video depicting the murder was posted online in May 2012,
That was the first thought I had after reading the headline too. I hope everyone keeps that in mind the next time the FBI trots out some variation of the "Won't somebody think of the children..." line to justify some over-reaching surveillance programme they are pushing, because they clearly don't believe it themselves.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The earliest browsers also responded to more than HTTP and HTTPS. Ever heard of gopher?
Now git off er my lorn!
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Many scientists have postulated that there is a bigger truth being hidden here-- the existence of a time machine used by future revolutionaries to undo the Third Reich's tyranical word dictatorship after Germany won World War 2.
Traveling back in time to "kill Hitler" has become so synonymous with time travel fantasies that it's unlikely future time travelers would actually do it for fear of divulging the existence of their powers and contaminating their preferred timeline. If people in current time knew they were at the mercy of time travelers, they could protect themselves by destroying records and implementing pervasive anonymity (ala technologies like Tor).
Thus, time travelers prefer to be more discrete and control history through lower profile nudges, like using future quantum computers to brute force the enigma machine and bring back the solution to the chaps at Bletchley Park.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Comer on. This has nothing to do with Trump or any other president. This has to do with how policing worksa. They want to have as high numbers as possible and this is not just for the FBI.
I live in Belgium and I saw some childporn. I reported it to both the provider and the police.
After a few weeks, nothing had happened, so I informed a newspaper. That day the childporn was gone. So good, so far,
Well, that is what I thought. I had done this at work. So suddenly the COO stands at my desk and asks me why the police wants to have my details concerning a chgildporn investigation. I explained it and luckily he was a smart person and understood.
I then went to the police. They wanted me for distribution of childporn, obstruction of the law and falsification of writing as I had used a free email addres and my info was not correct.
The reason they left the account open was so they could get more people to watch it and go after more people. They already had the kid who had done it. They already had all that they needed, yet they decided to let the child porn spread more, even though they knew this was just a stupid kid doing a stupid thing.
Obviously I have never ever seen anything illegal anywhere.
So yeah, this has absolutely zero to do with politics unfortunately, because that would make it easier to fix. This has to do with catching as much criminals as possible (which is good) and that means the more there are, the better (which is bad).
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If every producer can get off the hook just by demanding they disclose the vulnerability, it is not worth anything.
Not every OS could be vulnerable. If you use Tor, make a Linux VM for it. Even before the spyware knows as Windows 10 has been released, it has been known that using Tor on any version of Windows isn't the best idea as Tor cannot be more secure than the OS its running on.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
There is another explanation. They might not want to release it because it might not stand up in court. If it gives them the ability to run arbitrary code on the target machine, if they can places files on that machine, the defendant will claim that the FBI planted those images. I'm no expert on US law but it seems like there would be some issue with the evidence being tainted too, and then everything else i s fruit of the poisoned tree.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Even better would be to stop the victimization happening in the first place. The only way to do that, which was suggested in the UK recently and shot down by the majority of reactionary commentators, is to decriminalize viewing such images. Instead focus on helping people who feel attracted to children to get help, discreetly and without threat of prosecution or persecution, to prevent the future crimes they might otherwise commit.
In the current atmosphere, if someone did feel that way, what are the chances they would go to their doctor and ask for help with a mental illness? No, more likely they will turn to the internet, where there are sites normalizing and justifying their feelings and where the community of fellow paedophiles will accept them.
The way to protect children is not to catch the offender after they already hurt them, it's to stop them breaking the law in the first place.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And anyone here defending it. Most of the arguments against the FBI that I see here follow the logic that "if FBI does X to stop a crime, FBI or some other person might do X for bad reason". So no one can own a software exploit, a gun, or a computer, or a sandwich, if it sets a 'precedent' that someone else could posses such an exploit, gun, computer, etc. Seems to me FBI is making a judgement call, how much they can damage the child porn industry through the prosecution and disclosure of method, and how much they can damage it by having people know they aren't immunized by Tor. See header. I'm for giving the FBI that discretion, and if and when it's power is abused, object to THAT, rather than to FBI doing their job correctly.
Gently reply
There is a well-known historical case where this decision was made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, the ideal scenario is that the only things that are crimes are those that harm others. And your chances of getting away with those ought to be exactly zero. The goal should be to maximize freedom. The reason that we don't (and shouldn't) target zero crime is that crime prevention techniques that we have infringe on freedoms. It doesn't make sense to use a technique that destroys more freedom than it creates. The world is advancing. At some point we may be able to eliminate more crime with lower cost to freedom in which case we should. I have no idea what a technology that prevented all crime without taking away freedoms from innocent people would look like. But should such a thing be discovered, it ought be deployed. And somebody's "freedom to maybe get away with a crime" should not be a factor in the decision.
A great man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
A prominent Vulcan once said "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." FTFY.
Traveling back in time to "kill Hitler" has become so synonymous with time travel fantasies that it's unlikely future time travelers would actually do it for fear of divulging the existence of their powers and contaminating their preferred timeline. If people in current time knew they were at the mercy of time travelers, they could protect themselves by destroying records and implementing pervasive anonymity (ala technologies like Tor).
1933: Time traveller arrives in Germany, kills Hitler.
1960: German nuclear bomb destroys New York.
That's actually a logical possibility. The same things might have happened in Germany, but at a slower speed and with less madness at the top.
> No, the ideal scenario is that the only things that are crimes are those that harm others
Since that's impossible (while continuing to have a society) since harm is relative, this sentiment serves no purpose.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Given that we have a very strong (albeit not perfect) correlation between criminal statue and harm, I'm not sure that I understand this comment. It's not illegal to sleep late on a Sunday. It is illegal to murder the people who live upstairs so that they don't wake you up in the morning. There are some cases where it is very difficult to decide where to draw the line in terms of what should or should not be a crime. In those cases, we typically treat them as civil infractions which isn't a perfect answer but it's at least reasonable. When there is a mismatch between what is criminal and what *should* be criminal, having the activity go underground and not get caught is the worst possible answer. Better to either change the laws or change behavior.
I agree whole heartedly with this. But I think we are a long long way away from that kind of rational discourse.
I have 2 young kids and so am involved in lots of conversations around safety, paedophiles and murderers from other parents and their compass for risk assessment is so far off it's scary. They genuinely believe that every public toilet has a child molester waiting inside for the chance to grab their kid. The fact that where I live there are almost no cases of strangers attacking children (it's always a family member or close friend), Point out that putting their kids in the car is several orders of magnitude riskier and they will argue it or say that that risk doesn't matter because apparently being killed or seriously maimed is so much less worse than being molested that it doesn't even count.
While people's mindset is like that even having a constructive conversation is impossible.
What you describe sounds like the mid 2000s to me, but still. Just for fun, get that MITM running on the banking app of a decent bank, and then try to do many transactions. You'll quickly understand the security features.
See, this is a side of the industry people don't get. It took the credit card companies almost two decades to start slowly rolling out chips. You know why? Because the odds of a massive fraud versus the cost of implementing those features were not computing in the actuaries spreadsheets.
Same goes for banking. There's this weakness on the network: the end user. Option 1: you force them to have military-grade security policies and annoy the hell out of them. Option 2: you slowly evolve as a laggard on the security adoption curve and in the meantime you mitigate the risk by making the other end smart enough to spot and terminante major breaches.
This said, you'll always find banks with idiotic systems in place, but that's not the norm, that's the exception.
lucm, indeed.
You can stop your bragging now, since it's clear no amount of security can detect or prevent that insider threat.
You may not be aware of it, but just a few decades ago it was common (legal) practice for banks to openly sell insider information to their clients. It was also perfectly normal for a bank to have no liquidity whatsoever, and to simply go bust if their investments went bad. And not so long ago, it was also common practice for CEO and CFO to report their "expected" revenue as if it was real or to move losses off the balance sheet. Guess what, for all of these things you can go to jail now.
Are things perfect? Not at all. Just google "Carmen Segarra" to see the extent of the complacency in the federal banking system.
Things evolve. Not fast, but they do evolve. And this has nothing to do with network security.
lucm, indeed.
I saw the footage, and it"s not mocking comment: it's people who just killed children who then try to rationalize their act.
And as I wrote on an earlier slashdot post, I certainly consider that the people who decided that it was OK to police a city with missile-armed helicopters (after illegally invading a country) should be brought to an international trial, the soldier who appear on the video just did their job (they did ONE mistake - I mean apart than enlisting in the US Army to wage an illegal war - indeed, but a mistake that many psychological studies established people will routinely make).
"Just doing their job" is not a valid excuse for killing children, I concur, but they should not be portrayed as monsters (apart, again, for accepting to police a city with missiles in a country they invaded illegally).
The Catholic Church relied on the Psychological Industry to reform their bad priests. The psychologists collected three figures per hour and the priests still did their nonsense.
Psychology = pseudoscience when it comes to this. There is no cure for pedophilia and no treatment that is effective.
Behavioral Psychology = pseudoscience when it comes to this. Behavioral Psychology is no cure for pedophilia and not a treatment that is effective.
FTFY
Actually, it appears that Coventry was not such a case. Read your link.
There was a case in WWI where the British deliberately didn't warn a French cruiser about a U-boat. The French later asked if the decision would have been the same if it had been a British cruiser.
The coverup was not completely successful. Doenitz, the overall U-boat commander and later head of the Navy, thought their Enigma messages were being read somehow, but his technical people said that was impossible (IIRC, that's in Clay Blair's book on the U-boat war).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't think you know what a switch does.
Maybe the problem is worse than that! Maybe Cisco themselves don't know what a switch does, since they offer an IDS module for their flagship core switch:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/pro...
And this seems like a serious problem in the networking industry. Apparently Alcatel-Lucent doesn't know either, since there's a built-in IDS in their core switch.
http://enterprise.alcatel-luce...
And - OMG - even HP is completely confused about this technology, since they also have IDS on their core switch.
Or maybe, just maybe, you vastly overestimate your understanding of enterprise networking.
lucm, indeed.