I wonder if the dude happened to find an internally documented backdoor intended for use by government actors? Or most likely they just don’t wanna deal with it and the perceived fastest way to deal with it is to try and bury it. Both could be true, but I’m just speculating.
Interesting, I wonder why the choice to remove blog spot dot com specifically, this is actually the first time I have ever seen a “removed” from this instance, which is why I assumed at first it must be remote (also I had just woken up). Now that I’m more awake I realize, you’re right, it must be my instance. Maybe I’ll ask my admin sometime if there’s a reason why they block that phrase.
I was wondering that myself.
I mean, a mechanism that allows you to get the malware scanner to place whatever software you want on a machine, give it system access and then execute it, feels like a prime suspect for “lawful source interception” bullshit.
I do feel like it’s entirely possible it was a bug. I would imagine if they wanted to do a backdoor, they would require some form of key. There would need to be a form of revocation. If an employee, either for the government or Microsoft, went rogue then they could abuse that, or at the very least whistleblow and it would be easily verifiable for other entities.
I wonder if the dude happened to find an internally documented backdoor intended for use by government actors? Or most likely they just don’t wanna deal with it and the perceived fastest way to deal with it is to try and bury it. Both could be true, but I’m just speculating.
Their april 15th blog post explicitly calls it a backdoor and mentions it was very well hidden. I’m interested to see what comes of this
Whatever the last part of the link is it is getting caught in the content filter and being replaced with “removed”.
Can anyone actually share the actual end of the link without triggering the content filter?
Might be your instance. Try
blogandspotand.comwithout spaces. The blog is also linked within OPs articleInteresting, I wonder why the choice to remove blog spot dot com specifically, this is actually the first time I have ever seen a “removed” from this instance, which is why I assumed at first it must be remote (also I had just woken up). Now that I’m more awake I realize, you’re right, it must be my instance. Maybe I’ll ask my admin sometime if there’s a reason why they block that phrase.
I was wondering that myself.
I mean, a mechanism that allows you to get the malware scanner to place whatever software you want on a machine, give it system access and then execute it, feels like a prime suspect for “lawful source interception” bullshit.
I do feel like it’s entirely possible it was a bug. I would imagine if they wanted to do a backdoor, they would require some form of key. There would need to be a form of revocation. If an employee, either for the government or Microsoft, went rogue then they could abuse that, or at the very least whistleblow and it would be easily verifiable for other entities.
That would negate plausible deniability.