I'm totally just guessing, but the NSA runs a hierarchical system of hardware backdoors, so if they want to trace a machine engaged in a DDOS
This is also stuff that TLAs (three letter agencies) make up to scare people. They really don't. They have a set of 0 Days that they choose not to tell people about but their set is much smaller than some organized hacking groups such as nation state threat actors that routinely target the US. Don't believe their propoganda. Additionally, there's still 1,001 ways around anything you think the NSA/CIA/FBI could possibly have to stop someone from using a modern dead man switch.
This data is then parsed
I think at this point, you're just adding in jargon to make your point to seem more legit but it makes no sense to parse anything at this point if the systems involved are already compromised - it's already be decrypted in your scenario. There's no point to parse anything at this point in your theoretical set of steps. Your entire plan revolves around a nonexistent backdoor, as well. If what you said was correct, then how is it that the TLAs get fooled all the time but rather stupid but tech savy street thugs involved in international crimes? You know how those folks get caught? Poor secops. Not the technology they use. They just make sloppy mistakes instead of following their processes.
I think at this point, you're just adding in jargon
Not at all. "parse" here, simply means to "extract" something. In this case, an ip address. Nothing fancy.
" it's already be decrypted in your scenario.'
I want you to consider what a DDOS or even a deadman switch might entail:
The controlling machine is not the one directly sending traffic, or data, to the target.
You have a series of hopes, and proxies, that redirect traffick flow, in order to obfuscate origin.
So if the final location to send a drop, or even a DDOS is location A, it might look like the following (assuming formatting doesn't mangle my message):
A
/ \
B C
/ \ / \ D E F G \ H
Where H is the machine that issues the command, and D, E, F, G, are the proxies, and B, and C are the bot machines that receive commands from the proxies.
What the NSA might do is send a command, a bit of code, to a backdoor on A, that reveals the IPs of B and C. And this, almost like a worm, raids the network interface controller for a history of packets received, getting the addresses of D, E, F, G, and so on, down the layers of proxies and bots, until they all have a single machine or subnet in common.
If this exists, it likely exists as a common protocol in ring 0 (or even lower rings) on modern chipsets across multiple manufacturers, not simply zero days. And for the purpose of plausible deniability, at each step of retrieving the next layer of IPs, it would defer to a subset of major nodes on many common carriers, where the parsing would be done, instead of saying embedding an IP address that points directly back to the DOD, lol. All it would look like, if you could even capture the network traffic, would be anomalous diagnostic data being sent to your carrier, with a single hop, maybe disguised as a SYN packet or an errant SYN-ACK with no preceding SYN packet, but other implementations could be possible too.
Not at all. "parse" here, simply means to "extract" something. In this case, an ip address. Nothing fancy.
I know what it means which should be quite obvious from what I said after that. I criticized your use of parse as appropriate in that set of steps as it is absolutely meaningless/useless to do at that point in your steps. It was me pointing out that you're using jargon to cover up the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about. I had to explain modern dead man switches to you, remember?
Since I'm not getting any value out of this conversation in addition to you thinking you're an expert when you're not, I'll ignore you.
I criticized your use of parse as appropriate in that set of steps as it is absolutely meaningless/useless to do at that point in your steps.
And I explained why it wouldn't. It's called plausible deniability.
It was me pointing out that you're using jargon
And this is you thinking you're a mind reader.
up the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about.
which coincidentally is exactly what you suffer from. On top of projection.
I had to explain modern dead man switches to you, remember?
No, if you recall, which you clearly don't, or perhaps failed to comprehend, is that I asked you to use your own words billy, not that I needed an explanation. Thats different than someone asking out of ignorance. It was to check what your level of understanding of the topic was.
It's clearly lacking.
Since I'm not getting any value out of this conversation in addition to you thinking you're an expert when you're not,
Devalue, disparase, deflect, and reverse cause and effect. Classic shill just as others wrote.
You are an expert in exactly nothing, not even bullshitting, lol.
Filed you under "some faggot at the fbi"
I want you to know you'll never pass tranny.
(post is archived)