Why is the state of Germany trojanizing applications which may be run by anyone on the planet?
How is it they believe they have a right to trojanize someone outside of Germany? This is blatantly illegal in just about every country outside of Germany. Literally. Are they trying to set a precedent for other countries to follow? Or, do they believe they are superior to other countries, and they may invade at will? <quote> We know this because the JAP operators immediately warned users that their IP traffic might be going straight to Big Brother, right? Wrong. After taking the service down for a few days with the explanation that the interruption was "due to a hardware failure", the operators then required users to install an "upgraded version" (ie. a back-doored version) of the app to continue using the service. "As soon as our service works again, an obligatory update (version 00.02.001) [will be] needed by all users," the public was told. Not a word about Feds or back doors. Fortunately, a nosey troublemaker had a look at the 'upgrade' and noticed some unusual business in it, such as: "CAMsg::printMsg(LOG_INFO,"Loading Crime Detection Data....\n");" "CAMsg::printMsg(LOG_CRIT,"Crime detected - ID: %u - Content: \n%s\n",id,crimeBuff,payLen);" and posted it to alt.2600. </quote> > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of error > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Full-Disclosure] JAP back doored > > > This is a terrible day for privacy advocates that used the > once (perhaps never true) "anonymous" Java Anonymous Proxy. > According to a story ( > http://theregister.co.uk/content/55/32450.html) by The Register > > (It was also posted to > ("http://securityfocus.com/archive/1/334382/2003-08-18/2003-08-24/0) > BugTraq) > > JAP was back doored by court order. It was a forced upgrade > (after a service interruption) to monitor "one site" that > continues to be unnamed. How sad it is when a group have a > motto of "Anonymity is not a crime." and then hand logs to > the police without a word? Clearly if they are able to defend > themselves on alt.2600 > (http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame= right&th=f4ef43f695ca29e8&seekm=3f3d3740%241_1%40news.vic.com#link10), they aren't under a gag. Read it and weep. -- error <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
