[–] benchaney 9y ago ↗ I was expecting a kernel vulnerability. This is really more of an exploit payload.
[–] thelamer 9y ago ↗ How is this any different from a standard root kit? It is not a remote hack and requires elevated perms on the machine. This could be a shadowed binary blob and achieve the exact same thing.With that said , are they technically in breach of GPLv2 ? [–] scj 9y ago ↗ As I understand the GPL, they would need to provide source code to people they distribute binaries to...So in practice, they are probably complying with the GPL. [–] ezoe 9y ago ↗ So, If the USA spy infected my computer with malicious Linux kernel module which use GPL protected kernel APIs, Can I demand the source code? [–] scj 9y ago ↗ You'd probably need to prove they provided the infection.
[–] scj 9y ago ↗ As I understand the GPL, they would need to provide source code to people they distribute binaries to...So in practice, they are probably complying with the GPL. [–] ezoe 9y ago ↗ So, If the USA spy infected my computer with malicious Linux kernel module which use GPL protected kernel APIs, Can I demand the source code? [–] scj 9y ago ↗ You'd probably need to prove they provided the infection.
[–] ezoe 9y ago ↗ So, If the USA spy infected my computer with malicious Linux kernel module which use GPL protected kernel APIs, Can I demand the source code? [–] scj 9y ago ↗ You'd probably need to prove they provided the infection.
[–] cphoover 9y ago ↗ Only works on CentOS 6. Also not a vulnerability but a payload. Interesting tool tho.
6 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] threadWith that said , are they technically in breach of GPLv2 ?
So in practice, they are probably complying with the GPL.