this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
973 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
84798 readers
4806 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They said in the article they recreated it on their own. So it couldn't just be the proof of concept.
Under cover/covert operations do actually happen.
This could mean they just put the files from the exploit on a drive and reproduced it. The author of the exploit claims it's very complex and no one knows how it works yet.
So what's the scenario they are protecting themselves against? Someone catching the agent right after they unlocked some encrypted drive with the USB drive still on them? It sounds very far fetched to me that FBI would request a backdroor from Microsoft with this very specific requirement. I think it's more likely they would cover it on their side with some easily erasable USB drive. Plus such a solution would also let them get rid of the backdoor if they are caught before they used it.
It's possible this was just added by the guy for his proof of concept, so I guess we'll see when more information is released.
I mean, if you had a USB backdoor why wouldn't you automate the removal of evidence? It would make disposal a lot faster. You can just unplug it and physically destroy it to be safe.
Why not both? Redundancy never hurt.
It's definitely possible to add a feature like that to a backdoor but I don't see how that's a proof it's a backdoor. It's definitely not something backdoors always do and we don't know if this functionality is in Windows or it's part of the exploit. So am I missing something? Or are people just jumping to conclusions?