lix blog

(English translation of the original german version)

Lately the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) has recently received a newer version of the “Staatstrojaner”. The comparison with the older version, already analysed by the CCC with the actual Sniffer-code from December 2010, revealed new evidence. Despite the claims of the responsible parties, the trojan can still be captured, loaded with any code and also the allegedly “audit trail” can be manipulated. The CCC is calling for a complete waiver of Trojans in pre-trial applications.

On October 8th 2011, the CCC published the documentation and binary data regarding a german “Staatstrojaner”. [0] This was used for the officially called computer infiltrations, trivially called “source-telecommunication surveillance”. Its application in pre-trials and law enforcement meanwhile was admitted by many states.

Despite the CCC has published solid technical evidence, the authorities responsible for internal affairs, as well as the manufacturer DigiTask, denied the existence of any illegal functionalities [1],[2],[10], and pleaded that the analysed Trojan was allegedly an outdated software version.

The excuses vary from “trial” to “prototype”, DigiTask still insisted on October 11th 2011 to its governmental customers, that almost all problems are being solved in newer versions. The manufacturer DigiTask and the authorities view the functionality of code-reloading as a “natural need”, for which the implication of fundamental rights violation is relative in any way. It serves a purpose, and therefore the aim justifies the means.

Therefore, the CCC now presents a more detailed technical documentation of a newer version of the “Staatstrojaner” from the year 2010.[3] The testimony of DigiTask[11] is the basis of a detailed report that serves as a euphemistic attempt to conceal its illegal nature. At the same time, both disassembled versions of the Trojan, commented by the CCC, were made publicly available in order to ensure the traceability of the findings and to facilitate further research by interested parties. [4]

„Even during the last three years, the authorities and their providers were clearly not capable of developing a “Staatstrojaner” ehich would meet the minimum of requirements for juridical evidence, basic law compliance and security against manipulation”, a CCC spokesman summed up about the new findings. “By these concrete and principal reasons, it is logical not to expected that this would succeed in the future.”

The diagnosis of the new CCC report presents a strong contrast to the claims by the Interior Secretary Ole Schröder, who was the one who apparently had drawn the short straw and be the one to justify and answer questions of the parliament. There, he claimed: “The software is designed for each individual case and previously checked, so that it can’t do more than it is allowed to.” [8] Under the previously mentioned conditions, it is evident that the test wasn’t very intense – how could it, without available source code.

[0] The first press release regarding the “Staatstrojaner”
[1] http://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/174366-Bericht-BKA-Prasident-Ziercke_TOP-24a-24c_53.-InnenA-Sitzug.pdf
[2] http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/protokolle/plenarprotokolle/17132.pdf
[3] Technical report
[4] commented disassemblance of both versions of the trojan and here both binaries
[5] Videos: http://haha.kaputte.li/0zapftis-2_lowres-final.mov
http://haha.kaputte.li/0zapftis-2_922x578-final.mov (medium resolution)
http://haha.kaputte.li/0zapftis-2_1230x770-final.mov (high resolution)
[6] Frank Braun: „0zapftis – (Un)Zulässigkeit von ,Staatstrojanern‘“. In: Kommunikation & Recht 11/2011, S. 681-686
[7] FAQ zum Staatstrojaner
[8] Plenarprotokoll 17/132 des Deutschen Bundestages, 19. Oktober 2011, S. 15604,
[9] Ulf Buermeyer, Matthias Bäcker: Zur Rechtswidrigkeit der Quellen-Telekommunikationsüberwachung auf Grundlage des § 100a StPO, HRRS
[10] Dem CCC zugespielte Stellungnahme der Firma DigiTask an ihre Behördenkunden

… they did it again. As mentioned in my blog beginning of August, TSA continues to illegally store pictures of scanned people.
See: Gizmodo.

Another example on what ridiculous forms the “war on terror” gains. Meanwhile the “Nackscanner” or “nude scanner” has been renamed into “Porno scanner”. To prepare your kids for the upcoming age of naked citizenship, get this guide:

What will we see next? Pregnant women that try to hide it from their husband, being disclosed by a TSA agent while passing through the security check? Detained fakirs and Sikhs because of the nails in their stomach and dagger in the turban?

Compete by finding your 0wn way to opt-out (e.g. with a creased shirt?) – Haha! Or maybe a “wet t-shirt contest flashmob” at your airport?

… get yourself a shirt and stay tuned!

People usually refer to privacy or safety reasons, arguing about the possible abuse of information in social networks and augmented reality applications. And it’s kind of boring to constantly explain and tell people why they do have something to hide.

See what’s culture of arbitrariness:

… and I still don’t carry a webcam in my underwear.

[Update:] And here‘s a glimpse about the abuse and misuse of your personal data. (Who can you trust?)

Thank you, Gleuch!

You enrich my daily internet surfing with Shaved Bieber and this beautiful Captcha script.

Use :
git clone github.com/gleuch/fuckCAPTCHA.git
to implement it to your website.

Here’s why you should refuse to pass through the “nude scanner” at the airports: Feds admitted, that they were storing images of body scans at airport checkpoints.

See: Cnet News and this Boingboing article

Ask for manual scanning in case the feds are asking you to pass through the scanner and refer to the international human rights law.

The “Berlin way” to hinder Google maps tracking:

Track the trackers ( streetcar.fffff.at)

More about this: http://fffff.at/?s=google

@fffffat (twitter)

And here’s the “Norwegian way” of protesting for privacy:

(Read more on Boingboing)

This reminds me of a project we did in 2004, when I studies media arts at the University of arts and applied sciences, messing around with an omnidirectional video camera, recording the streets in Zurich: