Chinese Military To Replace Windows OS Amid Fears of US Hacking (zdnet.com) 220
Amidst an escalating trade war and political tensions with the US, Beijing officials have decided to develop a custom operating system that will replace the Windows OS on computers used by the Chinese military. From a report: The decision, while not made official through the government's normal press channels, was reported earlier this month by Canada-based military magazine Kanwa Asian Defence. Per the magazine, Chinese military officials won't be jumping ship from Windows to Linux but will develop a custom OS. Thanks to the Snowden, Shadow Brokers, and Vault7 leaks, Beijing officials are well aware of the US' hefty arsenal of hacking tools, available for anything from smart TVs to Linux servers, and from routers to common desktop operating systems, such as Windows and Mac. Since these leaks have revealed that the US can hack into almost anything, the Chinese government's plan is to adopt a "security by obscurity" approach and run a custom operating system that will make it harder for foreign threat actors -- mainly the US -- to spy on Chinese military operations.
The US Military should do the same. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, all military groups should do the same. Don't base it on Linux or any existing OS. Create a custom OS.
Re: (Score:1)
"What's the worst that could happen"
Re:The US Military should do the same. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a great idea if you want to be even more hackable. Building a custom OS will inevitably result in far more security issues that you would ever have in something that has been around for a long time.
Re: The US Military should do the same. (Score:2, Insightful)
What bunk! Have you forgotten about the disastrous Shellshock bug that affected bash [wikipedia.org]? Or the disastrous Heartbleed bug that affected OpenSSL [wikipedia.org]?
Both bash and OpenSSL were widely used open source software projects. They were used by millions upon millions of people, on millions of devices. Their source code could have been easily inspected by millions of eyeballs. Yet both had serious flaws that went undetected for years, or even decades in the case of bash's bug!
What you're saying is bunk. Being widely used do
Re: (Score:2)
Like the OpenBSD project proves, the only way to maximize security is to be extremely careful all of the time.
This is the most dangerous ideology one could possibly adopt when designing systems.
Instead focus must be on designing systems to be inherently secure minimizing amount of care necessary to achieve security.
Re: (Score:2)
Which can only be done by people who are very skilled and are "extremely careful all of the time" to ensure the 'inherently secure' technology actually is so.
In fact, this design principle elevates the necessary skill and knowledge of those doing so.
Re: The US Military should do the same. (Score:2)
To that... replace âoemany eyeballsâ with âoemany programmersâ and see if it still sounds like a good plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All software has bugs.
What matters is how fast those bugs are fixed once they are found.
Re: (Score:2)
So that statement could also be written as:
Being widely used increases the likeliness that a security flaw will be identified. Being old increases the likeliness that a security flaw will be identified over time.
Being open source makes it that the security flaw can be understood, corrected and be peer reviewed.
Re: (Score:2)
True, none of those things prevent security flaws. Neither does rolling your own, per se. Rolling your own while being very careful about security issues from the very beginnings of your design can do that. In which case it won't hurt you to release your code so others can use it.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD: Feeling kind of cute, I have security problems too, will they be found in time? IDK..
Look, sure, OpenBSD is more secure by default, it comes out of the box with as little configured and working as possible for a reason. But it is still only as secure as the system administrator keeps it. It may START more secure, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be mismanaged and be as insecure as any other system out there.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh really?
It may be HARDER for an unskilled programmer to run amok in Rust, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. C may be harder to keep secure for the unskilled programmer, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Both are but tools, with different purposes, both have their issues.
Rust, with it's strict type and ownership checks just isn't going to be used to write device drivers, where interacting with the hardware is necessary. In such cases "C" and "C++" (or even assembly) will be required in some fa
Re: (Score:2)
Rust, with it's strict type and ownership checks just isn't going to be used to write device drivers, where interacting with the hardware is necessary.
And yet people already are:
https://www.redox-os.org/ [redox-os.org]
Re: The US Military should do the same. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Building an OS isn't hard. Building an OS that is secure can be done.
The hard part is keeping the darn thing updated, with packages maintained. This requires a lot of people on a day to day basis doing compilation, smoke testing, regression testing, and many other things. Then, every so often, the OS needs to have a snapshot where a new install image can be made.
This is why there are so few core distributions of Linux that are well maintained.
This reminds me... Did China learn their lesson from Red Flag
Re: (Score:2)
"Building an OS that is secure can be done." Don't be stupid. I haven't seen one in 40+ years. Reminds me of the people trying to stop DVD copying.
Re: The US Military should do the same. (Score:2)
Re:The US Military should do the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be a mistake. It should be based on a well known and studies OS, where you know many of the problems. I'll agree that there should be extensive rewrites, but doing it from scratch guarantees a huge number of them. That an occasional bug remains present for decades without being noticed doesn't argue against the huge number that have been removed.
That said, I'm not sure whether the base should be Linux or Unix. There are arguments in favor of each. I wouldn't consider a minor OS like Haiku, because it hasn't been properly debugged. (Not enough attention.) I suppose you could consider Minix, but I'm not sure it has any advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is already the open source can serve as the basis of a shell such as Gnome or KDE or Deepin.
All that any country can do is start with Linux, and with allies, including China, review each shell component to insure it is secure from hacking.
If China's new software is going to be that secure, it would be nice if it can be shared.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, all military groups should do the same. Don't base it on Linux or any existing OS. Create a custom OS.
Fuck no. Don't reinvent the wheel. Take a secure OS like SE Linux and harden it even more.
Re:The US Military should do the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is seriously the stupidest thing I've heard in months and clearly comes from someone that knows nothing about the basics of an OS or security. Windows is literally MILLIONS of lines of code and requires a massive undertaking to design and interface with all the hardware options out there. Standards development alone takes a ridiculously large and coordinated effort. Not only that, for any practical purpose so many engineers and others have to know about the specifics and intricacies of that software to make it work, the obscurity will be next to worthless. Even now, as mature as the Windows codebase is it still takes a pretty huge team to work on it, and their security is definitely not top notch.
Now imagine having to employ a massive division dedicated to nothing but that within the military. It is government, so top tier talent won't go there on principle and pay will be mediocre at best compared to private sector, plus any military personnel working on it could end up just straight vanishing when their enlistment ends. So now you need a top notch, reliable, full featured, high security OS developed by middle of the road developers that works with a variety of hardware that is not standardized necessarily to be optimal for your OS. Sound like a nightmare to you yet? Not only that, as someone that has done a lot of reverse engineering in my time, it takes a MUCH smaller effort to reverse engineer systems like that then it does to build them. Then once the inevitable unlocking of the base gates happens that everything is based on, what do they do? Design another OS and play the most expensive game of whack-a-mole in history?
If I am a military leader in the cyber operations side of the US military, I'm fucking ecstatic that the Chinese are wanting to do this. They will waste massive amounts of resources trying to do develop it, create an absolute logistical nightmare for themselves to deploy it, make it easier for US intel to break into it, and make it easier to not affect our own stuff with introducing any 'backdoors'. All the while the US can simply work with Microsoft to harden our existing infrastructure and build on decades of work and lessons learned.
There is a reason that there are only a few bases of large scale OSs (not counting embedded systems, those are a different beast).
Re:The US Military should do the same. (Score:4, Insightful)
" They will waste massive amounts of resources trying to do develop it, create an absolute logistical nightmare for themselves to deploy it, make it easier for US intel to break into it, and make it easier to not affect our own stuff with introducing any 'backdoors'."
When the Chinese say " develop ", it literally translates into stealing existing code from everyone else and stitching it all together.
They may as well name their new creation " Franken-OS "
Re: (Score:2)
That might be closer to what they end up doing, but that will be a mess in and of itself. Integration points are often the most vulnerable if you're not really familiar with doing it or with what is being integrated. The more I think about this the worse the idea sounds.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be more afraid of when I install and I have to sign the FrankenTOS.
Re: (Score:2)
All true. Yet if I were Chinese I would consider creating a separate minimal (real time) OS for ultra sensitive data and operations that would provide the minimum functionality I need, to use it for perhaps 2% of my network, and separate it from the remaining 98% that would still run Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they'll simply take Linux, rebadge it, and call it the Peoples Army #1 Cyber OS. The U.S. military will be ecstatic that someone else gets to be the guinea pig. If it works, they'll just need to find a way to lose the PPs of their briefs and go back to thinking for a change.
Once, while David Patraeus was still the honcho in Afghanistan or Iraq (I forget which), he was giving a tail wiggling show on CSPAN for all the wannbe military leaders in the Press. He's comfortably going through slides, I'm getting
Re: (Score:2)
1. A military OS don't need to support all the hw out there. Only the hw the military actually deploy. They're big enough to buy custom hw, for that matter.
Are you actually aware of even a fraction of what the military uses for computer hardware? Logistics divisions alone have crazy amounts of workstations that are all at various ages and procured at various times with large variations in what hardware is in the PC. Mobile devices are not much better. And custom hardware? Yes lets complicate the process even more so that they need custom circuit designs from CE and EEs. While were at it, why not make all of the electrical receptacles 150 volts AC and step
Re: (Score:2)
Probably in limited amounts. As long as they are not doing things like developing autonomous targeting systems or something that focuses on attack, you can get ethically minded engineers to help harden systems for defensive purposes.
Re:The US Military should do the same. (Score:4, Insightful)
Creating an OS is a LOT of work, and will require a huge budget and many competent people.
Writing your own from scratch is a stupid idea, while existing systems have their flaws they are also tried and tested. If you're writing new code for something as complex as an OS there will invariably be bugs. It's like the people who try to roll their own crypto, and invariably end up with something seriously flawed.
The idea of security through obscurity is extremely naive, the NSA (and FSB, Mossad, GCHQ etc) will get their hands on it on one way or another and will then start looking for bugs. As the code is new there will be more bugs to find, and far fewer people actively looking for them.
They'd be better off starting with something tried and tested (linux, openbsd, etc), stripping it down to the subset of functionality they actually require and then thoroughly auditing, hardening and customising this subset.
Actually the more competing powers that are contributing to open source the better, as they should keep each other in check.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought - why not follow IBM's process when producing the AS400 - write the OS first, then design the hardware to run it?
Not that I believe the chinese military has the skill or talent to do such as thing, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Creating an OS isn't that much work. Mahnigga Terry Davis wrote one after all.
Re: (Score:1)
We don't have a balanced budget, so cost is no issue. At this point who cares if we add another hundred billion or so to the debt. It's time for us to be honest with ourselves. We don't care.
Re:The US Military should do the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
Use OpenBSD and benefit from the vast auditing they've already done.
Somewhat apropos as OpenBSD was at one point partially funded by DARPA. Maybe even renew that funding in the process!
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the smart thing.
PS: They probably already do that and this is all just smoke and mirrors to make headlines in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, all those WHITE ONLY and COLORED ONLY signs I used to see when I was a kid just magically disappeared by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
And a decade from now, they will wonder why they wasted all this time on such a boondoggle. Writing an OS is NOT trivial, maintaining one over a long term is even more difficult as hardware devices march on, CPU's, GPU's, disk drives, memory and available busses will change as will the need to support these devices in your custom OS.
IF China thinks rolling their own OS will help them, power to them. I don't think it will.
There is a REASON even the almighty Apple went to an Open Source base for their PC Op
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a fanboy of Apple, but theirs was anything but a half assed attempt at an OS. They also had plenty of resources and a dedicated user base. Yet, with all that, they ditched their own OS in favor of one based on Linux...
China may "roll their own" but it will either really just be a Linux Distribution clone and/or it will fall out of favor quickly as the amount of effort needed to support the OS rises beyond their means to support it. But hey, your mileage may vary there comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we do. It's an easy way to spy.
/. is only focusing on China today? (Score:1)
Three of the last four submissions on the front page are about China in some way. Aside from those, there are other submissions about Lenovo and Huawei on the front page, as well.
Look, we know China is a big player in the tech and business sectors. But let's have some variety here, /. editors.
Some news involving China is fine. 75% or more of the front page being about China or Chinese companies is excessive.
so... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:so... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, impossible. The XP CD China bought went missing last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity is not a valid tactic at all in the context of software...
It means that potentially helpful people (whitehat researchers, users etc) don't have access and can't look for (and help to fix) bugs...
The only people that will have access to the code are those who go out of their way to acquire it, ie your adversaries.
Look at the shadow brokers leaks, the bugs exploited there existed for many years in the windows code and were not found by the many thousands of security researchers regu
Re: (Score:2)
obscurity is a fine thing if you can manage it. Against a government actor you probably can't manage it. If they're actually worried about US government espionage, obscurity is really the last thing they should be counting on.
Huawei retaliation (Score:1)
More importantly for the trade war, it deprives a significant US company of a massive revenue stream. Likely retaliation for Huawei.
Re:Huawei retaliation (Score:4, Insightful)
You are missing the point. It means their military isn't addicted to PP briefs. And the people rejoiced.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Huawei will finally bring us a worthwhile user friendly Linux distribution once they can no longer install Windows or Android on their new hardware.
2021 might be the year of the Linux desktop (In China, anyway)!
Security by obscurity is a two-edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the US and other attackers will have to start from scratch in finding vulnerabilities and exploits, but the same goes for Chinese security folks. I'm not sure if an immature publicly known vulnerability database favors the attacker or the protector. My guess is that in the short term, the immature database favors the attacker, since the vulnerabilities known by the attacker but unknown to the protector will take some time to diminish. As the public vulnerability database matures, more of these attacker-known/protector-unknown vulnerabilities will become known to the protector.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd tend to agree; the attack methods aren't going to be new, after all. There are known classes of programming vulnerabilities that they can look for ( and will find ).
Mind you, that's not to say that it's a bad idea dumping Windows. Were this me I'd start with linux and build from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind you, that's not to say that it's a bad idea dumping Windows. Were this me I'd start with linux and build from there.
If 'obscurity' is one of their goals, I would go *BSD, not linux. It's far less familiar.
Re: (Score:2)
Obscurity is almost always a mistake when it comes to security, and most certainly in this case. That said, I did consider BSD, but linux is more battle tested and heavily developed.
Granted; as a starting point. The idea would be to get your legion of monkeys to pick through the source, ripping out whatever you don't need and fully analyzing what you do need. It's a lot of work, but still a better solution than rolling your own.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they will also use their own CPUs. They have home grown MIPS based ones and doubtless plenty of other designs. For military use they will be looking for hardened versions anyway.
I wonder what language they will use too. C is the go-to for operating systems, but not the most secure. And of course you need a decent compiler for your chosen language and architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they have some smart people that can write their own OS. But then what applications will it support ? Bash, openssl, X perhaps ? What hardware will they run it on ? x86_64 perhaps ?
When we talk of security vulnerabilities in linux we could just as easily be talking about recent exploits affecting pipelining in the CPU, or something in an old library, application or driver rather than directly in the OS code itself
The applications are what makes the OS useful. There's a reason it's called gnu/linux
Re: (Score:2)
* The key that fits the lock of your home's front door is an obscure shape; it's too difficult to manufacture a copy of it.
* Your private cryptographic key is an obscure number; it's too difficult to find a copy of it.
The keyspace for physical cylinder pin tumbler locks, as is typical on home front doors, is very small. Something like a single-digit number of pins with a single-digit number of values for each pin. The reason these locks are somewhat secure is that exploring the keyspace for non-locksmiths is challenging. However, given access to a key, making a copy is trivial and cheap, e.g., go to Home Depot and pay $3.
Crytographic keyspaces can be made arbitrarily large to render brute force attacks infeasible (at
Re: (Score:1)
The key that fits the lock of your home's front door is an obscure shape; it's too difficult to manufacture a copy of it.
It isn't quite as obscure as you think as there are only a limited number of key types. Imagine if a manufacture changed the key design for each lock, then when you need a spare or replacement the lock smith would need to build a custom key from scratch. As for being difficult to copy, a simple image of a key is more than enough to make a clone that would work. But why bother, picking a common lock can usually be done in under 30 seconds.
So do I think my home is secure? No, just a deterrent to the ca
Re: (Score:1)
surprised they are using windows (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ditto...it would never have occurred to me that any foreign military would be using Windows...
And it appalls me that the US Military uses Windows, but only because they should know better....
Re: (Score:2)
That's not security through obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not what security through obscurity usually means. They're switching from something they have no control over, can't audit, and can't maintain, to something they do have control over, can audit, and maintain.
That it's initially obscure, is totally beside the point.
Re: (Score:3)
They can control their own fork of linux, openbsd, freebsd etc, they can audit this and they can maintain it. It makes far more sense to start from an existing open codebase then to roll their own from scratch.
It being initially obscure is the only point, and is extremely naive because it's stupid to believe the nsa doesn't have the resources to acquire it through espionage.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, but what are the chances that they have access to the source for every single windows update? I highly doubt that the GSP gives them the ability to build the binaries themselves in a completely transparent way, so it would be difficult to trust that MS is providing what they say they are. It's also highly likely that the "custom OS" described in the article is based on Linux. The "security through obscurity" comment sounds a hell of a lot like a reporter trying to throw in a phrase to make it seem lik
So many backdoors.... (Score:2)
It'll have more easily-penetrated backdoors than a Filipino whorehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the guy that goes to a computer security meeting thinking that it's okay to wear a cape, a fedora, and interject with "But actually..." whenever someone mistakenly tries to carry on a conversation with you.
Oh you poor baby, here's your Outrage Award.
So much for a return of Red Flag Linux (Score:2)
I was really hoping Red Flag Linux [wikipedia.org] would make a comeback here and that innovation would trickle into other distributions. That would make far more sense than a custom OS, since even ignoring compatibility issues, the security-through-obscurity play has been so thoroughly disproven: the more experts looking looking for bugs and security holes, the more likely they are to be found and fixed.
If China makes this custom OS's source code available to the entire Chinese population, that'd defeat the security-thr
I'm just surprised they ever used Windows (Score:2)
Beijing officials have decided to develop a custom operating system that will replace the Windows OS on computers used by the Chinese military.
Honestly I'm kind of stunned they used Windows in the first place. Aside from the know security problems with it, one would think a military organization would default to not trusting software written by a major company headquartered in a rival nation state.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft opened their codebase to inspection by Chinese security organizations more than a decade ago to prove there was no collusion with US spy agencies. They've continued to provide this access the entire time.
My bet is this is more tied to Windows XP than anything else. WindowsXP was widely pirated in China and China's communist party publicly complained when Microsoft abandoned the product.
This is likely the same dog and pony show as when they created Red Flag Linux. They'll wave it around as a patrio
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I'm kind of stunned they used Windows in the first place. Aside from the know security problems with it, one would think a military organization would default to not trusting software written by a major company headquartered in a rival nation state.
To be fair, the OS is less relevant since all their security acumen is focused on having the world's best firewall.
Smart move. (Score:2)
Windows allow processes to be modified after they begin executing. This is a fundamental design flaw as it makes it' impossible to what a process actually is because it could be changed at any moment by itself or another process. Aside from this, private application distribution systems are non-existent while installation by private installer (not trustworthy!) is widespread.
I would recommend that anyone who wants a secure system to avoid using Windows and USB entirely.
Re: (Score:1)
Custom Linux Distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
It's development time and quality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your missing the TCO. You don't just drop that crap in, and let it run. How much are your admin costs? What about updates? Etc., etc.
Most military systems USED to run windows NT. Not so much these days.
Huh (Score:2)
I'd have figured that the Chinese would have already stolen the source code (like everything else) and could have audited the code themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The chinese demanded the source code for windows a few years ago and got it...
If you assume that the chinese are conducting hacking operations (which hasn't been proven, unlike the nsa), then chances are they have used their access to the source code to assist them in developing exploits.
Closed source creates an unbalanced playing field, where legitimate white hat security researchers and end users have less access than criminal groups and espionage agencies.
ReactOS (Score:2)
It's there, it's open source, it works.
Re: (Score:2)
It's there, it's open source, it works.
I like ReactOS, but it is not quite there. I wish it were better, but at the moment I still need one MS windows PC just for a few pieces of hardware I need to interact with from time to time. The last Win7 machine in my life will lose its network connection in January.
why build when you can recycle! (Score:1)
LOL China (Score:2)
Intel agencies around the world are throwing a party in your honor.
What Took them So Long? (Score:2)
Everyone should have done that long ago.
Speaking of OpenBSD (Score:2)
The Calgary Unix Users Group has another meeting addressed by OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt tonight. ( http://www.cuug.ab.ca/ [cuug.ab.ca] ) Theo's from Calgary, so there have been a number of Hackathons and other OpenBSD gatherings in Calgary over the years, I've had a few beers with the contributors.
They strike me as different from most of the commercial coders I've met, and most are not in commercial programming jobs per se; mostly in consulting, running the server infrastructure, or research. Their kink is gett
'Custom' OS (Score:2)
Ffft 'custom'. It'll be modded Linux. They've already done this in a couple cases, as North Korea has.
Or I'm sure they have the stolen source code for Windows they could base it on, but... no.
Likely Internal Hype (Score:1)
It is likely the idea of building a new OS over just reusing Linux is just Chinese internal hype for whoever is getting the contract. The cost to develop Linux has been estimated at $1 Trillion, or 8% of China's GDP. This just isn't happening, India did a similar thing a decade ago and naught has come out of it.
NSA to hire Chinese OPT students (Score:2)
More and more Chinese graduate students will go back to China instead of working in US on OPT. And a good chunk of these would have been recruited by the NSA to put backdoors in the new OS.
China is falling into Trump's trap. The US leads the world in cyberwarfare. The only way to win a Cyber war with US is to not play.
Use exactly the same systems as the US uses. NSA wont put backdoors in them for fear of the backdoors being used against US.
OS developemnt (Score:2)
I just found a 2015 article on same topic (Score:3)
https://qz.com/505383/a-first-look-at-the-chinese-operating-system-the-government-wants-to-replace-windows/ [qz.com]
A first look at the Chinese operating system the government wants to replace Windows
By Nikhil SonnadâSeptember 22, 2015
WTF.. (Score:1)
No military should be using windoze at all. Imagine your missile system going BSOD. That would not be a good day.
Security through diversity (Score:3)
The Future is Upon Us (Score:1)
Everything from the internet to cellular infrastructure is moving towards decentralization, localization, and heavy regulation. Nobody should be surprised that countries are now wanting to to apply these tenants to the operating systems that are in use.
Attack China while they're 'transitioning' ;) (Score:1)
If there's one thing we know about massive transitioning of critical software is that it takes lots of time and is fraught with chaos.
One of the reasons why so many businesses put off these types of upgrades is to avoid the cost and hassle of transitioning a critical piece of their infrastructure. So if China is really serious about this, they could be in chaos for decades ;).
(LOL captcha is maintain)
US Hacking?! (Score:2)
Write it in (Score:2)
Eh (Score:2)
American Hacking? Ha! (Score:1)
The ChiComs know ALL ABOUT hacking into Windoze, so presumably they'd be the ones to know where the insecurities lie. Knowing about them and FIXING them are two entirely different things, however!
Military use of Windows == Scarey Stuff (Score:2)
ANY other OS would be safer. For all or us!
Re: (Score:3)
That's a surprising speculation. I think if we compiled a list of known software esponiage/sabotage prior to 1982 [telegraph.co.uk], my hunch is that China would be an insignificant blip. But I'll admit it: I'm just pulling that guess out of my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment, but would put it a bit differently and with some possible thought processes that led to that madness and there is a minor bug in you submission too.
A custom system that is written from scratch will have more bugs than a vetted one, so yes it is moronic. that is because security by obscurity does not really work against someone like the USA wanting to spend money to buy things like the code from some disgruntled programmer. .
But the thing is the that is kind of explained by the fa
Re: (Score:1)