This is the type of article that we need less of in the world. It's full of conjecture and fear mongering. It serves only the anti-virus corporations and Ars Technica.
I'm convinced "encrypted" is the new scare word, similar to "terrorist." When you hear it, all rational thought and discussion just vanishes. This article mentions network traffic as being "encrypted." Yet apparently, no one knows how to analyze the traffic beyond that? Are you kidding me? Was it using TCP? UDP? Just IPv6? How big were the packets? How frequent? What interface were they coming from? (because, you know, the kernel has to have some entry point into its network stack)
It's "encrypted." Oh. I see. Well nevermind then.
> Things kept getting fixed automatically as soon as we tried to break them. It was weird.
I'm convinced "encrypted" is the new scare word, similar to "terrorist." When you hear it, all rational thought and discussion just vanishes. This article mentions network traffic as being "encrypted." Yet apparently, no one knows how to analyze the traffic beyond that? Are you kidding me? Was it using TCP? UDP? Just IPv6? How big were the packets? How frequent? What interface were they coming from? (because, you know, the kernel has to have some entry point into its network stack)
It's "encrypted." Oh. I see. Well nevermind then.
> Things kept getting fixed automatically as soon as we tried to break them. It was weird.
"It was weird." What is this, Scooby fucking Doo?