Re: [tor-talk] Forensics on Tor

[Mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/23/2014 06:13 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> On 1/23/2014 5:12 PM, Mirimir wrote:
>> I wouldn't run VMs on Windows with any expectation of privacy. Only a
>> year or so ago, shellbags were not common knowledge. Only the forensic
>> community and hard-core black hat types knew about them. It's arguable
>> that many similar features in Windows remain undocumented.[1]
> 
> [1] I'd like to hear more.  "Arguable" mean there is some evidence?

According to <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arguable>,
"arguable" means "open to argument, dispute, or question" and "that can
be plausibly or convincingly argued".

It's a word that I picked up working with lawyers. Basically, it means
that the proposition isn't clearly and obviously false, and that arguing
for it isn't obviously disingenuous. It's how plaintiffs typically
assert claims in complaints, when they don't yet have the necessary
evidence, some of which will be obtained in discovery.

The best evidence for undocumented privacy leaks in Windows is all of
the previously undocumented privacy leaks that are now documented. This
about sums it up: "Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on
me. Trick me three times and I get what I deserve!"
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk