On the Juniper backdoor

Re:On the Juniper backdoor by tyho on Tuesday December 22, 2015 @09:13AM (#10777817)

Here is a wild theory. The constant Q was changed not by a hacker but by a good samaritan within Juniper to a safe value. Juniper responded with a patch that actually reintroduces the problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the Juniper backdoor by moyix on Tuesday December 22, 2015 @09:26AM (#10777889)

That would be amazing. Has anyone checked that the new Q is not simply the SHA-256 of "Hack the Planet"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the Juniper backdoor by _yy on Tuesday December 22, 2015 @10:26AM (#10778233)

But the login backdoor?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the Juniper backdoor by moyix on Tuesday December 22, 2015 @12:19PM (#10778945)

Could have been planted by a different party. It's wildly different in terms of sophistication.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the Juniper backdoor by wolf550e on Tuesday December 22, 2015 @01:20PM (#10779342)

planted at a different time, maybe by a different attacker.

https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/679028059907887104

[ Parent | on HN ]