The FBI Says How It ‘Legally’ Pinpointed Silk Road’s Server

Re:The FBI Says How It ‘Legally’ Pinpointed Silk Road’s Server by maxerickson on Saturday September 06, 2014 @10:48AM (#8278456)

I can't imagine there was anything between the FBI and site that established a context for them to be attempting to access a user on the system that they had not created. So I hope they are relying on some investigative authority and not some hairsplitting definition of unauthorized.

edit: I guess they could have been providing incorrect passwords for an account that they created. I agree that is easier to call unwanted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The FBI Says How It ‘Legally’ Pinpointed Silk Road’s Server by mpyne on Saturday September 06, 2014 @11:51AM (#8278605)

Reading the Krebs story on this same topic (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/dread-pirate-sunk-by-leak...), it occurs to me that FBI may not have needed to try to authenticate at all.

Basically all the analyst said he did was to load the SR website far enough until the captcha popped up, and notice in the wireshark (or equivalent) logs that a non-Tor IP address was reached from the SR website.

If the analyst tooled around on the website after that, then even if the court were to call foul on that subsequent access, the public IP address wasn't derived from tooling around so it (and the evidence derived from that) wouldn't be at risk either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The FBI Says How It ‘Legally’ Pinpointed Silk Road’s Server by tP5n on Sunday September 07, 2014 @06:52AM (#8280751)

this seems plausible, yet there must've been thousands of attempts of people doing sql injections/looking at their logs?

if i remember correctly an error page leaked an ip in 2012/2013. someone had to realize the captcha was leaking at some point? consider me confused ;)

[ Parent | on HN ]