Comment by 0xDEAFBEAD

2 years ago

Thanks for the reply!

>As always it is helpful to remember as well that NSA's mission is to secure budget for NSA, full stop.

Sure, let's focus on an intelligence agency with budget constraints, Russia's GRU perhaps.

You claim that bug chains are "ludicrously cheap". Is cheap the same thing as abundant? If you had to guess, how many distinct zero-click exploit chains do does the GRU have for e.g. an iPhone in lockdown mode? Order of magnitude: do they have 1? 10? 100? 1000?

Zerodium pays up to 2M for "Full Chain with Persistence" for iOS: https://www.zerodium.com/program.html I don't think a low price relative to utility lets us conclude that such exploits are abundant. There's asymmetrical information in this market: buyers don't know the quality/novelty of what sellers have discovered, and sellers don't know how badly buyers need what they have to sell. It seems plausible to me that a savvy seller could negotiate a significantly higher price, similar to how tech workers are often able to negotiate significantly higher compensation -- especially if they were somehow able to prove that they weren't just replicating an exploit the broker already had in their inventory. I also suspect there is significant buying power on the buyer side which keeps acquisition prices low (hard to play buyers against each other, given low number of buyers who coordinate with each other).

In any case, I think this is the wrong question in a certain sense. The right question is about the relative cost of buying exploits vs developing in-house. I don't see why picking up the bug from email is hard or expensive. If the GRU is already running a program like XKEYSCORE, which seems likely, it could just be a matter of adding a few filtering rules for emails that go to select security@ email addresses. Have a GRU engineer monitor those emails, and see if any proof-of-concept work in the email can be quickly integrated into existing malware, in order to attack a target considered too low-value for the GRU's crown jewel exploits.

The real question is about the salary of that GRU engineer vs the cost of purchasing exploits. If the GRU engineer gets paid $100K, and a fresh exploit costs $500K, employing the GRU engineer to harvest a few temporary, expendable exploits a year looks quite favorable. I don't think the price/utility ratio of exploits from brokers affects the decision, since that price/utility ratio argument also works for exploits harvested+developed in-house.

Neither of us really knows what's going on in intelligence agencies, but my story seems about as plausible as yours. Given that simply using a Google Form for bug disclosures would be an easy and dramatic improvement on the status quo, I'm left with the sense that there is a lot of dysfunctional cargo-culting going on in the security world.