It’s arguable whether the implication is real or the numbering is more complex or even total BS.
If the vault numbers really are sequential then the German tank problem - Wikipedia applies and the current expected maximum vault number is 13. As more vaults are revealed the quality of the estimate can be improved.
Given that this stuff is now well understood math on all sides, that reduces the *a priori *likelihood the vault numbers are simple serial numbers. It’d be a pretty amateur mistake to use sequential numbers.
If you know that your enemy is the USA and that each vault is impressively strong, saying that you have 12 more of them ready to go isn’t a bad thing to be able to indicate.
After getting nuked by one bomb, finding out that there are twelve more doesn’t make one think, “Well gee, I can outlast that.”
I’ll also note that journalists aren’t mathematicians and are notably horrible at science and math reporting.
I’ve been assuming the “Vault 7” terminology originated with WikiLeaks itself. Assange himself may be an idiot, but the tech people making it go and making it stay secure aren’t. They’d be aware of the implications of whatever name they used.
They’re not anti-US. They’re pro-freedom of information and anti-obfuscation.
[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
Funny how the key revelation “the CIA and their pals can and do spy on you through your smart TV” just kind of got oh-yeahed here.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, if they *want *to watch millions of middle-aged couch potatoes wanking off a lazy Sunday afternoon…
Well, they were pro-a transparent campaign. I have to admit, I’m confused as shit now. I am not surprised that the CIA has developed exploits for household items, and so forth, but I’m even less surprised that the Russians made up a bunch of CIA exploits for Wikileaks to “report” on.
Fascinating article, written by Zeynep Tufecki, who writes regularly for the NYTimes and is interviewed on NPR as a tech security expert and pundit. Her take on Wikileaks and their talent for self-promotion in the face of what the leaked materials actually contain is fascinating.
Though, to be fair, the dump was stuff which was floating around at a fairly low classification. This information doesn’t prove that the CIA is mostly blocked out of devices. It just demonstrates that if they have anything better, it’s a more closely guarded secret.
How is any of what legal? If you are talking about the WikiLeaks claims about the CIA, I’ve read a lot more about this, and for the most part it seems to be a lot of flash without a lot of substance. WikiLeaks is just being sensational, but if you dig in you will find that much of the hype about this is just that…hype. I know of no instance in the article or in the information they have released that indicates that the CIA is actually using these tools (a lot of which are speculative or laughable, or require so many hoops to be jumped through that they would be impracticable for actual field use) on the American people in an illegal manner. You could dig some and do some searching on the claims and how they have been countered, but I think I’ll leave you with this YouTube video from the noted right wing conservative John Oliver for my take on it.