Quote from: BigEasy on September 06, 2012, 05:26 amQuote from: pine on September 06, 2012, 03:30 am"Darknet Bootable USB" could easily have software or even hardware backdoor exploit. Every single purchaser of that could be LE for all you know. I wouldn't trust these for a single pictosecond. And what's the rest of your argument? You wouldn't trust a VM somebody anonymous sold you, but you'll trust some other anonymous dude selling you software? But wait! No! I must be wrong! Because some *other* totally anonymous dude says it's legit! It must be so! ZOMG! Your operational security, I would not pay for it with somebody else's money.I think you misunderstood me Pine, I meant that of course it would be even easier for these VM's to hide trojan's and wouldn't use them EVER.Aha. Then we are agreed on that.A general point I neglected to mention which may explain some of this situation:People must understand that DPR isn't necessarily going to be pointing out every possible pitfall and removing them as options. For example, DPR's approach when I brought up the issue of LouisCyphre's program as a security concern for vendors was not "Yes, let's ban him, LE for sure" or "You're probably paranoid, Pine, I mean you think you're a platypus (but this is true)", it was "Go to the forum and have at it, let the vendors themselves decide what is best". This may seem strange, and it did to me at first blush, but I think the general idea, partly at least, is stemming from market based philosophy, is that being overly protective of a market could eventually lead to its downfall if people weren't recognizing 'issues' for themselves, whether or not they got them right or wrong.