There are a lot of things that are publicly known but if he's signed an NDA he can't point at them or acknowledge their authenticity. Anyway Pegasus isn't even the correct ballpark lol.
Just about every confidentiality clause or NDA I've ever signed had a provision specifically excluding information independently in the public domain from its scope. I find it strange to the point of lacking credibility that someone working in a security-related field would have an NDA that required them to pretend to ignore even public domain information yet permitted them to post the kind of innuendo seen in this discussion.
Why should I disclose public domain knowledge when it’s public? The whole point was to point out there’s ways that aren’t public being used.
Believe it or not, I actually care about privacy. Innuendo is not my intent, no maliciousness here, only stating there are programs that have access to your data. Telegram/Signal/Encrypted or not. They don’t need access to your device. Only access to the Internet.
The whole point was to point out there’s ways that aren’t public being used.
For which you have provided not a shred of evidence here beyond the same type of innuendo you've been posting all along - even while implying that some of this is public knowledge that you could therefore cite to establish at least some credibility.
Your claims in combination appear to require that the technical foundation on which almost all serious security on Apple devices is built must be fundamentally flawed and yet somehow this hasn't leaked. That's like saying someone found an efficient solution to the discrete logarithm problem and it's in widespread use among the intelligence community but no-one outside has realised. It's theoretically possible but the chance of something so big staying secret for very long is tiny.
As I said before - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thank you for the discussion but there seems little reason to continue it unless you're able to provide some.
