At the same time:
- The IP address was assigned to the computer of a convicted hacker.
- He does have an emulator for the targeted system.
- There is no proof of a hacking of his computer.
- There are files from the hacking in a folder with the results of the previous hacking (for which he was tried and condemned).

No direct proof, but converging material pointing at him. Weak: that’s well enough to start an investigation, though not enough to end one and start a trial in my opinion.

The thing which jumps out at me is that they characterized it as “hacking attempts on their machines.”

How do we know that Gottfrid’s computer was not compromised by Swedish police?

Shouldn’t this be considered in the current trial as a potential source of what could be “planted” evidence?

Hacking Swedish police?

I would not put it past them to do such a thing to Gottfrid if they had the capability.

“A few individuals living in Sweden have been visited by Swedish Police agents and had equipment seized and forced to sit in hearings with IT forensics staff simply for having online contact with suspects in the case. Several friends who had IRC contact with Gottfrid have noticed hacking attempts on their machines that were traced back to Swedish police agencies. It appears safe to claim that the current police tactic is to throw rocks in the water to observe which rings form.”

http://qnrq.se/everything-important-to-sweden-is-hacked/

It just seems like there’s no real hard evidence in this case, just an IP address. Almost like he was set up just so they could confiscate his computer and maybe catch him with incriminating evidence. Like Kim Dotcom. They just seized all his assets on the assumption that they could find the evidence they need once they’ve had a chance to root around in his computers.

“There are two characteristics we always look for when we try to
discover remote control features. The first is one that starts
automatically when you turn on your computer since the attacker will
always try to maintain their footing on the computer. The second is one
that ‘phones home’ to indicate that it is ready to receive commands,”
Krismar said.

1. Not true if the attacker has a reliable method of regaining control that doesn’t require a backdoor or troyan horse to be active on the computer.
2. That’s only true for “botnet zombies” because the attacker usually doesn’t know their ip addresses.

Anakata’s Uncontrollable Computer
Archive for September, 2013
http://qnrq.se/anakatas-uncontrollable-computer/

There was also (once upon a time) another blog entry somewhere there which I cannot now find, which detailed how Anakata’s computer as well as others in his circle were probed repeatedly by remote IPs. As it turned out, these IPs were the Swedish police (or perhaps even the Danish police). Memory farts.

I seem to recall the phrase “tossing stones to create ripples” or some such in the discussion about it. If that blog entry is no longer there, it may have been removed for legal reasons. I don’t know.

I had passed this information along to others here on TorrentFreak back at the time during which Gottfrid had been kidnapped from Cambodia and the ongoing investigation into the hacking of Logica and CSC,

Perhaps they may be able to find it, or recall it and confirm that I am not making it up.

Hackers are far more sophisticated today than when BO was out (or maybe it still is) and I can imagine something like that being used.

Or I could be completely wrong.

There are just too many ways for a system to be taken over remotely these days which wouldn’t leave any apparent signs like BO.

There are ‘root kits’ and ‘boot kits’ — each of which could have implemented some one-time download of code to put in some other area — and then delete itself. Could that have happened to Gottfrid? I don’t know, but, today anything is pretty much possible for hackers if they are given the chance.

Krismar and his associates know this, but they are for the prosecution so they won’t acknowledge such things.

http://www.cultdeadcow.com/oldskool/skulls.gif