On the contrary, it makes one curious. Is it an attempt to ensnare the victim into heightened surveillance and suspicion (and hence higher likelihood of coming to harm) from governments, based on the assumption that their own malware uses these keywords to scan for targets? Or perhaps it creates some other kind of liability for the victim.
On the contrary, it makes one curious. Is it an attempt to ensnare the victim into heightened surveillance and suspicion (and hence higher likelihood of coming to harm) from governments, based on the assumption that their own malware uses these keywords to scan for targets? Or perhaps it creates some other kind of liability for the victim.