Welcome to Our Website

Serial code avs audio editor 7 1 keygen

Download avs audio editor 6.1 with serial number generator

AVS Audio Editor is still very complicated for a novice user. Step 2: Launch AVS Video Editor and load your video. Patch + 100% Working Axsoft Item Preview.

AVS Audio Editor all versions serial number and

AVS4YOU tools let you easily rip, convert and edit audio/video files, burn DVDs, create ringtones, upload videos to portable devices, players, phones and much more! AVS Audio Editor 9 Crack is the useful software in all over the world for editing the audio songs or any other audio file. Avs Video Editor Crack with keygen Full Free Download.

Download AVS Audio Editor

Avs Video Editor 7.1 Crack Plus Serial Key Full Version: Avs Video Editor 7.1 Crack is the one the best video editing software which is available here. AVS Video Converter 7.1 Serial number If you face the activation problem in similar cases, you should contact our support staff that is always willing to help you via the. Multimedia tools downloads - AVS Audio Editor by Online Media Technologies Ltd, UK and many more programs are available for instant and free download.

Free avs Audio Editor 7.1 Serial Number Serial Number, key

AVS Audio Editor is a Shareware software in the category Audio & Multimedia developed by Online Media Technologies Ltd, UK. Continue reading; Posted on 10 12 2020. Microsoft Windows 7 Support: AVS Audio Editor is compatible with the latest version of Microsoft Windows.

Key generator aVS Audio Editor Free Download for Windows 10, 7, 8/8.1

AVS Audio Editor 9.1 crack activation key full license serial key or keygen also can play the added files directly from here and show the file duration. We need to remove the sound in the recorded sounds that we do not want, so we use the editing software or sound editor. Built in video/audio codecs and advanced HD video decoding engine, MacX Video Converter Pro brings.

Key how to start working with AVS Video Editor

Mix Audio Blend several audio tracks, apply effects and save the output file in any popular format. Download AVS Audio Editor for Windows. AVS Audio Editor with Crack click site.

Activity code sarai Reader: 03- Shaping Technologies - PDF Free Download

When you tune up any radio station or play a music CD and DVD on your radio set, the volume is edited on a large scale. Kaspersky Internet Security 2020 Activation Code. AVS Audio Editor - Free download and software reviews https://sale7777.ru/download/?file=839.

Serial key download AVS Audio Editor

If this is the case it is usually found in the full download archive itself. See a full list of service utilities included into the installation. Overlay your voice on audio while playing it back - Microsoft Windows 7 Support AVS Audio Editor is compatible with the latest version of Microsoft Windows - Export Audio from Video Choose and edit audio from your video files.

Avs Video Editor 7 1 - CNET Download

You can save audio files in mp3, FLAC, WAV, M4A, WMA, and in AAC. They occupy 18.39 MB (19287330 bytes) on disk.

Keygen full text of "DTIC ADA099777: Survey and Assessment of

Edit your audio files with unlimited effects and easy to add favorites also can import video from the drives. Download AVS Audio Editor Free. Jump into desert combat warfare for.

Auto joiner 5.0 crack

Activation key aVS Audio Editor 7.2 version by Online Media

This software comes with many new and the helpful features. It was checked for updates 1, 005 times by the users of our client application UpdateStar during the last month. The manager has a built-in collection of results to be used on the monitor such as wait, flanger, refrain, reverb, and other resources for switching a easy documenting into anything professional-sounding.

  • Download avs audio editor 7.1 for free (Windows)
  • AVS Video Editor Crack + Serial Key Free Download
  • PeopleSoft 8.4 Working With Customers and Orders
  • AVS Video Editor + Patch + 100% Working Axsoft
  • Create data visualizations with the Mapbox Visual for Power
  • AVS Audio Editor Crack Activation key Full Download
  • AVS Video Editor for Android - APK Download
  • AVS Audio Editor - Detailed Description Page
  • Avs Audio Editor
  • Download IPTV M3U Editor serial number generator, crack or

Download avs audio editor 9.1 serial number, keygen, crack

Avs Audio Editor Serial Number Key. DJ Audio Editor Serial [Download Now. Avs audio editor activation key, WavePad Sound Editor, AVS Media Player, AVS Cover Editor.

Avs Video Editor 7.1 Crack Plus Serial Key Full Free Download

Crack + Activation Key Full Free Download. Furthermore, AVS Video Editor Keygen is a great utility that enables you to work on AVCHD, MOD, WMV and also many other famous video formats in a fashion that is fast. In the opened Windows explorer window select the needed video file and click Open.

AVS Video Editor 9.4.1 Crack Unlimited Activation Key Is

AVS Audio Editor interface is available in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Polish and Russian. Divide them into chapters and add bookmarks. AVS Video Editor Activation code Torrent also supports the Blu-ray videos for capturing and editing.

  • Download AVS Audio Editor (Free) for Windows
  • Avs video editor 7.1 license key
  • AVS Free Audio Converter - Convert all key audio formats
  • Download AVS Audio Editor for windows
  • AVS Video Editor 7.1 Crack Full Free Download
  • AVS Audio Editor Crack + Serial Key Free Download
  • Avs Audio Editor (7 Downloads Available)
  • AVS Audio Editor – record audio, cut, mix audio files

AVS Audio Editor Crack Plus Activation Key

Below you can find details on how to uninstall it from your PC. It was developed for Windows by Online Media Technologies Ltd. Download completely free AVS Audio Editor full version. The license type of the downloaded software is trial.

Activation code aVS Video Editor + Crack Latest Version

Xiuang! WWX.Net SWS: //www.perennialplant.review/cotyledon visit here. Export Audio from Video: Choose and edit audio from your video files. DU Meter 7.22 Build 4764 Serial Key Download FREE; DFX Audio.

AVS Audio Editor 7.1 version by Online Media

In the first place, you would need to 1/5(2). Build 530 Crack is a powerful and powerful program to convert audio files to any other format. Our Rating: Users Rating: (total votes: 0) Feedback: Report broken download Report spyware.

AVS Video Editor Crack + Activation Key [Latest]
1 AVS Audio Editor (free version) download for PC 100%
2 Full text of "USA V KARRON 07 CR 541 RPP Discovery Batch 1 10%
3 Army Aviation Digest - Jul 1989 37%
4 Email password cracker 2020 v 1.0 8%
5 Triviador hack v 1.0 exe 100%
6 Sound forge pro mac 1.0 keygen 60%
7 Hacker de cash pb ver 73%
8 Nik color efex pro 3.0 crack windows 77%
9 Kaspersky pure 3 0 keygen 93%
10 Verypdf pdf2word 3.0 registration key 40%

Troubleshooting - AVS Video & Audio Editor

Avs audio editor 7 1 keygen. Librivox Free Audiobook. Activation may also include a crack, serial number, unlock code, cd key or keygen (key generator).

Cracked aCI Software: Download AVS Audio Editor free

The use of the AVS Video Editor App APK is very easy. Not only this but also, AVS Audio Editor keygen key permits to arrange your settings as per your choice for MP3 and OGG formats. This is really user-friendly to make the video even for.

2020-02 Prague ISO C++ Committee Trip Report — 🎉 C++20 is Done! 🎉

A very special video report from Prague.
C++20, the most impactful revision of C++ in a decade, is done! 🎉🎊🥳
At the ISO C++ Committee meeting in Prague, hosted by Avast, we completed the C++20 Committee Draft and voted to send the Draft International Standard (DIS) out for final approval and publication. Procedurally, it's possible that the DIS could be rejected, but due to our procedures and process, it's very unlikely to happen. This means that C++20 is complete, and in a few months the standard will be published.
During this meeting, we also adopted a plan for C++23, which includes prioritizing a modular standard library, library support for coroutines, executors, and networking.
A big thanks to everyone who made C++20 happen - the proposal authors, the minute takers, the implementers, and everyone else involved!
This was the largest C++ committee meeting ever - 252 people attended! Our generous host, Avast, did an amazing job hosting the meeting and also organized a lovely evening event for everyone attending.
This week, we made the following changes and additions to the C++20 draft:
The following notable features are in C++20:

ABI Discussion

We had a very important discussion about ABI stability and the priorities of C++ this week in a joint session of the Language Evolution and Library Evolution group.
Although there was strong interest in exploring how to evolve ABI in the future, we are not pursuing making C++23 a clean ABI breaking release at this time. We did, however, affirm that authors should be encouraged to bring individual papers for consideration, even if those would be an ABI break. Many in the committee are interested in considering targeted ABI breaks when that would signify significant performance gains.
‟How many C++ developers does it take to change a lightbulb?” — @tvaneerd
‟None: changing the light bulb is an ABI break.” — @LouisDionne

Language Progress

Evolution Working Group Incubator (EWGI) Progress

The EWG Incubator met for three days in Prague and looked at and gave feedback to 22 papers for C++23. 10 of those papers were forwarded to Evolution, possibly with some revisions requested. Notably:
Several papers received a lot of feedback and will return to the Incubator, hopefully in Varna:
Notably, the proposed epochs language facility received no consensus to proceed. One significant problem pointed out was that in a concepts and modules world, we really cannot make any language changes that may change the satisfaction of a concept for a set of types. If one TU thinks C is true, but another TU in a later epoch thinks C is false, that easily leads to ODR violations. Many of the suggested changes in the paper run afoul of this problem. However, we’re interested in solving the problem, so welcome an alternative approach.

Evolution Working Group (EWG) Progress

The top priority of EWG was again fixing the final national body comments for C++20. Once that was done, we started looking at C++23 papers. We saw a total of 36 papers.
Papers of note:
We marked 3 papers as tentatively ready for C++23:
They’ll proceed to the Core language group at the next meeting if no issues are raised with these papers.
We continued reviewing pattern matching. This is one of our top priorities going forward. It’s looking better and better as we explore the design space and figure out how all the corner cases should work. One large discussion point at the moment is what happens when no match occurs, and whether we should mandate exhaustiveness. There’s exploration around the expression versus statement form. We’re looking for implementation experience to prove the design.
We really liked deducing this, a proposal that eliminates the boilerplate associated with having const and non-const, & and && member function overloads. It still needs wording and implementation experience, but has strong support.
We continue discussing floating-point fixed-layout types and extended floating point types, which are mandating IEEE 754 support for the new C++ float16_t, float32_t, float64_t, and adding support for bfloat16_t.
std::embed, which allows embedding strings from files, is making good progress.
In collaboration with the Unicode group, named universal character escapes got strong support.
if consteval was reviewed. We’re not sure this is exactly the right solution, but we’re interested in solving problems in this general area.
We saw a really cute paper on deleting variable templates and decided to expand its scope such that more things can be marked as = delete in the language. This will make C++ much more regular, and reduce the need for expert-only solutions to tricky problems.

Core Working Group (CWG) Progress

The top priority of CWG was finishing processing national body comments for C++20. CWG spent most of its remaining time this week working through papers and issues improving the detailed specification for new C++20 features.
We finished reviewing four papers that fine-tune the semantics of modules:
  • We clarified the meaning of static (and unnamed namespaces) in module interfaces: such entities are now kept internal and cannot be exposed in the interface / ABI of the module. In non-modules compilations, we deprecated cases where internal-linkage entities are used from external-linkage entities. (These cases typically lead to violations of the One Definition Rule.)
  • We clarified the meaning of inline in module interfaces: the intent is that bodies of functions that are not explicitly declared inline are not part of the ABI of a module, even if those function bodies appear in the module interface. In order to give module authors more control over their ABI, member functions defined in class bodies in module interfaces are no longer implicitly inline.
  • We tweaked the context-sensitive recognition of the module and import keyword in order to avoid changing the meaning of more existing code that uses these identifiers, and to make it more straightforward for a scanning tool to recognize these declarations without full preprocessing.
  • We improved backwards compatibility with unnamed enumerations in legacy header files (particularly C header files). Such unnamed enumerations will now be properly merged across header files if they're reachable in multiple different ways via imports.
  • We finalized some subtle rules for concepts: a syntax gotcha in requires expressions was fixed, and we allowed caching of concept values, which has been shown to dramatically improve performance in some cases.
  • We agreed to (retroactively, via the defect report process) treat initialization of a bool from a pointer as narrowing, improving language safety.
  • We added permission for a comparison function to be defaulted outside its class, so long as the comparison function is a member or friend of the class, for consistency and to allow a defaulted comparison function to be non-inline.

Library Progress

Library Evolution Working Group Incubator (LEWGI) Progress

LEWGI met for three and a half days this week and reviewed 22 papers. Most of our work this week was on various numerics proposals during joint sessions with the Numerics group. A lot of this work may end up going into the proposed Numerics Technical Specification, whose scope and goals we are working to define. We also spent a chunk of time working on modern I/O and concurrent data structures for the upcoming Concurrency Technical Specification Version 2.
LEWGI looked at the following proposals, among others:

Library Evolution Working Group (LEWG) Progress

After handling the few remaining National Body comments to fix issues with C++20, LEWG focused on making general policy decisions about standard library design standards. For example, we formally codified the guidelines for concept names in the standard library, and clarified SD-8, our document listing the compatibility guarantees we make to our users. Then we started looking at C++23 library proposals.
Moved-from objects need not be valid generated much internal discussion in the weeks leading up to the meeting as well as at the meeting itself. While the exact solution outlined in the paper wasn’t adopted, we are tightening up the wording around algorithms on what operations are performed on objects that are temporarily put in the moved-from state during the execution of an algorithm.
The biggest C++23 news: LEWG spent an entire day with the concurrency experts of SG1 to review the executors proposal — we liked the direction! This is a huge step, which will enable networking, audio, coroutine library support, and more.
Other C++23 proposals reviewed include
We’ve also decided to deprecate std::string’s assignment operator taking a char (pending LWG).

Library Working Group (LWG) Progress

The primary goals were to finish processing NB comments and to rebase the Library Fundamentals TS on C++20. We met both of those goals.
We looked at all 48 open library-related NB comments and responded to them. Some were accepted for C++20. Some were accepted for C++20 with changes. For some, we agreed with the problem but considered the fix to be too risky for C++20, so an issue was opened for consideration in C++23. For many the response was “No consensus for change,” which can mean a variety of things from “this is not really a problem” to “the problem is not worth fixing.”
The last of the mandating papers was reviewed and approved. All of the standard library should now be cleaned up to use the latest library wording guidelines, such as using “Mandates” and “Constraints” clauses rather than “Requires” clauses.
Some time was spent going through the LWG open issues list. We dealt with all open P1 issues (“must fix for C++20”). Many of the open P2 issues related to new C++20 features were dealt with, in an attempt to fix bugs before we ship them.
This was Marshall Clow’s last meeting as LWG chair. He received a standing ovation in plenary.

Concurrency and Parallelism Study Group (SG1) Progress

SG1 focused on C++23 this week, primarily on driving executors, one of the major planned features on our roadmap. Executors is a foundational technology that we'll build all sorts of modern asynchronous facilities on top of, so it's important that we land it in the standard early in the C++23 cycle.
At this meeting, LEWG approved of the executors design, and asked the authors to return with a full specification and wording for review at the next meeting.
SG1 reviewed and approved of a refinement to the design of the sendereceiver concepts. This change unifies the lifetime model of coroutines and sendereceiver and allows us to statically eliminate the need for heap allocations for many kinds of async algorithms.
Going forward, SG1 will start working on proposals that build on top of executors, such as concurrent algorithms, parallel algorithms work, networking, asynchronous I/O, etc.

Networking Study Group (SG4) Progress

SG4 started processing review feedback on the networking TS aimed at modernizing it for inclusion in C++23. SG4 also reviewed a proposal to unify low-level I/O with the high-level asynchronous abstractions and gave feedback to the author.

Numerics Study Group (SG6) Progress

The Numerics group met on Monday this week, and also jointly with LEWGI on Tuesday and Thursday, and with SG19 on Friday.
We reviewed papers on a number of topics, including:

Compile-Time Programming Study Group (SG7) Progress

Circle is a fork of C++ that enables arbitrary compile-time execution (e.g. a compile-time std::cout), coupled with reflection to allow powerful meta-programming. SG7 was interested in it and considered copying parts of it. However, concerns were raised about security and usability problems, so the ability to execute arbitrary code at compile-time was rejected.
Besides that, we also continued to make progress on C++ reflection including naming of reflection keywords and potential to enable lazy evaluation of function arguments.
We also looked at the JIT proposal and asked authors to try to unify the design with current reflection proposals.

Undefined Behavior Study Group (SG12)/Vulnerabilities Working Group (WG23) Progress

We set out to enumerate all undefined and unspecified behavior. We’ve decided that upcoming papers adding new undefined or unspecified behavior need to include rationale and examples.
SG12 also collaborated with the MISRA standard for coding standards in embedded systems to help them update the guidelines for newer C++ revisions.

Human Machine Interface and Input/Output Study Group (SG13) Progress

SG13 had a brief presentation of extracts from the 2019 CppCon keynote featuring Ben Smith (from 1:05:00)
We looked at A Brief 2D Graphics Review and encouraged exploration of work towards a separable color proposal.
Finally, we worked through the use cases in Audio I/O Software Use Cases. We have a couple of weeks before the post meeting mailing deadline to collect additional use cases and will then solicit feedback on them from WG21 and the wider C++ community.

Tooling Study Group (SG15) Progress

The Tooling study group met this week to continue work on the Module Ecosystem Technical Report. Three of the papers targeting the Technical Report are fairly mature at this point, so we've directed the authors of those papers to work together to create an initial draft of the Technical Report for the Varna meeting. Those papers are:
This draft will give us a shared vehicle to start hammering out the details of the Technical Report, and a target for people to write papers against.
We also discussed two proposals, about debugging C++ coroutines and asynchronous call stacks.

Machine Learning Study Group (SG19) Progress

SG14 met in Prague in a joint session with SG19 (Machine Learning).
The freestanding library took a few steps forward, with some interesting proposals, including Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new
One of the biggest decisions was on Low-Cost Deterministic C++ Exceptions for Embedded Systems which got great reactions. We will probably hear more about it!

Unicode and Text Study Group (SG16) Progress

Our most interesting topic of the week concerned the interaction of execution character set and compile-time programming. Proposed features for std::embed and reflection require the evaluation of strings at compile time and this occurs at translation phase 7. This is after translation phase 5 in which character and string literals are converted to the execution character set. These features require interaction with file names or the internal symbol table of a compiler. In cross compilation scenarios in which the target execution character set is not compatible with the compiler’s host system or internal encoding, interesting things happen. As in so many other cases, we found an answer in UTF-8 and will be recommending that these facilities operate solely in UTF-8.
We forwarded Named Universal Character Escapes and C++ Identifier Syntax using Unicode Standard Annex 31 to EWG. Both papers were seen by EWG this week and are on track for approval for C++23 in meetings later this year.
We forwarded Naming Text Encodings to Demystify Them to LEWG.
We declined to forward a paper to enhance std::regex to better support Unicode due to severe ABI restrictions; the std::regex design exposes many internal details of the implementation to the ABI and implementers indicated that they cannot make any significant changes. Given the current state of std::regex is such that we cannot fix either its interface or its well-known performance issues, a number of volunteers agreed to bring a paper to deprecate std::regex at a future meeting.

Machine Learning Study Group (SG19) Progress

SG19 met for a full day, one half day with SG14 (Low Latency), and one half day with SG6 (Numerics).
Significant feedback from a ML perspective was provided on Simple Statistics functions, especially regarding the handling of missing data, non-numeric data, and various potential performance issues.
There was an excellent presentation of "Review of P1708: Simple Statistical Functions" which presented an analysis across Python, R, SAS and Matlab for common statistical methods.
The graph library paper had a great reaction, was also discussed, and will proceed.
Also, support for differentiable programming in C++, important for well-integrated support for ML back-propagation, was discussed in the context of differentiable programming for C++.

Contracts Study Group (SG21) Progress

In a half-day session, we discussed one of the major points of contention from previous proposals, which was the relationship between “assume” and “assert”, disentangling colloquial and technical interpretations. We also discussed when one implies the other, and which combinations a future facility should support.

C++ Release Schedule

NOTE: This is a plan not a promise. Treat it as speculative and tentative. See P1000 for the latest plan.
  • IS = International Standard. The C++ programming language. C++11, C++14, C++17, etc.
  • TS = Technical Specification. "Feature branches" available on some but not all implementations. Coroutines TS v1, Modules TS v1, etc.
  • CD = Committee Draft. A draft of an IS/TS that is sent out to national standards bodies for review and feedback ("beta testing").
Meeting Location Objective
2018 Summer LWG Meeting Chicago Work on wording for C++20 features.
2018 Fall EWG Modules Meeting Seattle Design modules for C++20.
2018 Fall LEWG/SG1 Executors Meeting Seattle Design executors for C++20.
2018 Fall Meeting San Diego C++20 major language feature freeze.
2019 Spring Meeting Kona C++20 feature freeze. C++20 design is feature-complete.
2019 Summer Meeting Cologne Complete C++20 CD wording. Start C++20 CD balloting ("beta testing").
2019 Fall Meeting Belfast C++20 CD ballot comment resolution ("bug fixes").
2020 Spring Meeting Prague C++20 CD ballot comment resolution ("bug fixes"), C++20 completed.
2020 Summer Meeting Varna First meeting of C++23.
2020 Fall Meeting New York Design major C++23 features.
2021 Winter Meeting Kona Design major C++23 features.
2021 Summer Meeting Montréal Design major C++23 features.
2021 Fall Meeting 🗺️ C++23 major language feature freeze.
2022 Spring Meeting Portland C++23 feature freeze. C++23 design is feature-complete.
2022 Summer Meeting 🗺️ Complete C++23 CD wording. Start C++23 CD balloting ("beta testing").
2022 Fall Meeting 🗺️ C++23 CD ballot comment resolution ("bug fixes").
2023 Spring Meeting 🗺️ C++23 CD ballot comment resolution ("bug fixes"), C++23 completed.
2023 Summer Meeting 🗺️ First meeting of C++26.

Status of Major C++ Feature Development

NOTE: This is a plan not a promise. Treat it as speculative and tentative.
  • IS = International Standard. The C++ programming language. C++11, C++14, C++17, etc.
  • TS = Technical Specification. "Feature branches" available on some but not all implementations. Coroutines TS v1, Modules TS v1, etc.
  • CD = Committee Draft. A draft of an IS/TS that is sent out to national standards bodies for review and feedback ("beta testing").
Changes since last meeting are in bold.
Feature Status Depends On Current Target (Conservative Estimate) Current Target (Optimistic Estimate)
Concepts Concepts TS v1 published and merged into C++20 C++20 C++20
Ranges Ranges TS v1 published and merged into C++20 Concepts C++20 C++20
Modules Merged design approved for C++20 C++20 C++20
Coroutines Coroutines TS v1 published and merged into C++20 C++20 C++20
Executors New compromise design approved for C++23 C++26 C++23 (Planned)
Contracts Moved to Study Group C++26 C++23
Networking Networking TS v1 published Executors C++26 C++23 (Planned)
Reflection Reflection TS v1 published C++26 C++23
Pattern Matching C++26 C++23
Modularized Standard Library C++23 C++23 (Planned)
Last Meeting's Reddit Trip Report.
If you have any questions, ask them in this thread!
Report issues by replying to the top-level stickied comment for issue reporting.
blelbach, Tooling (SG15) Chair, Library Evolution Incubator (SG18) Chair
jfbastien, Evolution (EWG) Chair
arkethos (aka code_report)
hanickadot, Compile-Time Programming (SG7) Chair
tahonermann, Text and Unicode (SG16) Chair
cjdb-ns, Education (SG20) Lieutenant
tituswinters, Library Evolution (LEWG) Chair
HalFinkel, US National Body (PL22.16) Vice Chair
ErichKeane, Evolution Incubator (SG17) Assistant Chair
david-stone, Modules (SG2) Chair and Evolution (EWG) Vice Chair
je4d, Networking (SG4) Chair
FabioFracassi, German National Body Chair
InbalL, Israel National Body Chair
zygoloid, C++ Project Editor
⋯ and others ⋯
submitted by blelbach to cpp

Vault 7 - CIA Hacking Tools Revealed

Vault 7 - CIA Hacking Tools Revealed
March 07, 2017
from Wikileaks Website


Press Release
Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence (below image) in Langley, Virgina.
It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including,
  1. malware
  2. viruses
  3. trojans
  4. weaponized "zero day" exploits
  5. malware remote control systems

...and associated documentation.
This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA.
The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include,

  1. Apple's iPhone
  2. Google's Android
  3. Microsoft's Windows
  4. Samsung TVs,

...which are turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers.
The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI - below image), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand,
hacking systems trojans viruses,
...and other "weaponized" malware.


Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more codes than those used to run Facebook.
The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.
The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that,
"There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'.
Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade.
But the significance of 'Year Zero' goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.

Wikileaks has also decided to Redact (see far below) and Anonymize some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout,
Latin America Europe the United States

While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero") already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.


CIA malware targets iPhone, Android, smart TVs
CIA malware and hacking tools are built by EDG (Engineering Development Group), a software development group within CCI (Center for Cyber Intelligence), a department belonging to the CIA's DDI (Directorate for Digital Innovation).
The DDI is one of the five major directorates of the CIA (see above image of the CIA for more details).
The EDG is responsible for the development, testing and operational support of all backdoors, exploits, malicious payloads, trojans, viruses and any other kind of malware used by the CIA in its covert operations world-wide.
The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawn comparisons with George Orwell's 1984, but "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.
The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS.
After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.
The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone.
Despite iPhone's minority share (14.5%) of the global smart phone market in 2016, a specialized unit in the CIA's Mobile Development Branch produces malware to infest, control and exfiltrate data from iPhones and other Apple products running iOS, such as iPads.
CIA's arsenal includes numerous local and remote "zero days" developed by CIA or obtained from GCHQ, NSA, FBI or purchased from cyber arms contractors such as Baitshop.
The disproportionate focus on iOS may be explained by the popularity of the iPhone among social, political, diplomatic and business elites.
A similar unit targets Google's Android which is used to run the majority of the world's smart phones (~85%) including Samsung, HTC and Sony. 1.15 billion Android powered phones were sold last year.
"Year Zero" shows that as of 2016 the CIA had 24 "weaponized" Android "zero days" which it has developed itself and obtained from GCHQ, NSA and cyber arms contractors.
These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of, WhatsApp
  1. Signal
  2. Telegram
  3. Wiebo
  4. Confide
  5. Cloackman
...by hacking the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
CIA malware targets Windows, OSx, Linux, routers
The CIA also runs a very substantial effort to infect and control Microsoft Windows users with its malware.
This includes multiple local and remote weaponized "zero days", air gap jumping viruses such as "Hammer Drill" which infects software distributed on CD/DVDs, infectors for removable media such as USBs, systems to hide data in images or in covert disk areas ("Brutal Kangaroo") and to keep its malware infestations going.
Many of these infection efforts are pulled together by the CIA's Automated Implant Branch (AIB), which has developed several attack systems for automated infestation and control of CIA malware, such as "Assassin" and "Medusa".
Attacks against Internet infrastructure and webservers are developed by the CIA's Network Devices Branch (NDB).
The CIA has developed automated multi-platform malware attack and control systems covering Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, Linux and more, such as EDB's "HIVE" and the related "Cutthroat" and "Swindle" tools, which are described in the examples section far below.
CIA 'hoarded' vulnerabilities ("zero days")
In the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks about the NSA, the U.S. technology industry secured a commitment from the Obama administration that the executive would disclose on an ongoing basis - rather than hoard - serious vulnerabilities, exploits, bugs or "zero days" to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other US-based manufacturers.
Serious vulnerabilities not disclosed to the manufacturers places huge swathes of the population and critical infrastructure at risk to foreign intelligence or cyber criminals who independently discover or hear rumors of the vulnerability.
If the CIA can discover such vulnerabilities so can others.
The U.S. government's commitment to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process came after significant lobbying by US technology companies, who risk losing their share of the global market over real and perceived hidden vulnerabilities.
The government stated that it would disclose all pervasive vulnerabilities discovered after 2010 on an ongoing basis.
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts.
The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability.
As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.
The same vulnerabilities exist for the population at large, including the U.S. Cabinet, Congress, top CEOs, system administrators, security officers and engineers.
By hiding these security flaws from manufacturers like Apple and Google the CIA ensures that it can hack everyone at the expense of leaving everyone hackable.
'Cyberwar' programs are a serious proliferation risk
Cyber 'weapons' are not possible to keep under effective control.
While nuclear proliferation has been restrained by the enormous costs and visible infrastructure involved in assembling enough fissile material to produce a critical nuclear mass, cyber 'weapons', once developed, are very hard to retain.
Cyber 'weapons' are in fact just computer programs which can be pirated like any other. Since they are entirely comprised of information they can be copied quickly with no marginal cost.
Securing such 'weapons' is particularly difficult since the same people who develop and use them have the skills to exfiltrate copies without leaving traces - sometimes by using the very same 'weapons' against the organizations that contain them.
There are substantial price incentives for government hackers and consultants to obtain copies since there is a global "vulnerability market" that will pay hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for copies of such 'weapons'.
Similarly, contractors and companies who obtain such 'weapons' sometimes use them for their own purposes, obtaining advantage over their competitors in selling 'hacking' services.
Over the last three years the United States intelligence sector, which consists of government agencies such as the CIA and NSA and their contractors, such as Booz Allan Hamilton, has been subject to unprecedented series of data exfiltrations by its own workers.
A number of intelligence community members not yet publicly named have been arrested or subject to federal criminal investigations in separate incidents.
Most visibly, on February 8, 2017 a U.S. federal grand jury indicted Harold T. Martin III with 20 counts of mishandling classified information.
The Department of Justice alleged that it seized some 50,000 gigabytes of information from Harold T. Martin III that he had obtained from classified programs at NSA and CIA, including the source code for numerous hacking tools.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by peer states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.
U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt is a covert CIA hacker base
In addition to its operations in Langley, Virginia the CIA also uses the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt as a covert base for its hackers covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate ("Center for Cyber Intelligence Europe" or CCIE) are given diplomatic ("black") passports and State Department cover.
The instructions for incoming CIA hackers make Germany's counter-intelligence efforts appear inconsequential: "Breeze through German Customs because you have your cover-for-action story down pat, and all they did was stamp your passport" Your Cover Story (for this trip) Q: Why are you here? A: Supporting technical consultations at the Consulate. Two earlier WikiLeaks publications give further detail on CIA approaches to customs and secondary screening procedures.
Once in Frankfurt CIA hackers can travel without further border checks to the 25 European countries that are part of the Shengen open border area - including France, Italy and Switzerland.
A number of the CIA's electronic attack methods are designed for physical proximity.
These attack methods are able to penetrate high security networks that are disconnected from the internet, such as police record database. In these cases, a CIA officer, agent or allied intelligence officer acting under instructions, physically infiltrates the targeted workplace.
The attacker is provided with a USB containing malware developed for the CIA for this purpose, which is inserted into the targeted computer. The attacker then infects and exfiltrates data to removable media.
For example, the CIA attack system Fine Dining, provides 24 decoy applications for CIA spies to use.
To witnesses, the spy appears to be running a program showing videos (e.g VLC), presenting slides (Prezi), playing a computer game (Breakout2, 2048) or even running a fake virus scanner (Kaspersky, McAfee, Sophos).
But while the decoy application is on the screen, the underlying system is automatically infected and ransacked.
How the CIA dramatically increased proliferation risks
In what is surely one of the most astounding intelligence own goals in living memory, the CIA structured its classification regime such that for the most market valuable part of "Vault 7", the CIA's, weaponized malware (implants + zero days) Listening Posts (LP) Command and Control (C2) systems, ...the agency has little legal recourse.
The CIA made these systems unclassified.
Why the CIA chose to make its cyber-arsenal unclassified reveals how concepts developed for military use do not easily crossover to the 'battlefield' of cyber 'war'.
To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implants communicate with their control programs over the internet.
If CIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software were classified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed for violating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto the Internet.
Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyber spying/war code unclassified. The U.S. government is not able to assert copyright either, due to restrictions in the U.S. Constitution.
This means that cyber 'arms' manufactures and computer hackers can freely "pirate" these 'weapons' if they are obtained. The CIA has primarily had to rely on obfuscation to protect its malware secrets.
Conventional weapons such as missiles may be fired at the enemy (i.e. into an unsecured area). Proximity to or impact with the target detonates the ordnance including its classified parts. Hence military personnel do not violate classification rules by firing ordnance with classified parts.
Ordnance will likely explode. If it does not, that is not the operator's intent.
Over the last decade U.S. hacking operations have been increasingly dressed up in military jargon to tap into Department of Defense funding streams.
For instance, attempted "malware injections" (commercial jargon) or "implant drops" (NSA jargon) are being called "fires" as if a weapon was being fired.
However the analogy is questionable.
Unlike bullets, bombs or missiles, most CIA malware is designed to live for days or even years after it has reached its 'target'. CIA malware does not "explode on impact" but rather permanently infests its target. In order to infect target's device, copies of the malware must be placed on the target's devices, giving physical possession of the malware to the target.
To exfiltrate data back to the CIA or to await further instructions the malware must communicate with CIA Command & Control (C2) systems placed on internet connected servers.
But such servers are typically not approved to hold classified information, so CIA command and control systems are also made unclassified.
A successful 'attack' on a target's computer system is more like a series of complex stock maneuvers in a hostile take-over bid or the careful planting of rumors in order to gain control over an organization's leadership rather than the firing of a weapons system.
If there is a military analogy to be made, the infestation of a target is perhaps akin to the execution of a whole series of military maneuvers against the target's territory including observation, infiltration, occupation and exploitation.
Evading forensics and anti-virus
A series of standards lay out CIA malware infestation patterns which are likely to assist forensic crime scene investigators as well as, Apple
  1. Microsoft
  2. Google
  3. Samsung
  4. Nokia
  5. Blackberry
  6. Siemens
  7. anti-virus companies,
...attribute and defend against attacks.
"Tradecraft DO's and DON'Ts" contains CIA rules on how its malware should be written to avoid fingerprints implicating the "CIA, US government, or its witting partner companies" in "forensic review".
Similar secret standards cover the, use of encryption to hide CIA hacker and malware communication (pdf) describing targets & exfiltrated data (pdf) executing payloads (pdf) persisting (pdf), ...in the target's machines over time.
CIA hackers developed successful attacks against most well known anti-virus programs.
These are documented in, AV defeats Personal Security Products Detecting and defeating PSPs PSP/DebuggeRE Avoidance For example, Comodo was defeated by CIA malware placing itself in the Window's "Recycle Bin". While Comodo 6.x has a "Gaping Hole of DOOM".
CIA hackers discussed what the NSA's "Equation Group" hackers did wrong and how the CIA's malware makers could avoid similar exposure.


The CIA's Engineering Development Group (EDG) management system contains around 500 different projects (only some of which are documented by "Year Zero") each with their own sub-projects, malware and hacker tools.
The majority of these projects relate to tools that are used for,
penetration infestation ("implanting") control exfiltration
Another branch of development focuses on the development and operation of Listening Posts (LP) and Command and Control (C2) systems used to communicate with and control CIA implants.
Special projects are used to target specific hardware from routers to smart TVs.
Some example projects are described below, but see the table of contents for the full list of projects described by WikiLeaks' "Year Zero".
The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for the agency.
Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint" that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity.
This is analogous to finding the same distinctive knife wound on multiple separate murder victims. The unique wounding style creates suspicion that a single murderer is responsible.
As soon one murder in the set is solved then the other murders also find likely attribution.
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.
UMBRAGE components cover,
  1. password collection
  2. webcam capture
  3. data destruction
  4. persistence
  5. privilege escalation
  6. stealth
  7. anti-virus (PSP) avoidance
  8. survey techniques

Fine Dining
Fine Dining comes with a standardized questionnaire i.e menu that CIA case officers fill out.
The questionnaire is used by the agency's OSB (Operational Support Branch) to transform the requests of case officers into technical requirements for hacking attacks (typically "exfiltrating" information from computer systems) for specific operations.
The questionnaire allows the OSB to identify how to adapt existing tools for the operation, and communicate this to CIA malware configuration staff.
The OSB functions as the interface between CIA operational staff and the relevant technical support staff.
Among the list of possible targets of the collection are,
  • 'Asset'
  • 'Liason Asset'
  • 'System Administrator'
  • 'Foreign Information Operations'
  • 'Foreign Intelligence Agencies'
  • 'Foreign Government Entities'
Notably absent is any reference to extremists or transnational criminals. The 'Case Officer' is also asked to specify the environment of the target like the type of computer, operating system used, Internet connectivity and installed anti-virus utilities (PSPs) as well as a list of file types to be exfiltrated like Office documents, audio, video, images or custom file types.
The 'menu' also asks for information if recurring access to the target is possible and how long unobserved access to the computer can be maintained.
This information is used by the CIA's 'JQJIMPROVISE' software (see below) to configure a set of CIA malware suited to the specific needs of an operation.
  1. 'Improvise' is a toolset for configuration, post-processing, payload setup and execution vector
  2. selection for survey/exfiltration tools supporting all major operating systems like,
  3. Windows (Bartender)
  4. MacOS (JukeBox)
  5. Linux (DanceFloor)
  6. Its configuration utilities like Margarita allows the NOC (Network Operation Center) to customize tools
based on requirements from 'Fine Dining' questionnaires.
HIVE is a multi-platform CIA malware suite and its associated control software.
The project provides customizable implants for Windows, Solaris, MikroTik (used in internet routers) and Linux platforms and a Listening Post (LP)/Command and Control (C2) infrastructure to communicate with these implants.
The implants are configured to communicate via HTTPS with the webserver of a cover domain; each operation utilizing these implants has a separate cover domain and the infrastructure can handle any number of cover domains.
Each cover domain resolves to an IP address that is located at a commercial VPS (Virtual Private Server) provider.
The public-facing server forwards all incoming traffic via a VPN to a 'Blot' server that handles actual connection requests from clients.
It is setup for optional SSL client authentication: if a client sends a valid client certificate (only implants can do that), the connection is forwarded to the 'Honeycomb' toolserver that communicates with the implant.
If a valid certificate is missing (which is the case if someone tries to open the cover domain website by accident), the traffic is forwarded to a cover server that delivers an unsuspicious looking website.
The Honeycomb toolserver receives exfiltrated information from the implant; an operator can also task the implant to execute jobs on the target computer, so the toolserver acts as a C2 (command and control) server for the implant.
Similar functionality (though limited to Windows) is provided by the RickBobby project.
See the classified user and developer guides for HIVE.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why now?
WikiLeaks published as soon as its verification and analysis were ready. In February the Trump administration has issued an Executive Order calling for a "Cyberwar" review to be prepared within 30 days.
While the review increases the timeliness and relevance of the publication it did not play a role in setting the publication date.
Names, email addresses and external IP addresses have been redacted in the released pages (70,875 redactions in total) until further analysis is complete. Over-redaction: Some items may have been redacted that are not employees, contractors, targets or otherwise related to the agency, but are, for example, authors of documentation for otherwise public projects that are used by the agency.
Identity vs. person: the redacted names are replaced by user IDs (numbers) to allow readers to assign multiple pages to a single author. Given the redaction process used a single person may be represented by more than one assigned identifier but no identifier refers to more than one real person.
Archive attachments (zip, tar.gz, ...), are replaced with a PDF listing all the file names in the archive. As the archive content is assessed it may be made available; until then the archive is redacted.
Attachments with other binary content, are replaced by a hex dump of the content to prevent accidental invocation of binaries that may have been infected with weaponized CIA malware. As the content is assessed it may be made available; until then the content is redacted.
Tens of thousands of routable IP addresses references, (including more than 22 thousand within the United States) that correspond to possible targets, CIA covert listening post servers, intermediary and test systems, are redacted for further exclusive investigation.
Binary files of non-public origin, are only available as dumps to prevent accidental invocation of CIA malware infected binaries.
Organizational Chart
The organizational chart (far above image) corresponds to the material published by WikiLeaks so far.
Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement of the EDG and its branches within the org chart of the agency is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released so far.
It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently.
Wiki pages
"Year Zero" contains 7818 web pages with 943 attachments from the internal development groupware. The software used for this purpose is called Confluence, a proprietary software from Atlassian.
Webpages in this system (like in Wikipedia) have a version history that can provide interesting insights on how a document evolved over time; the 7818 documents include these page histories for 1136 latest versions.
The order of named pages within each level is determined by date (oldest first). Page content is not present if it was originally dynamically created by the Confluence software (as indicated on the re-constructed page).
What time period is covered?
The years 2013 to 2016. The sort order of the pages within each level is determined by date (oldest first).
WikiLeaks has obtained the CIA's creation/last modification date for each page but these do not yet appear for technical reasons. Usually the date can be discerned or approximated from the content and the page order.
If it is critical to know the exact time/date contact WikiLeaks.
What is "Vault 7"
"Vault 7" is a substantial collection of material about CIA activities obtained by WikiLeaks.
When was each part of "Vault 7" obtained?
Part one was obtained recently and covers through 2016. Details on the other parts will be available at the time of publication.
Is each part of "Vault 7" from a different source?
Details on the other parts will be available at the time of publication.
What is the total size of "Vault 7"?
The series is the largest intelligence publication in history.
How did WikiLeaks obtain each part of "Vault 7"?
Sources trust WikiLeaks to not reveal information that might help identify them.
Isn't WikiLeaks worried that the CIA will act against its staff to stop the series?
No. That would be certainly counter-productive.
Has WikiLeaks already 'mined' all the best stories?
No. WikiLeaks has intentionally not written up hundreds of impactful stories to encourage others to find them and so create expertise in the area for subsequent parts in the series. They're there.
Look. Those who demonstrate journalistic excellence may be considered for early access to future parts.
Won't other journalists find all the best stories before me?
Unlikely. There are very considerably more stories than there are journalists or academics who are in a position to write them.
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy

0 thoughts on “Clash of clans hack cheats tool v4.0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *