Pegasus Spyware: Omar Radi Critical Review

Abstract

This research critically examines the forensic methodologies employed by Amnesty International and The Citizen Lab in their analysis of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware, with a particular focus on the high-profile case of Moroccan journalist Omar Radi. Despite claims of scientific rigor, significant methodological flaws are evident, including reliance on speculative forensic indicators, the generation of false positives, and the absence of independent peer review. These shortcomings undermine the validity of the findings and raise concerns about their transparency, particularly in politically sensitive cases. Technical inconsistencies, such as the reliance on ambiguous data artifacts like browsing history and process executions, highlight failures to meet established standards for transparency, reproducibility, and accountability. The study also identifies systemic issues related to overlapping personnel between Amnesty International and The Citizen Lab, which compromise the independence of these investigations. These issues are compounded by the lack of rigor in evidence handling, exemplified by Amnesty’s quiet retraction of false positives without formal updates to their published findings. Such practices not only diminish the credibility of the conclusions but also risk misrepresenting critical evidence in cases with far-reaching implications. By uncovering these flaws, this research underscores the urgent need for more robust and scientifically validated methodologies in spyware detection. Emphasis is placed on the importance of adopting peer-reviewed practices that prioritize accuracy, reproducibility, and impartiality. Ultimately, the findings contribute to a broader discourse on the critical role of methodological rigor and transparency in digital forensics, particularly when addressing issues with profound implications for human rights and state accountability.