That's interesting nostalgia. The 20th century was chock full of Constitutional abuses by Congress, the executive branch, state and local enforcement, etc. Especially if you were a minority, a woman, a member of a political party disliked by those in power, gay, or part of a niche religious sect, etc.
I'm not angry. Also, only doing anything after being exploited is not a correct response. Especially after handwaving the issue away by claiming the attack was only theoretical.
And to add to my previous post, Gibson Security informed them of this hole in August and were ignored. In what way is waiting more than 4 months, letting exploit code be posted and user data be leaked before you actually do something a "correct response"?
Snapchat hadn’t provided a public statement until now, and what it’s offered isn’t very satisfying. “Theoretically, if someone were able to upload a huge set of phone numbers, like every number in an area code, or every possible number in the U.S., they could create a database of the results and match usernames to phone numbers that way. Over the past year we’ve implemented various safeguards to make it more difficult to do.” It goes on to note it’s added more barriers to the use of this hack.
Looks like it was not as "theoretical" as they claimed.
And to add, the Taliban gains a lot from lying and posturing. The guy doing the investigation doesn't gain anything from lying. In fact it only weakened the case of the government.
The military's position took another hit Wednesday, as the former brigadier general who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks said that he had never heard that a source named in the Afghan war logs was killed.
Though the Taliban had claimed that its review of the war logs led them to an Afghan whom the U.S. military named as a source, the supposed informant the Taliban claimed to have executed was not in fact named in the leaked materials.
The Taliban can claim things all they want. The retired general in charge doing the real investigations said they were full of it.
Re:please stop
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Aaron was set for life financially and it's highly unlikely he wouldn't find another job with his history. It also ignores all the other people with history of computer crime charges that are currently employed as security researchers.
The military's position took another hit Wednesday, as the former brigadier general who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks said that he had never heard that a source named in the Afghan war logs was killed.
Though the Taliban had claimed that its review of the war logs led them to an Afghan whom the U.S. military named as a source, the supposed informant the Taliban claimed to have executed was not in fact named in the leaked materials.
Now-retired Brig. Gen. Robert Carr had wanted to testify about the Taliban's claim Wednesday, but Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over Manning's court-martial, barred such testimony as inadmissible hearsay.
The revelation supports an assessment by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the rhetoric about the supposed harm caused by the leaks was "fairly significantly overwrought."
Re:"Senseless Death?"
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 0
While many non-violent offenders should not be jailed for their petty "crimes" (especially to keep numbers up in privately-owned prisons), "land of the free" has never implied "free to commit crimes and violate the rights of others". That's just absolute silliness.
This is not about what the article recommends, it's about the article completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
The article was written in August 2008. Github was 4 months old. It was no "elephant in the room". The article also didn't mention Codeplex, Bitbucket, JavaForge, and countless other sites that existed at the time in 2008. So what? His article was not meant to be an exhaustive list. The article merely was about the biggest source code hosts at the time it was written.
Because the list was not meant to be exhaustive? Because when the article was written in August 2008, Github was only a couple of months old at the time and had far less users than the other services mentioned?
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not what they said and what they said is patently false. It's nothing but white-washed nostalgia.
Or being put into "internment" camps for your family lineage. These "good ole days" people are so ridiculous.
That's interesting nostalgia. The 20th century was chock full of Constitutional abuses by Congress, the executive branch, state and local enforcement, etc. Especially if you were a minority, a woman, a member of a political party disliked by those in power, gay, or part of a niche religious sect, etc.
API for sandboxing processes.
They didn't say it was ok. Simply that the statement is not an "interpretation" as it's explicitly stated in the TOS how they treat likes.
It's not a show for consumers. It's a press show for things they hope to sell to consumers. The press is the audience not you.
Nope, he sold his shares off in 1996.
He resigned from the company 20 years ago and sold his remaining shares two years later. Can't really call it "his company".
I'm not angry. Also, only doing anything after being exploited is not a correct response. Especially after handwaving the issue away by claiming the attack was only theoretical.
And to add to my previous post, Gibson Security informed them of this hole in August and were ignored. In what way is waiting more than 4 months, letting exploit code be posted and user data be leaked before you actually do something a "correct response"?
Correct response to a security problem. Too bad it wasn't fast enough to avoid exploitation.
What was a correct response? That they initially claimed this wasn't an issue and blew it off?
Snapchat hadn’t provided a public statement until now, and what it’s offered isn’t very satisfying. “Theoretically, if someone were able to upload a huge set of phone numbers, like every number in an area code, or every possible number in the U.S., they could create a database of the results and match usernames to phone numbers that way. Over the past year we’ve implemented various safeguards to make it more difficult to do.” It goes on to note it’s added more barriers to the use of this hack.
Looks like it was not as "theoretical" as they claimed.
Yeah me and a friend used to play SC 3 a ton and had plenty of fun with it. Didn't ever seem "botched" to us.
And to add, the Taliban gains a lot from lying and posturing. The guy doing the investigation doesn't gain anything from lying. In fact it only weakened the case of the government.
Didn't bother reading the quote, eh?
The military's position took another hit Wednesday, as the former brigadier general who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks said that he had never heard that a source named in the Afghan war logs was killed.
Though the Taliban had claimed that its review of the war logs led them to an Afghan whom the U.S. military named as a source, the supposed informant the Taliban claimed to have executed was not in fact named in the leaked materials.
The Taliban can claim things all they want. The retired general in charge doing the real investigations said they were full of it.
Aaron was set for life financially and it's highly unlikely he wouldn't find another job with his history. It also ignores all the other people with history of computer crime charges that are currently employed as security researchers.
but managed to expose, endanger AND KILL sympathizers and spies working with the US and the UK on the other side.
Sorry cold fjord, but this is false. From here:
The military's position took another hit Wednesday, as the former brigadier general who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks said that he had never heard that a source named in the Afghan war logs was killed.
Though the Taliban had claimed that its review of the war logs led them to an Afghan whom the U.S. military named as a source, the supposed informant the Taliban claimed to have executed was not in fact named in the leaked materials.
Now-retired Brig. Gen. Robert Carr had wanted to testify about the Taliban's claim Wednesday, but Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over Manning's court-martial, barred such testimony as inadmissible hearsay.
The revelation supports an assessment by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the rhetoric about the supposed harm caused by the leaks was "fairly significantly overwrought."
While many non-violent offenders should not be jailed for their petty "crimes" (especially to keep numbers up in privately-owned prisons), "land of the free" has never implied "free to commit crimes and violate the rights of others". That's just absolute silliness.
Entitlement much? Why should they have to continually update some 5.5 year old article?
Yes it can, but the post was clearly using it as if there were two different people.
There is no "they". "hypnosec" is "Ravi Mandalia". The mistake was made by the same person.
it pre-dates git by a year
Nope, initial release of bzr only predates the first release of git by 12 days. March 26, 2005 vs April 7, 2005.
No, actually worse. His grammar and factual accuracy makes the Slashdot editors look top notch.
This is not about what the article recommends, it's about the article completely ignoring the elephant in the room.
The article was written in August 2008. Github was 4 months old. It was no "elephant in the room". The article also didn't mention Codeplex, Bitbucket, JavaForge, and countless other sites that existed at the time in 2008. So what? His article was not meant to be an exhaustive list. The article merely was about the biggest source code hosts at the time it was written.
Because the list was not meant to be exhaustive? Because when the article was written in August 2008, Github was only a couple of months old at the time and had far less users than the other services mentioned?
Having an editor is useless when they are basically functionally illiterate.