11–19 of 19 posts
Previous submission with no comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12371316
If there are no interesting comments to read why post the fact that it had been previously submitted at all? This is completely useless!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there are no interesting comments to read why post the fact that it had been previously submitted at all? This is completely useless!
Since the person to post this comment also posted that submission, probably because they're unhappy that their submission didn't catch on yet it's the exact same subject. Sadly, shit happens.
EDIT: Hope I haven't offended anyone, I am usually not the judgemental type, couldn't help wondering in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the person to post this comment also posted that submission, probably because they're unhappy that their submission didn't catch on yet it's the exact same subject. Sadly, shit happens.
But the person has to realize that this won't help him/her at all, only comes off as being a little bit whiny, maybe even a little bit desperate. Yeah, it happens, but it's only virtual points on an Internet site we are talking about... who cares who submitted it in the end. EDIT: Hope I haven't offended anyone, I am usually not the judgemental type, couldn't help wondering in this case.
I am always intrigued by a lot of these announcements that clarify that only 'some' of the user information was obtained by the infiltrators. I would have assumed that if a database was breached, then the bad guys could access the entire user or password hash table? Would 'only some' data mean that they detected a 'SELECT * FROM users' query being run and shut down the connection before it could complete? Is it the d…
Say there's two tables, users and user_preferences. Someone goes in, takes the contents of users (hashes and salts and all). Only some of the user information was obtained!
I believe in the case of the LinkedIn breach, they said that something like "less than 20% of their user passwords were leaked". I take that to mean that not all rows were exposed, but only some - that's why I am intrigued as to whether the query was shut off mid stream, or the bulk download of exported data was detected and cut off or similar?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the person to post this comment also posted that submission, probably because they're unhappy that their submission didn't catch on yet it's the exact same subject. Sadly, shit happens.
But the person has to realize that this won't help him/her at all, only comes off as being a little bit whiny, maybe even a little bit desperate. Yeah, it happens, but it's only virtual points on an Internet site we are talking about... who cares who submitted it in the end. EDIT: Hope I haven't offended anyone, I am usually not the judgemental type, couldn't help wondering in this case.
I wasn't aware this came across as desperate for virtual points. I really don't care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say there's two tables, users and user_preferences. Someone goes in, takes the contents of users (hashes and salts and all). Only some of the user information was obtained!
I get it about normalised data spread across multiple tables - but usually (from how I interpret it), they seem to be talking about number of rows - i.e. "We think only 10,000 users had their information compromised...". I believe in the case of the LinkedIn breach, they said that something like "less than 20% of their user passwords were leaked". I take that to mean that not all rows were exposed, but only some - th…
In this post for instance, they indicate that attackers got 'sync users’ passwords' while storing only 'encrypted/hashed data'.
Other possibilities: they accessed a partial backup (or prod data used in dev), a caching system, a message broker (Kafka)...
I am always intrigued by a lot of these announcements that clarify that only 'some' of the user information was obtained by the infiltrators. I would have assumed that if a database was breached, then the bad guys could access the entire user or password hash table? Would 'only some' data mean that they detected a 'SELECT * FROM users' query being run and shut down the connection before it could complete? Is it the d…
Doing so keeps your db responsive against programmer errors and limits data exfiltration. I've been doing this for the first reason for years.
But opera as a company is long dead for me, all the people behind the old opera have moved on and many of them working on Vivaldi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the person has to realize that this won't help him/her at all, only comes off as being a little bit whiny, maybe even a little bit desperate. Yeah, it happens, but it's only virtual points on an Internet site we are talking about... who cares who submitted it in the end. EDIT: Hope I haven't offended anyone, I am usually not the judgemental type, couldn't help wondering in this case.
Personally, I think that there should be minimal dupes. Therefore, I felt the earlier submission which did not gain traction should be deleted from HN and/or merged. I'm not sure of the protocol. I wasn't aware this came across as desperate for virtual points. I really don't care.