SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#111

Post by saagarjha » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

jsjddbbwj wrote: post #63

saagarjha wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever used IDA Pro?

Please elaborate

IDA Pro is an reverse engineering tool sold by Hex Rays, which, for the last decade or two has been the the go-to software for security research, with very few actual competitors in the area (though this has been changing recently, depending on who you ask and what your needs are). It is fairly infamous for its exorbitant price (many thousands of dollars) and the company's extreme willingness to go after "pirates" (a term which is somewhat loose and is quite a bit broader than "people who use IDA Pro without purchasing it") and their inclusion of fairly invasive DRM reminiscent of malware.

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#112

Post by holler » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

allover wrote: post #49

nilkn wrote: post #41

Zoom is such a bizarre product. For huge video calls, it tends to perform as well or better than everything else out there. Yet at the same time it literally seems like straight-up malware and seems to violate your trust and privacy left and right every step of the way, even in the installer (!).

To be fair it does perform better than everything else, which is why people are so forgiving of it, but it still doesn't excuse their ineptitude on privacy and security.

better to ask forgiveness?

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#113

Post by blackoil » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

flattone wrote: post #62

allover wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair it does perform better than everything else, which is why people are so forgiving of it, but it still doesn't excuse their ineptitude on privacy and security.

Yeah. Security and privacy preclude performance. Like ... i dont need a Ferrari with an activated self destruct. ill take the camry, thanks.

More like all glass Ferrari vs all black Camry. People are choosing Ferrari

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#114

Post by slenk » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:22 AM UTC

gpm wrote: post #107

numpad0 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plausible though, considering Musk’s fundamentalist tone

And the amount of classified material they handle, and the fact that Jeff Bezos is a direct competitor so Amazon is very very closely affiliated with a direct competitor.

So, SpaceX.com at least uses an IP address owned by Amazon: https://www.abuseipdb.com/whois/50.112.120.214

  slenk@Enterprise:~$ host spacex.com  
  spacex.com has address 50.112.120.214
  [output truncated]

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#115

Post by slenk » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:26 AM UTC

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #15

They also don't use AWS.

Commented further down, but I think you are mistaken.

SpaceX.com at least uses an IP address owned by Amazon: https://www.abuseipdb.com/whois/50.112.120.214

  slenk@Enterprise:~$ host spacex.com  
  spacex.com has address 50.112.120.214
  [output truncated]

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#116

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:31 AM UTC

annoyingnoob wrote: post #47

m0zg wrote: post #14

As they should, since they're subject to ITAR regulations, and ITAR is not a joke.

Came to say the same thing. Zoom is impossible if you are considered part of the DoD supply chain. Most of the public products are untenable if you need to talk about ITAR projects or about anything considered CUI.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#117

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

annoyingnoob wrote: post #74

stonogo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoom and Slack are both FedRamp authorized for government use. Zoom is even authorized Moderate, while Slack is still being audited for that rating. https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/#/product/zoom-for-governmen... https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/#/product/slack

You don't get zoom's government platform by default, you have to ask for it and I'll bet it has different pricing. I suspect you also lose some features, like recording (at least at the server). I haven't checked Zoom but other FedRamp products I've seen are 3x the price of the standard offering.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#118

Post by nisse72 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:37 AM UTC

gpm wrote: post #106

bob1029 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like any organization under ITAR should prefer in-house solutions in areas relating to dissemination of sensitive design notes.

"In house (software)" is usually synonyms with "not properly tested or secured"... I'd generally rather they relied on third party code audited by the nations security services.

Rather than "NIH" solutions, I think that such businesses commonly choose products that can be hosted on premise.

There's also MS Government Cloud: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global-infrastructure/gove...

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#119

Post by caycep » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:37 AM UTC

blackoil wrote: post #113

flattone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Security and privacy preclude performance. Like ... i dont need a Ferrari with an activated self destruct. ill take the camry, thanks.

More like all glass Ferrari vs all black Camry. People are choosing Ferrari

the Ferrari is noted for an unfortunate tendency to catch on fire and burn to the ground...

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#120

Post by tyre » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #67

paulryanrogers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's unlikely they stumbled onto an industry standard phrase like that alone, then innocently used it without knowing the generally accepted meaning. This is deceptive advertising.

Not defending zoom here -- they done fucked up -- but there is a huge disconnect between the marketing folks and the technical folks. It's possible that E2E Encryption was something they planned on implementing but haven't, and the marketing department either didn't get the memo or didn't understand and still kept the wording.

If marketing misuses a term on the website because they didn't understand what it meant, that's their fault. If they listed a feature that hasn't yet shipped, that's their fault.

It's natural that there is a divide and marketing isn't expected to understand every engineering thing (nor the other way around.) If your job is to write words, though, you are responsible for the words you right.