91–100 of 230 posts
I'd use that but not searching by phone number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, you spend really a lot of effort on virtue signaling. Should we also institute public lynching of all employees of companies that had security breaches?
> Should we also institute public lynching of all employees of companies that had security breaches? This isn't about a security breach. Facebook is a horrible company and has damaged the world with its unique stances on privacy and data gathering. > Wow, you spend really a lot of effort on virtue signaling. By what measure? I really don't want anyone who is willing to sacrifice their morals around personal privacy a…
“Has my credit card number been leaked”.com
I wish there was an "email" input. Last time I had a Facebook account was 10 years ago (probably before phone numbers were de facto identity) and I would be fascinated to learn if my old accounts were in the leak, because Facebook was supposed to fully delete those accounts :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should we also institute public lynching of all employees of companies that had security breaches? This isn't about a security breach. Facebook is a horrible company and has damaged the world with its unique stances on privacy and data gathering. > Wow, you spend really a lot of effort on virtue signaling. By what measure? I really don't want anyone who is willing to sacrifice their morals around personal privacy a…
Depends on when they joined Facebook. Early employees had no idea what it would become.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, maybe you were on to something-- your thoughts inspired me to think about this a little more- we just need a unique salt only the user would know.
still, bcrypt's design means it'll take way too many cycles to brute-force-reverse the dataset, so it should be safe to share. One downside of a record-specific salt is nicknames e.g. john vs johnathan , or misspellings. (false negatives)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
still, bcrypt's design means it'll take way too many cycles to brute-force-reverse the dataset, so it should be safe to share. One downside of a record-specific salt is nicknames e.g. john vs johnathan , or misspellings. (false negatives)
Just off the top of my head: you can hash the text with hash-1, and send a query containing a hash id bucket computed with h1%(N/1000), get 1000 responses from the server hashed with h2 function. Then we can search for our h2 inside the 1000 results without the server knowing which one we were looking at. We also can't decode the 1000 responses we got.
My number was leaked (checked the dump myself) but I don't show up on this site. Seems like there are some bugs to work out