Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

sherlockproject.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#121

Post by jpollock »

mazambazz wrote: post #114
dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this subaddress all just resolve to the same account? The accounts are free, so just make up a completely different account. Yeah, it might get a bit of a mess for a user to manage, but that's what password managers are for. let's face it, we're not talking about Joey Beercan doing this. Anyone even tossing around the term SecOps is already moved out of mass populace and into the somewhat informed. Someone pr…

It depends on the underlying email server. But strictly speaking, the "+" is a valid identifier, and "joe+admin@example.com" is a completely different address than "joe@example.com". It just so happens that email servers tend to recognize the usage of "+" as a "tag" and route incoming mail using the tag to the root email that precedes the plus and tag. But, as the sender, you cannot assume that this is always the beh…

As a sender, that's entirely true. As a flag to identify correlated emails and accounts, it can be a very useful assumption to make.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#122

Post by idontlikeirc »

II2II wrote: post #52
dylan604 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for things they said 10 years ago. I don't think this is an automatic negative as you are implying. There's definitely lots of qualifiers involved though. There would have to be significant evidence to show that the sentiment expressed is still no longer held which could be more than problematic to prove. If it was someone up for supreme court justice that posted pics showing how much they liked beer and their anti…

That second example pretty much demonstrates why it is so dangerous. There were attitudes that were commonplace 30 years ago that are now considered racist, in many cases because they were racist, that people don't subscribe to today. I imagine the same can be said about 10 years ago. People's values change. We should not be giving them life sentences when the have reformed their attitudes and behaviors, otherwise th…

One example of this I can think of is a show from the late 90's which used the word "spaz" very liberally, which was already iffy at the time but not fully demonized. Using it nowadays could be considered a major point of contention towards your image. Words like Gypsy and Retard are more recent inclusions in this field.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#123

Post by rramadass »

Reminds me of this excerpt from "A Study in Scarlet".

'Have you read Gaboriau's works?' I asked. 'Does Lecoq come up to your idea of a detective?'

Sherlock Holmes sniffed sardonically. Lecoq was a miserable bungler,' he said, in an angry voice; 'he had only one thing to recommend him, and that was his energy. That book made me positively ill. The question was how to identify an unknown prisoner. I could have done it in twenty-four hours. Lecoq took six months or so. It might be made a text-book for detectives to teach them what to avoid.'

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#126

Post by s1artibartfast »

idontlikeirc wrote: post #122
II2II wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That second example pretty much demonstrates why it is so dangerous. There were attitudes that were commonplace 30 years ago that are now considered racist, in many cases because they were racist, that people don't subscribe to today. I imagine the same can be said about 10 years ago. People's values change. We should not be giving them life sentences when the have reformed their attitudes and behaviors, otherwise th…

One example of this I can think of is a show from the late 90's which used the word "spaz" very liberally, which was already iffy at the time but not fully demonized. Using it nowadays could be considered a major point of contention towards your image. Words like Gypsy and Retard are more recent inclusions in this field.

When did spaz go out of favor? I was completely unaware it became taboo.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#127

Post by packtreefly »

immibis wrote: post #101
dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this subaddress all just resolve to the same account? The accounts are free, so just make up a completely different account. Yeah, it might get a bit of a mess for a user to manage, but that's what password managers are for. let's face it, we're not talking about Joey Beercan doing this. Anyone even tossing around the term SecOps is already moved out of mass populace and into the somewhat informed. Someone pr…

Gmail accounts aren't free: I believe they only allow up to 4 to be linked to the same phone number (which is mandatory). Microsoft is worse: they'll let you create an account, then lock it the next day, after you've already used it for something, if you don't link your phone number. Phone number is used because it costs money to get, is hard to get in bulk, and in many countries is always tied to your identity. I wo…

> I wonder what the market for throwaway phone number verification is worth.

I pondered this recently, and it seems to top out at a couple bucks per shot.

The problem is that the phone number tends to need to be persistent for the sake of security. You can't typically sign up for something that requires a phone number and then expect to be able to keep the account safe without maintaining exclusive access to that number.

I'm sure if it were cost effective, one of the password managers would have some kind of SMS integration, like Apple's hide my email, but for phone numbers.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#128

Post by immibis »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #120
immibis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, he supports the Gaza situation.

Real Americans are pretty spit on the topic of Gaza. 36% of Americans favor the U.S. providing military aid to Israel. 34% oppose military aid, and the rest are neutral. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role...

I didn't say Trump was the only one who supported cold-blooded murder.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#129

Post by immibis »

packtreefly wrote: post #127
immibis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail accounts aren't free: I believe they only allow up to 4 to be linked to the same phone number (which is mandatory). Microsoft is worse: they'll let you create an account, then lock it the next day, after you've already used it for something, if you don't link your phone number. Phone number is used because it costs money to get, is hard to get in bulk, and in many countries is always tied to your identity. I wo…

> I wonder what the market for throwaway phone number verification is worth. I pondered this recently, and it seems to top out at a couple bucks per shot. The problem is that the phone number tends to need to be persistent for the sake of security. You can't typically sign up for something that requires a phone number and then expect to be able to keep the account safe without maintaining exclusive access to that num…

If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to provide their own phone number to make an account, you probably also wouldn't be using any account long-term.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#130

Post by eks391 »

dylan604 wrote: post #112
immibis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail accounts aren't free: I believe they only allow up to 4 to be linked to the same phone number (which is mandatory). Microsoft is worse: they'll let you create an account, then lock it the next day, after you've already used it for something, if you don't link your phone number. Phone number is used because it costs money to get, is hard to get in bulk, and in many countries is always tied to your identity. I wo…

I’ve never provided a phone number for any of the gmail accounts I have. When was this mandated?

Very recently. I only noticed it about 2 years ago when I went to make a throwaway gmail account exactly for the above opsec purposes.
Post reply on HN