71–80 of 1001 posts
Weren't there major problems with the current CVE implementation, especially with the waves of script kiddies and AI tools spamming the database and the fact that projects who take security seriously have little to no say in the "score" that gets assigned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s ignorance and arrogance. The US seems to be on a path to lose technological and science leadership. The current leadership doesn’t seem to understand things that aren’t flashy. I wonder when they’ll dial back on food safety. I am sure RFK knows some vitamins that protect against salmonella
important to note: the US's food safety is already really bad. salmonella isn't a thing you have to worry about in first world countries. can't wait to see what plague demon spawns out of a food industry running amok after the FDA gets gutted.
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx...
My tinfoil hat says they want to privatize this through one of the administrations friends. A disastrous decision here.
I wish this hadn't happened. I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? I ask this, because I don't think anyone in the subject matter specialist space would have made a strong case "kill it, we don't need this" and I am sure if asked would have made a strong case "CRISSAKE WE NEED THIS DONT TOUCH IT" -But I could believe senior finance would do t…
> I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? This was not a carefully-weighed decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. This was a political order, consistent with the administration's policy of "cut everything, recklessly, indiscriminately."
Weren't there major problems with the current CVE implementation, especially with the waves of script kiddies and AI tools spamming the database and the fact that projects who take security seriously have little to no say in the "score" that gets assigned?
I wish this hadn't happened. I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? I ask this, because I don't think anyone in the subject matter specialist space would have made a strong case "kill it, we don't need this" and I am sure if asked would have made a strong case "CRISSAKE WE NEED THIS DONT TOUCH IT" -But I could believe senior finance would do t…
it might also be deliberate: that they actually don't think the government should be involved in this sort of thing. after all, someone could be making a profit on this, and that seems to be their highest value. if gov is involved, that makes it a communal effort, and you know what else starts with "commun-"?
yes, those reasons are stupid and ignorant AND intentional.
but is there any evidence against that interpretation?
I'm trying to steelman but I really can't think of a non- nefarious justification for this
> I'm trying to steelman Why? This administration is not acting in good faith, you don't have to act as if they are. People and institutions doing that is part of how we got here in the first place.
In reality this would never happen so all these people playing steelman are just detached/insulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and then a random 9.8 critical comes that affects some software you have in a way that makes it a 0 in your environment but it doesn't matter cause the cve tanks your organizational Security Score (tm) by 10 arbitrary points and management is wondering when you'll secure the company again because the Security Score is their only tangible deliverable to measure success
Yeah like when we bundled in a .js library for client side date processing that has a CVE affecting node.js servers with high score. Our auditors don’t care they tag the whole app as high risk. It doesn’t even run on the server!
its all just surface-level box-checking. most companies required to get 'penetration tests' just get an overpriced Nessus scan sold as a pentest and that meets their reqs.
I wish this hadn't happened. I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? I ask this, because I don't think anyone in the subject matter specialist space would have made a strong case "kill it, we don't need this" and I am sure if asked would have made a strong case "CRISSAKE WE NEED THIS DONT TOUCH IT" -But I could believe senior finance would do t…
it might be ignorance; it might be malice. it might also be deliberate: that they actually don't think the government should be involved in this sort of thing. after all, someone could be making a profit on this, and that seems to be their highest value. if gov is involved, that makes it a communal effort, and you know what else starts with "commun-"? yes, those reasons are stupid and ignorant AND intentional. but is…