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

DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 586 posts

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#511

Post by avs733 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #470
avs733 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes getting caught isn’t a bad thing. If you are trying to seed division between to groups, acting in a way that divides them - e.g., getting caught helping one side - is more effective than what you gain by not getting caught. I struggle to see what Russia would gain with nlrb data, but getting caught “helping doge” furthers distrust between the two sides of our country - which is something they gain from

> struggle to see what Russia would gain with nlrb data A list of whistleblowers at American companies who presumably don't want said companies to know the details of their work.

That is a good observation

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#512

Post by DrillShopper »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #473
DrillShopper wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They work for Trump so they'll never be held to account, even if a Democrat wins the next election (assuming even have one and it's fair and free) I never thought I'd be calling for UN observers for an election in the US but here we are

> They work for Trump so they'll never be held to account, even if a Democrat wins the next election Why? If Democrats take the House in the midterms, which looks more likely the longer Navarro and Musk have West Wing access, they can basically turn these folks' lives into a living hell of back-to-back hearings (and contempt charges down the road). And if Democrats win the next election, they'll presumably put someon…

When Biden was elected they didn't seriously crack down on them before outside of the one case at Justice that went nowhere.

They also didn't prosecute GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes when they had the chance. This is a long standing policy of theirs.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#513

Post by DrillShopper »

orochimaaru wrote: post #426
rtkwe wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And conveniently gutting agencies that are or were soon to be thorns in Elon's side. FAA and EPA were annoying him around SpaceX's Starship test launches, CFPB would be annoying for his future everything app plans for Twitter, etc.

Maybe. But none of those make him as much money as Tesla which is in the dumps with all the shenanigans. From a motivation perspective it seems more like rank stupidity than Machiavellian.

> But none of those make him as much money as Tesla which is in the dumps with all the shenanigans.

Give Musk a year or two out of DOGE and it won't matter - Tesla will be back up after Musk isn't in the government spotlight. The voters in the US (who by and large are good little consumers) have the memory of a goldfish for things like this.

You can't even get progressives to not eat at Chick-fil-A despite their founders blantent homophobia. This incident is not going to keep people from buying Tesla in the long run.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#514

Post by cyberjerkXX »

dkrich wrote: post #475
cyberjerkXX wrote: post #441

Hello, I work in incident response and cyber forensics within the private sector and as a government contractor. I'm familiar with the government contracting company that currently holds the SOCaaS contract with the NLRB - it's MindPoint Group. They share the a SOC with the DOJ. I reviewed the whistleblower’s evidence, and I have significant doubts about his claims. Firstly, anyone claiming that "the whole government…

Can you explain why a GitHub repo for IP rotating and tied to a prominent DOGE member was downloaded and then deleted?

I can explain why I doubt him.

The evidence supporting his claim is a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet with several columns excluded. It appears to have been exported from the DeviceProcessEvents table within the advanced threat hunting schema. However, he failed to provide the threat hunting dashboard view, which would include critical context such as the process tree, MD5 hash, account SID, account domain, and process creation time. Given that he clearly has access to Microsoft Defender XDR or Defender for Endpoint, he has the capability to conduct a thorough investigation. Yet, he did not do so, nor did he include that information in his legal submission. As a result, I find his claims unconvincing.

As for the forked repo deletion - I have no clue. It seems like the repo was already well known. I'm not a dev so I'd defer to a dev's opinion here. The system owner could be function testing, fuzzing, performance testing, ect. Why didn’t he show the process tree, the system name, and netflow to prove that system running code was interacting with prod? – He clearly has access to Azure tools that would allow him to do that.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#515

Post by JumpCrisscross »

DrillShopper wrote: post #512
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They work for Trump so they'll never be held to account, even if a Democrat wins the next election Why? If Democrats take the House in the midterms, which looks more likely the longer Navarro and Musk have West Wing access, they can basically turn these folks' lives into a living hell of back-to-back hearings (and contempt charges down the road). And if Democrats win the next election, they'll presumably put someon…

When Biden was elected they didn't seriously crack down on them before outside of the one case at Justice that went nowhere. They also didn't prosecute GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes when they had the chance. This is a long standing policy of theirs.

> didn't prosecute GWB/Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes

Not relevant to domestic crimes committed by non-Cabinet folk.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#516

Post by nisegami »

Terr_ wrote: post #464
grandempire wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he can't access anything the Legislature's laws say he can't. Can the legislature make rules for the president without constitutional amendment? I am interested- I’ll see if I can find examples.

Well, if the legislature truly cannot make any statue affecting the President, that has some terrifying implications. It would mean a President is is legally permitted to ignore laws against raping a child on the sidewalk outside 1600 Pennsylvania avenue Ave then murdering all of Congress by blowing up the Capitol. Recently, a majority on the Supreme Court has claimed there's immunity for "Official Acts", but hasn't…

There was a 5 minute period after that ruling was published that I really hoped Joe would take the ruling to its logical conclusion, much as you did.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#517

Post by DrillShopper »

xoa wrote: post #503
efnx wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Trump could simply pardon them, unfortunately.

> I think Trump could simply pardon them, unfortunately. FWIW I think you're not correct here, or rather, it's not merely irrelevant but would actually harm them. The pardon power protects against criminal prosecution by the federal government. But it doesn't protect against mere embarrassment, nor against new actions performed after the pardon. Congress isn't prosecution, their inquiries are just about information f…

> in terms of "they can basically turn these folks' lives into a living hell of back-to-back hearings", pardons don't help with that one

Trump has so thoroughly poisoned the well on the "weaponized DOJ / weaponized IRS / weaponized Congressional investigations" that the Democrats, having no spine, won't bother doing any of that.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#518

Post by grandempire »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #467
grandempire wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> speculative articles like this... speculative articles like this But we know it isn't speculative based on these public data. You're arguing they should have covered up better. I agree. But that doesn't make (a) it okay or (b) this article speculative.

> You're arguing they should have covered up better.

No I’m arguing that they are under heavy scrutiny from the media - it’s very difficult to get any work done publicly in that environment.

> this article speculative.

Other comments have addressed the possible usage of this tool. The connection is dubious.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#519

Post by marcusb »

throwaway290 wrote: post #497
marcusb wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? The public repos for this person that I could find that weren't forks with no activity to upstream consisted of a dice-rolling guessing game, rock-paper-scissors, and some kind of framework for downloading and transcribing audio files that does not yet download or transcribe, but implements a whole bunch of boilerplate. I find it rather difficult to believe this person engaged in a good-faith review of the async-…

I wouldn't expect somebody to use their main non throwaway account, which probably ties to their job or school to write this today... when if someone in the gov doesn't like what you say they do things like cancel your visa or sanction your employer.

Cool. I'd expect such a throwaway account to be a bare throwaway account and not have multiple learning-project style repos with activity spreading out over a period of a few years, such as you see with the author of the critique/rant posted on the DOGE guy's repo.

Re: DOGE worker’s code supports NLRB whistleblower

#520

Post by marcusb »

timewizard wrote: post #242
marcusb wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original author claims this is to prevent API gateway from leaking the true client IP.

To be fair the code actually creates a new API gateway server that acts as a proxy on to an already existing server and you're possibly meant to use this header with your own gateway service. So, it's set as a header, sent to a user owned proxy, then to the actual external endpoint. On the other hand I think the receiving API Gateway will be able to see and log your AWS account identifier when you do this. So your IP…

The original code is explicit as to the intended purpose:

        # Auto generate random X-Forwarded-For if doesn't exist.
        # Otherwise AWS forwards true IP address in X-Forwarded-For header
        x_forwarded_for = request.headers.get("X-Forwarded-For")
        if x_forwarded_for is None:
            x_forwarded_for = ipaddress.IPv4Address._string_from_ip_int(randint(0, MAX_IPV4))

 The DOGE guy just stripped the comments out.
Post reply on HN