41–50 of 79 posts
Is there any legitimate reason to discriminate because of age?
The Federal Labor Standards Act has provisions about anyone under the age of 18 working for companies whose revenue is greater than $500,000. It sucks to be a kid for a lot of reasons. This kid just blamed Paypal for one of our country's many idiotic federal laws. This choice should be considered a career limiting decision by any hiring manager.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chromium Security team pays bounties to adults representing minors; Paypal could have done the same.
If the feds were to audit the situation you are describing, I would wager they'd come after Google. Google has a lot more freedom and track record for asking forgiveness instead of permission than Paypal (i.e. wifi sniffing in google cars). They are not a payment processing company. This stuff is complicated. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Labor Standards Act has provisions about anyone under the age of 18 working for companies whose revenue is greater than $500,000. It sucks to be a kid for a lot of reasons. This kid just blamed Paypal for one of our country's many idiotic federal laws. This choice should be considered a career limiting decision by any hiring manager.
Wait, it's considered "working for" when there's no employment relationship of any kind?
Is there any legitimate reason to discriminate because of age?
The Federal Labor Standards Act has provisions about anyone under the age of 18 working for companies whose revenue is greater than $500,000. It sucks to be a kid for a lot of reasons. This kid just blamed Paypal for one of our country's many idiotic federal laws. This choice should be considered a career limiting decision by any hiring manager.
Hopefully not forever. When I was young and stupid and the net was a much simpler place I casually fully disclosed the problem with posting your Cisco configs with "encrypted" passwords to Usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.sys.cisco/WjuKAOQL...
I would not do something like this today, especially not in such a full-of-myself douchey manner.
Sadly a lot of postings to the internet are basically "forever" at this point and combined with the insistence of so many companies that real names be used, we're going to have generations of younger folks who say or do something stupid (because they are young and stupid) that they can never get rid of. And that's unfortunate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Labor Standards Act has provisions about anyone under the age of 18 working for companies whose revenue is greater than $500,000. It sucks to be a kid for a lot of reasons. This kid just blamed Paypal for one of our country's many idiotic federal laws. This choice should be considered a career limiting decision by any hiring manager.
"This choice should be considered a career limiting decision by any hiring manager." Hopefully not forever. When I was young and stupid and the net was a much simpler place I casually fully disclosed the problem with posting your Cisco configs with "encrypted" passwords to Usenet: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.dcom.sys.cisco/WjuKAOQL... I would not do something like this today, especially not in such a full-of…
I completely agree. I also think that this kind of post on full-disclosure should be used as an example of what-not-to-do.
I've always treated vuln reward programs as resume enhancers. If you submit a bug and get it fixed, you get to show two incredibly valuable and rare skills in the infosec community:
1) technical chops 2) interpersonal skill
Disclosers who have the patience to endure some of the bullshit that comes up in these programs are going to be successful in the security industry. The hardest problems in infosec are not technical. They are cultural. Publicly flaming a vuln reward program because they didn't pay you for what you see as an arbitrary reason is exactly the kind of reason execs do not want to do vuln reward programs. Someone had to fight to get that program set up at paypal. It had to be within the laws of the country that governs the company. This kid just through a temper tantrum in public and signed his name on the email. Any advocates he had at paypal are probably re-evaluating their support of him. So short sighted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Federal Labor Standards Act has provisions about anyone under the age of 18 working for companies whose revenue is greater than $500,000. It sucks to be a kid for a lot of reasons. This kid just blamed Paypal for one of our country's many idiotic federal laws. This choice should be considered a career limiting decision by any hiring manager.
Wait, it's considered "working for" when there's no employment relationship of any kind?
Payment is paid through a verified Paypal account, which you must be 18 years of age to use their services according to their user agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, it's considered "working for" when there's no employment relationship of any kind?
I doubt it has to do with labor laws, specifically. Payment is paid through a verified Paypal account, which you must be 18 years of age to use their services according to their user agreement.
Can you explain why this is a real vulnerability? The user himself must put that JS in the search box.
Basically you need to put something like this on a page you control (where "xss code" is the code triggering the XSS): Then, just as the page loads, submit that form and you're executing JS on a paypal.com page. This would work great for phishing or session hijacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically you need to put something like this on a page you control (where "xss code" is the code triggering the XSS): Then, just as the page loads, submit that form and you're executing JS on a paypal.com page. This would work great for phishing or session hijacking.
Isn't this CSRF?