Fake news. The progressive crook wanted for exploiting and disclosing the data, not for reporting.
Actually, Krebs-on-security should know where a line drawn.
131–140 of 144 posts
Fake news. The progressive crook wanted for exploiting and disclosing the data, not for reporting.
Actually, Krebs-on-security should know where a line drawn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing that would lead it to being successful is if people are convinced that the attempt itself isn't alarming, and don't act aggressively to do something about it.
Peacefully donating to the ACLU should be sufficient, I don't agree that violence is presently warranted. If the courts fail, then we can talk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was a student at DeVry University (a national for-profit college with 40 campuses) your SSN was your student ID. This wasn’t corrected until 2002 or 2003. :(
Your SSN was your driver's license number in 29 states until 2004, when Bush outlawed the practice. Many, many institutions in the USA are built on it being a high-trust society. Now that it's falling into a low-trust state, we can expect those institutions to fail, and perhaps the state to as well.
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) .. vowed his administration would seek to prosecute and investigate .. anyone who aided the publication in its "attempt to embarrass the state and sell headlines for their news outlet." Embarrassing governments is the natural outcome of the press doing it's job. This is what the extra constitutional protections are for.
This governor needs to face a recall election or civil lawsuits for this idiotic threats and lies.
Also, sorry about Governor Hee Haw. We know he’s an embarrassment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing that would lead it to being successful is if people are convinced that the attempt itself isn't alarming, and don't act aggressively to do something about it.
Peacefully donating to the ACLU should be sufficient, I don't agree that violence is presently warranted. If the courts fail, then we can talk.
Also, if the owners of the web site had spent a couple of dollars on a Pen-Test they would have found this low hanging fruit long before it got into production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no extra constitutional protections. It’s all under free speech. Everyone is equal.
It was added as an amendment, therefore it is an extra constitutional protection. Some people (a broad coalition that included both Federalists and anti-Federalists) were concerned that the Constitution, as originally written, did not ensure a protection of human rights. That's why they pushed through the Bill Of Rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30 minutes removing a piece of output: $100 Knowing where sed output is generated: $49.9999M
> Knowing where sed output is generated Is the use of "sed" intentional or a typo? Either way, I love it.
> “And then to react in this way where you don’t say ‘thank you’ but actually turn on the reporter and researchers and go after them…it’s just weird.” it's not "weird", it's an elected official trying to deflect from being exposed as completely endangering the PII of state employees. while trying to bring charges here is ridiculous, it might not be the case in a few years as we watch the continued crumbling of instit…
My advice to a client would be not to disclose any vulnerability on a government system, due to the unfortunate legal liability. ...and if they did feel the need to disclose (which I admire), to do so anonymously to a 3rd party security researcher with the history and reputation for that sort of work (ie a reputation that even an old IT-clueless judge cannot deny).
Don't put yourself in the cross-hairs of some overzealous prosecutor who wants to show his boss/party/public that he's the one prosecutor that busted a bunch of evil hackers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
x1000 this. The freedom of the press is a right granted to all citizenry of the United States, not a specialized permission granted to an elite caste.
The freedom of the press isn’t about cast, but it is about context. For example based on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire it’s constitutional to prohibit “fighting words.” Which would mean some things are fine in print but you can’t say to someone’s face because they would provoke violence.