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

O.mg Cable

shop.hak5.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 555 posts

Re: O.mg Cable

#491

Post by lisper »

kag0 wrote: post #212
lisper wrote: post #62

I'm not sure what is scarier, the existence of this cable, or the amount of Javascript that this site tries to run when you visit it. According to my NoScript plugin, it's loading Javascript from at least 17 different domains.

Totally unrelated to this cable, but since you mention it... I've been trying to build web/single page applications using new ES modules and no build tool, so all dependencies are pulled from their creator/CDN rather than bundled locally. Would this set off flags for a no-script user?

The more domains you load JS from, the more entities have control over what happens on that page, and the higher the risk that one of those entities is trying to do something nefarious. So yes, loading all the scripts from one place will set off fewer alarm bells, at least for me.

Re: O.mg Cable

#492

Post by cosmojg »

jackson1442 wrote: post #485
Fnoord wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Calling it 'ridiculous' removes the debate concerning the pros and cons on such rule. If you consider someone can become vulnerable if they're addicted (to anything, really) then it makes sense to be wary of a drugs addiction. Especially if the resource the person is addicted to is illegal. That being said, I'd find it reasonable if…

Well it's a comparison. Not once on the security clearance paperwork is alcohol mentioned, while if you have smoked/eaten/etc. marijuana at ALL in the past 7 years, it's practically an instant deny unless it was under some exigent circumstance. You can even be denied if you don't partake but are close contacts with other marijuana users. Obviously if someone is _addicted_ to either, that is a security risk. But the e…

Can't you just lie?

Re: O.mg Cable

#493

Post by cosmojg »

teawrecks wrote: post #487
Fnoord wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Calling it 'ridiculous' removes the debate concerning the pros and cons on such rule. If you consider someone can become vulnerable if they're addicted (to anything, really) then it makes sense to be wary of a drugs addiction. Especially if the resource the person is addicted to is illegal. That being said, I'd find it reasonable if…

So you don't think any alcoholics work for the NSA?

Not to mention, alcohol is a far more physiologically addictive substance.

Re: O.mg Cable

#494

Post by balls187 »

nirse wrote: post #444
balls187 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things may have changed, but in my prior life when I had a clearance, for example, dating (or marrying for that matter) a foreign national would result in heavy vetting, including possibly losing your clearance and/or being terminated.

I hope it would have just been your contract that would have been terminated? ;-)

These days I don't believe spying results in death, just a long vacation at club fed.

Re: O.mg Cable

#495

Post by Tostino »

vagrantJin wrote: post #279
after_care wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems legit, kids can run away or be kidnapped. It’s important to know where your kids are.

> Seems legit, kids can run away or be kidnapped. It’s important to know where your kids are. Ah yes. This statement is more terrifying than Apples half-assed PR fireball a few days ago. The same folks who bought iphones because its has better "privacy" than Android... ...are using iphones to track their kids whereabouts. It's like a dystopian punchline masked in the Friends laugh track.

Tracking a kid at an amusement park, presumably a quite young one, is entirely fine IMO. I remember when I was 4 or so, I waited until my parents weren't looking to sneak off and go play with a toy in the gift shop my parents didn't let me see earlier in the day. I just about gave them a heart attack.

Re: O.mg Cable

#496

Post by skoskie »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #373
6177c40f wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And let's not forget that many of them are probably browsing HN at this very moment. They could be you, they could be me!

> They could be you, they could be me! Couldn't be me: the private sector pays me waaaaaaaay more. Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Everyone I personally know in infosec leads a very... alternative west-coast lifestyle which is not conducive to career progression in an east-coast, button-down-shirt environment.

Here’s a different picture. Put in your 20y at NSA right out of school. Get retirement benefits, and then move to the private sector, where they pay a premium for NSA experience. Or, do contract work for NSA since you already have clearance and contacts. They will pay you about 4x more as a contractor.

Re: O.mg Cable

#497

Post by skoskie »

cosmojg wrote: post #492
jackson1442 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's a comparison. Not once on the security clearance paperwork is alcohol mentioned, while if you have smoked/eaten/etc. marijuana at ALL in the past 7 years, it's practically an instant deny unless it was under some exigent circumstance. You can even be denied if you don't partake but are close contacts with other marijuana users. Obviously if someone is _addicted_ to either, that is a security risk. But the e…

Can't you just lie?

That is not wise. You do have to take a lie detector test, and they are actually good at reading the results.

Re: O.mg Cable

#499

Post by skoskie »

garmaine wrote: post #422
frickinLasers wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't do drugs (including marijuana), don't get blackout drunk, don't talk about your work, don't need psychiatric help... For the last sentence...Trump had all sorts of clearance when he clearly should not have. But he was in an important position.

> don't need psychiatric help Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?

No it does not.

Re: O.mg Cable

#500

Post by skoskie »

andrepd wrote: post #447
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy. Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them. That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental…

>A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed. You can frame this another way: it prevents meaningful change even if the electorate demands it. Sorry, I watched too much Yes Minister to think this is a good thing x)

Has a certain “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” vibe. There are pros and cons to both.
Post reply on HN