|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 08 2017 02:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 01:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 08 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
did we all just get trolled 🤔 By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place. He likes to spout some gospel of prosperity stuff, throw out a few backhanded insults along the lines of "are you that dense/ only someone stupid would/ don't be obtuse" and then disappear for a couple pages.
Please, I'm busy and can't babysit this thread all of the time encouraging the leftist hordes to make better arguments. And a good chunk of the shit that people post really isn't worthy my time to respond to. Here's a good example:
On March 08 2017 01:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place.
I'm perfectly content to ignore stuff like this, both for the sake of the health of the thread and because such posts and how people react to them provide a useful barometer to me as to who the good posters are and aren't.
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality.
I disagree. It's a shitty thing to say but it's not untrue. The majority of Americans have discretionary income or discretionary time that they could allocate differently to be more "responsible". The problem is the expectation that those whose decisions have led them to be poor are going to make good decisions. That and expecting people to live in a society which fucks them over with rampant wealth inequality while at the same time demanding that they accept that they personally are the problem.
|
On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:23 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. And yet we have a functional stock market and banking system connected to the internet. This isn't true. Security exists and can be effective. While true, none of those things remain unhacked. Many are of the "steal some coinage" variety but also espionage. Malicious destructive hacks are rare, of course, because national governments that hack each other would receive some pretty hefty retaliation. I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, good for you. You're wrong. Go ahead and add something more than one-liners if you have some "depth" to add to the discussion rather than simply talking about how no one else knows what they're talking about. Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity.
There's a huge difference between a loosely aligned group of black hat hackers like Anonymous, and a government agency. The way you'd probably approach hacking a bank is primarily through social engineering, and not exploiting some vulnerability over the network. Encrypted data is pretty much impossible to read without the necessary passcodes (barring some herpaderp vulnerability like heartbleed). But if you can bypass the encryption altogether and get access because some dumbass installed your trojan for you then it's suddenly solved. Of course, gaining that kind of access is more like traditional spy jobs than hacking.
|
On March 08 2017 03:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:15 a_flayer wrote:There were reports coming out of France of various groups hacking them. The hacks were apparently coming mainly from a hacking group based in Ukraine source. Maybe the CIA is using Ukraine as an UMBRAGE proxy? Could of course just as easily be Russia as well. Either way, I really wish the CIA would use their knowledge to help patch the leaks they find and make the digital world a safer place for EVERYONE, rather than find leaks and basically play the role of the unethical hacker. I mean, if they can find & abuse the leaks, so can everyone else. I don't think the CIA making America a safer place by leaving obvious faults in software open, rather than working to close them. This is likely why Wikileaks decided to dump this information. Now any hack can be be blamed on the CIA if discovered. Any hacking attempt that someone claims is coming from China, Russia or someplace else will always have the doubt that the CIA is attempting to frame that country.
Maybe if the CIA was less active all around the world, there would be less reason to suspect them? I mean, would it really make sense for Russia - who likely has the same capability - to use Russian IPs and countries neighbouring Russia as a source of their attacks? Or are they playing a double bluff? I feel like this is all very useless and empty speculation.
What matters is that the CIA should use their knowledge of software security to improve the security of the US. That is the only healthy way forward in the world - they must work with the maintainers of the software to patch the leaks. It is going to be hell on earth if we don't (collectively, as humans) secure our software soon. We absolutely cannot leave this stuff unattended. I don't think the importance of software security can be understated. Surely you must recognize this?
|
On March 08 2017 03:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:23 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. And yet we have a functional stock market and banking system connected to the internet. This isn't true. Security exists and can be effective. While true, none of those things remain unhacked. Many are of the "steal some coinage" variety but also espionage. Malicious destructive hacks are rare, of course, because national governments that hack each other would receive some pretty hefty retaliation. I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, good for you. You're wrong. Go ahead and add something more than one-liners if you have some "depth" to add to the discussion rather than simply talking about how no one else knows what they're talking about. Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. There's a huge difference between a loosely aligned group of black hat hackers like Anonymous, and a government agency. The way you'd probably approach hacking a bank is primarily through social engineering, and not exploiting some vulnerability over the network. Encrypted data is pretty much impossible to read without the necessary passcodes (barring some herpaderp vulnerability like heartbleed). But if you can bypass the encryption altogether and get access because some dumbass installed your trojan for you then it's suddenly solved. Of course, gaining that kind of access is more like traditional spy jobs than hacking.
Finally, somebody in this thread besides Mohdoo and myself that knows something about cybersecurity.
I actually admit that it is theoretically possible for things like our financial transaction system or national security comms to be hacked, but like Heartbleed it relies upon some absolutely major dose of incompetence somewhere down the chain. Practically speaking it's really not possible. That's why banks are willing to risk trillions of dollars in them.
Also, absolutely I think the biggest danger to those systems is social engineering, not over-the-Internet exploits. I don't disagree with that. What I'm disputing is RiK's claim earlier that "anything connected to a network can be hacked" which is hilariously wrong.
|
On March 08 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. I disagree. It's a shitty thing to say but it's not untrue. The majority of Americans have discretionary income or discretionary time that they could allocate differently to be more "responsible". The problem is the expectation that those whose decisions have led them to be poor are going to make good decisions. That and expecting people to live in a society which fucks them over with rampant wealth inequality while at the same time demanding that they accept that they personally are the problem.
Kwark, although I agree with you, sometimes access to those services and skills is a problem all on its own. My super poor, super rural home town has nothing. It is a half an hour drive to buy milk, one way. Longer if you want to go to a bank. I would have been hard pressed to find someone to manage a retirement account that wasn’t an hour away or more.
|
On March 08 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. And yet we have a functional stock market and banking system connected to the internet. This isn't true. Security exists and can be effective. And yet banks still get hacked. You're confusing two different things. An individual being hacked is very different from a hacker gaining full access to the core databases. No, I just said that any system connected to a network can be hacked. You are just adding conditions to the argument which wasn't the premise in the first place. But core bank databases are connected to a network. And they can 100% be hacked too if you are able to grab the I/O and reverse engineering the encryption algorithm and masquerading your IP address to be the ones with permission. "reverse engineering the encryption algorithm", right... Since you're clearly a master cryptographer, perhaps you can tell me when your paper that describes vulnerabilities in Twofish is going to be published. You'll be heralded as a genius and probably become a multi-millionaire over night. On March 08 2017 02:54 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:09 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. Sorry, that's really just not true. I really hope you don't work in IT for anything important. On March 08 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
We have been to soft on wikileaks and unwilling to deal with them head on. We had the ability to assert enough political pressure to deal with them a long time ago, but no one wanted to. Hopefully that will change, because they are not going away. Is this sarcasm? I would've thought you were a big WikiLeaks proponent. They are a third party organization of unknown affiliation that releases stolen information for their own personal enrichment. They are accountable to no one but their unknown backers. Even reporters citing anonymous sources can be held accountable for what they report and have served jail time for protecting a source. Wikileaks takes none of these risks while getting paid unknown amounts of money from unknown parties. I am not naïve enough to think they have my best interest in mind. Snowden is another matter. Although I supported him leaking some information, he also used that information to buy passage through Hong Kong and to Russia. And god knows what he traded to Russia to be able to stay there. Basically, speaking truth to power from safety does not impress me. The reporter who was jailed for protecting a source during the GW administration is far more impressive. For their own personal enrichment, lol. As everybody knows, Assange is currently living like royalty in that embassy he can't leave under threat of assassination. They have an NDA for their employees. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/It specifically cites that they are not allowed to release information because it would diminish it's value. Assange is just one member of wikileaks. We don't know much else. How big is their staff? Where do they operate out out of? Who pays them? This is all information I would like to know. Wikileaks talks about forcing transparency on goverments and I only want the same level of transparency for wikileaks. That seems fair. Who watches the watchmen? Exactly. As powerful as the CIA and NSA are, the US citizens have far more power over them than wikileaks. We know where they operate. They have lists of employees and answer to the Senate and house. Wikileaks answers to god knows who? Leaks of information are fine, but I have no idea how long wikileaks has been camping on this information. It looks to be targeted at influencing the upcoming election in France. That isn't a free exchange of information and transparency. It is a targeted leak with a specific political goal in mind. Wikileaks isn't releasing information about people spying on the US. But I am 100% sure France spies on us. And you think it would be better if nobody knew, rather than WikiLeaks being strategic with their information and leaking when it would be most effective? I would prefer that the goverment put Samsung on blast for making TV with a mic on it that can be hacked into, but that didn't happen. But it isn't a zero sum game for me. I think the information is important, but I do not like how it is being weaponized against elections.
Really? Consumers wanted to Skype from their TV. Samsung installs a mic and says "now you can Skype from your tv, have fun". That's all that happened here.
If you think consumer electronics have high standards with regards to security, you've got another thing coming. You want high standards for security on consumer electronics you had better lobby your congressmen really hard, because the end user wants things cheap and consumer protection comes pretty much at the bottom of shit they care about when they buy a new device.
|
On March 08 2017 03:28 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:19 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:15 a_flayer wrote:There were reports coming out of France of various groups hacking them. The hacks were apparently coming mainly from a hacking group based in Ukraine source. Maybe the CIA is using Ukraine as an UMBRAGE proxy? Could of course just as easily be Russia as well. Either way, I really wish the CIA would use their knowledge to help patch the leaks they find and make the digital world a safer place for EVERYONE, rather than find leaks and basically play the role of the unethical hacker. I mean, if they can find & abuse the leaks, so can everyone else. I don't think the CIA making America a safer place by leaving obvious faults in software open, rather than working to close them. This is likely why Wikileaks decided to dump this information. Now any hack can be be blamed on the CIA if discovered. Any hacking attempt that someone claims is coming from China, Russia or someplace else will always have the doubt that the CIA is attempting to frame that country. Maybe if the CIA was less active all around the world, there would be less reason to suspect them? I mean, would it really make sense for Russia - who likely has the same capability - to use Russian IPs and countries neighbouring Russia as a source of their attacks? Or are they playing a double bluff? I feel like this is all very useless and empty speculation. What matters is that the CIA should use their knowledge of software security to improve the security of the US. That is the only healthy way forward in the world - they must work with the maintainers of the software to patch the leaks. It is going to be hell on earth if we don't (collectively, as humans) secure our software soon. We absolutely cannot leave this stuff unattended. I don't think the importance of software security can be understated. Surely you must recognize this?
As soon as all the world’s spy agencies release information on exactly how much they are spying and who they are spying on, I will agree CIA should be less active all over the world and they should reduce their efforts to spy other nations.
Until then, I’m going to assume people just didn’t get caught yet.
On March 08 2017 03:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. And yet we have a functional stock market and banking system connected to the internet. This isn't true. Security exists and can be effective. And yet banks still get hacked. You're confusing two different things. An individual being hacked is very different from a hacker gaining full access to the core databases. No, I just said that any system connected to a network can be hacked. You are just adding conditions to the argument which wasn't the premise in the first place. But core bank databases are connected to a network. And they can 100% be hacked too if you are able to grab the I/O and reverse engineering the encryption algorithm and masquerading your IP address to be the ones with permission. "reverse engineering the encryption algorithm", right... Since you're clearly a master cryptographer, perhaps you can tell me when your paper that describes vulnerabilities in Twofish is going to be published. You'll be heralded as a genius and probably become a multi-millionaire over night. On March 08 2017 02:54 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:09 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. Sorry, that's really just not true. I really hope you don't work in IT for anything important. On March 08 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
We have been to soft on wikileaks and unwilling to deal with them head on. We had the ability to assert enough political pressure to deal with them a long time ago, but no one wanted to. Hopefully that will change, because they are not going away. Is this sarcasm? I would've thought you were a big WikiLeaks proponent. They are a third party organization of unknown affiliation that releases stolen information for their own personal enrichment. They are accountable to no one but their unknown backers. Even reporters citing anonymous sources can be held accountable for what they report and have served jail time for protecting a source. Wikileaks takes none of these risks while getting paid unknown amounts of money from unknown parties. I am not naïve enough to think they have my best interest in mind. Snowden is another matter. Although I supported him leaking some information, he also used that information to buy passage through Hong Kong and to Russia. And god knows what he traded to Russia to be able to stay there. Basically, speaking truth to power from safety does not impress me. The reporter who was jailed for protecting a source during the GW administration is far more impressive. For their own personal enrichment, lol. As everybody knows, Assange is currently living like royalty in that embassy he can't leave under threat of assassination. They have an NDA for their employees. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/It specifically cites that they are not allowed to release information because it would diminish it's value. Assange is just one member of wikileaks. We don't know much else. How big is their staff? Where do they operate out out of? Who pays them? This is all information I would like to know. Wikileaks talks about forcing transparency on goverments and I only want the same level of transparency for wikileaks. That seems fair. Who watches the watchmen? Exactly. As powerful as the CIA and NSA are, the US citizens have far more power over them than wikileaks. We know where they operate. They have lists of employees and answer to the Senate and house. Wikileaks answers to god knows who? Leaks of information are fine, but I have no idea how long wikileaks has been camping on this information. It looks to be targeted at influencing the upcoming election in France. That isn't a free exchange of information and transparency. It is a targeted leak with a specific political goal in mind. Wikileaks isn't releasing information about people spying on the US. But I am 100% sure France spies on us. And you think it would be better if nobody knew, rather than WikiLeaks being strategic with their information and leaking when it would be most effective? I would prefer that the goverment put Samsung on blast for making TV with a mic on it that can be hacked into, but that didn't happen. But it isn't a zero sum game for me. I think the information is important, but I do not like how it is being weaponized against elections. Really? Consumers wanted to Skype from their TV. Samsung installs a mic and says "now you can Skype from your tv, have fun". That's all that happened here. If you think consumer electronics have high standards with regards to security, you've got another thing coming. You want high standards for security on consumer electronics you had better lobby your congressmen really hard, because the end user wants things cheap and consumer protection comes pretty much at the bottom of shit they care about when they buy a new device.
I think smart appliances should be regulated and required to have more options to deactivate them. I would prefer they be on separate power all together.
If people only want things cheap, then the risk of these products have not been explained to them properly and the goverment should be involved with that too. The light hand with the tech industry is not helping anyone but the tech industry.
|
On March 08 2017 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 02:05 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 08 2017 01:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 08 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
did we all just get trolled 🤔 By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place. He likes to spout some gospel of prosperity stuff, throw out a few backhanded insults along the lines of "are you that dense/ only someone stupid would/ don't be obtuse" and then disappear for a couple pages. Please, I'm busy and can't babysit this thread all of the time encouraging the leftist hordes to make better arguments. And a good chunk of the shit that people post really isn't worthy my time to respond to. Here's a good example: Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 01:04 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 08 2017 00:56 brian wrote:
did we all just get trolled 🤔 By xDaunt? Possibly, I feel like the guy has never been poor or has known a poor person. I've been poor, and it fucking sucks not knowing where to sleep or eat. You can't have consumerism if you can't eat, or rent a place. I'm perfectly content to ignore stuff like this, both for the sake of the health of the thread and because such posts and how people react to them provide a useful barometer to me as to who the good posters are and aren't.
tbh direct attacks from others aside i'm still unsure if you just trolled us or believe we're criticizing chaffetz because we're taking his comments literally.
i mean i know i for one was not. and while i too don't want to get into a discussion on chaffetz, i just don't find him at all interesting, i am intrigued by whether it was trolly or sincere. it is artful, either way. more artful if it was trolling for sure.
i guess there's no way for me to actually get an answer and not bait out the same debate again though, so maybe the mystery is for the best.
|
On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:23 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
While true, none of those things remain unhacked. Many are of the "steal some coinage" variety but also espionage. Malicious destructive hacks are rare, of course, because national governments that hack each other would receive some pretty hefty retaliation. I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, good for you. You're wrong. Go ahead and add something more than one-liners if you have some "depth" to add to the discussion rather than simply talking about how no one else knows what they're talking about. Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example.
Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard.
Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for.
|
For some light entertainment, meet Shamrockgate:
http://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/0307/857872-make/
Just in time for St Patrick's Day next week, the Trump team have decided to cash in on our national holiday by selling some green hats(Grand) emblazoned with 'Make America Great Again' (Erm...) and that universal symbol of Ireland - a four leafed clover (Facepalm).
Yes instead of a traditional shamrock, they have tacked on a clover to the back of the baseball cap (yours for just $50!!). We're all familiar with the concept of having one too many on Patrick's Day but this is ridiculous.
![[image loading]](http://img.rasset.ie/000db694-800.jpg)
And a cunning entrepeneur jumping in to make a quick buck:
http://twitter.com/HairyBabyTees/status/839116319790411776/photo/1
E: apparently I can't post tweets. You'll just have to click the link.
|
On March 08 2017 03:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. And yet we have a functional stock market and banking system connected to the internet. This isn't true. Security exists and can be effective. And yet banks still get hacked. You're confusing two different things. An individual being hacked is very different from a hacker gaining full access to the core databases. No, I just said that any system connected to a network can be hacked. You are just adding conditions to the argument which wasn't the premise in the first place. But core bank databases are connected to a network. And they can 100% be hacked too if you are able to grab the I/O and reverse engineering the encryption algorithm and masquerading your IP address to be the ones with permission. "reverse engineering the encryption algorithm", right... Since you're clearly a master cryptographer, perhaps you can tell me when your paper that describes vulnerabilities in Twofish is going to be published. You'll be heralded as a genius and probably become a multi-millionaire over night. On March 08 2017 02:54 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:09 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:04 RealityIsKing wrote:
Anyone works in IT already know once you are connected to a network, anything is hackable. Sorry, that's really just not true. I really hope you don't work in IT for anything important. On March 08 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
We have been to soft on wikileaks and unwilling to deal with them head on. We had the ability to assert enough political pressure to deal with them a long time ago, but no one wanted to. Hopefully that will change, because they are not going away. Is this sarcasm? I would've thought you were a big WikiLeaks proponent. They are a third party organization of unknown affiliation that releases stolen information for their own personal enrichment. They are accountable to no one but their unknown backers. Even reporters citing anonymous sources can be held accountable for what they report and have served jail time for protecting a source. Wikileaks takes none of these risks while getting paid unknown amounts of money from unknown parties. I am not naïve enough to think they have my best interest in mind. Snowden is another matter. Although I supported him leaking some information, he also used that information to buy passage through Hong Kong and to Russia. And god knows what he traded to Russia to be able to stay there. Basically, speaking truth to power from safety does not impress me. The reporter who was jailed for protecting a source during the GW administration is far more impressive. For their own personal enrichment, lol. As everybody knows, Assange is currently living like royalty in that embassy he can't leave under threat of assassination. They have an NDA for their employees. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/It specifically cites that they are not allowed to release information because it would diminish it's value. Assange is just one member of wikileaks. We don't know much else. How big is their staff? Where do they operate out out of? Who pays them? This is all information I would like to know. Wikileaks talks about forcing transparency on goverments and I only want the same level of transparency for wikileaks. That seems fair. Who watches the watchmen? Exactly. As powerful as the CIA and NSA are, the US citizens have far more power over them than wikileaks. We know where they operate. They have lists of employees and answer to the Senate and house. Wikileaks answers to god knows who? Leaks of information are fine, but I have no idea how long wikileaks has been camping on this information. It looks to be targeted at influencing the upcoming election in France. That isn't a free exchange of information and transparency. It is a targeted leak with a specific political goal in mind. Wikileaks isn't releasing information about people spying on the US. But I am 100% sure France spies on us. And you think it would be better if nobody knew, rather than WikiLeaks being strategic with their information and leaking when it would be most effective? I would prefer that the goverment put Samsung on blast for making TV with a mic on it that can be hacked into, but that didn't happen. But it isn't a zero sum game for me. I think the information is important, but I do not like how it is being weaponized against elections. Really? Consumers wanted to Skype from their TV. Samsung installs a mic and says "now you can Skype from your tv, have fun". That's all that happened here. If you think consumer electronics have high standards with regards to security, you've got another thing coming. You want high standards for security on consumer electronics you had better lobby your congressmen really hard, because the end user wants things cheap and consumer protection comes pretty much at the bottom of shit they care about when they buy a new device.
The 'internet of things' will be really fun. Thousands of different devices with too low sales number to spend any time thinking about security and that will never get an update.
|
On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:23 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, good for you. You're wrong. Go ahead and add something more than one-liners if you have some "depth" to add to the discussion rather than simply talking about how no one else knows what they're talking about. Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard.
What goal shifting or idiocy? My first post about cybersecurity in this thread has been a response to "once you are connected to a network [i.e. the Internet], anything is hackable."
I asked you to prove this. You've been dodging a bit and eventually said: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd."
What about that is patently absurd? You've yet to back that up either.
Do you want me to prove that there are some Internet-connected systems that are absolutely unhackable? Sure, here's one that's been verified in theory to be impenetrable to any possible exploit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_assurance:_seL4
Want an even better example? I can set up a pair of computers right now that do absolutely nothing but send a single byte of data at arbitrary time intervals over a random Internet port.
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 08 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. I disagree. It's a shitty thing to say but it's not untrue. The majority of Americans have discretionary income or discretionary time that they could allocate differently to be more "responsible". The problem is the expectation that those whose decisions have led them to be poor are going to make good decisions. That and expecting people to live in a society which fucks them over with rampant wealth inequality while at the same time demanding that they accept that they personally are the problem. Kwark, although I agree with you, sometimes access to those services and skills is a problem all on its own. My super poor, super rural home town has nothing. It is a half an hour drive to buy milk, one way. Longer if you want to go to a bank. I would have been hard pressed to find someone to manage a retirement account that wasn’t an hour away or more.
I spent a few years playing Eve Online, a MMO RPG sandbox with a remarkably functioning market economy (goods are created, moved, priced etc entirely by players) and became obscenely in game rich (to the tune of about $50k USD value) until I sold it all and got banned for RMT. The vast majority of players never thought to explore what the game economy actually meant, even when they spent most of their game time grinding for cash (in game currency could be traded for free game time, it meant that for many people they spent their time in the game working for rent). The game spoonfeeds some basic tasks that generate value, such as mining, as a part of the tutorial but the real value lies in the metagame, such as controlling market information across multiple regions. But most players would rather spend 20 hours a month grinding out their rent in the most boring way than spend 10 hours researching the game and earn a decade of rent in the 11th.
Even if you create a society in which everyone starts with equal knowledge and access to wealth you will very rapidly get huge wealth inequality because many people have no real understanding of where money comes from or how wealth is generated and no desire to learn. Sure, barriers exist, but even if they were removed most people wouldn't be much better off. Most people want to be told when and where to show up, what to do and how much they'll get paid for it because how they sell their labour isn't an important part of their life to them. Even when it's killing them.
|
On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:23 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Well, good for you. You're wrong. Go ahead and add something more than one-liners if you have some "depth" to add to the discussion rather than simply talking about how no one else knows what they're talking about. Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard. Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for.
It is pretty simple to follow. He is arguing that the point of weakness for any system is not being connected to the internet, but the human element. That a system can be reasonably secured from hacks if humans do not compromise it. Or that the hacks would take so long to get through the system that they are not a risk.
|
On March 08 2017 03:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. I disagree. It's a shitty thing to say but it's not untrue. The majority of Americans have discretionary income or discretionary time that they could allocate differently to be more "responsible". The problem is the expectation that those whose decisions have led them to be poor are going to make good decisions. That and expecting people to live in a society which fucks them over with rampant wealth inequality while at the same time demanding that they accept that they personally are the problem. Kwark, although I agree with you, sometimes access to those services and skills is a problem all on its own. My super poor, super rural home town has nothing. It is a half an hour drive to buy milk, one way. Longer if you want to go to a bank. I would have been hard pressed to find someone to manage a retirement account that wasn’t an hour away or more. I spent a few years playing Eve Online, a MMO RPG sandbox with a remarkably functioning market economy (goods are created, moved, priced etc entirely by players) and became obscenely in game rich (to the tune of about $50k USD value) until I sold it all and got banned for RMT. The vast majority of players never thought to explore what the game economy actually meant, even when they spent most of their game time grinding for cash (in game currency could be traded for free game time, it meant that for many people they spent their time in the game working for rent). The game spoonfeeds some basic tasks that generate value, such as mining, as a part of the tutorial but the real value lies in the metagame, such as controlling market information across multiple regions. But most players would rather spend 20 hours a month grinding out their rent in the most boring way than spend 10 hours researching the game and earn a decade of rent in the 11th. Even if you create a society in which everyone starts with equal knowledge and access to wealth you will very rapidly get huge wealth inequality because many people have no real understanding of where money comes from or how wealth is generated and no desire to learn. Sure, barriers exist, but even if they were removed most people wouldn't be much better off. Most people want to be told when and where to show up, what to do and how much they'll get paid for it because how they sell their labour isn't an important part of their life to them. Even when it's killing them.
I agree with you. Now come up with a system to provide that knowledge to everyone is my poor ass home town and create the time for them to learn that information.
|
On March 08 2017 03:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:31 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
And yet we have a functional stock market and banking system connected to the internet. This isn't true. Security exists and can be effective. And yet banks still get hacked. You're confusing two different things. An individual being hacked is very different from a hacker gaining full access to the core databases. No, I just said that any system connected to a network can be hacked. You are just adding conditions to the argument which wasn't the premise in the first place. But core bank databases are connected to a network. And they can 100% be hacked too if you are able to grab the I/O and reverse engineering the encryption algorithm and masquerading your IP address to be the ones with permission. "reverse engineering the encryption algorithm", right... Since you're clearly a master cryptographer, perhaps you can tell me when your paper that describes vulnerabilities in Twofish is going to be published. You'll be heralded as a genius and probably become a multi-millionaire over night. On March 08 2017 02:54 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:09 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, that's really just not true. I really hope you don't work in IT for anything important.
[quote]
Is this sarcasm? I would've thought you were a big WikiLeaks proponent. They are a third party organization of unknown affiliation that releases stolen information for their own personal enrichment. They are accountable to no one but their unknown backers. Even reporters citing anonymous sources can be held accountable for what they report and have served jail time for protecting a source. Wikileaks takes none of these risks while getting paid unknown amounts of money from unknown parties. I am not naïve enough to think they have my best interest in mind. Snowden is another matter. Although I supported him leaking some information, he also used that information to buy passage through Hong Kong and to Russia. And god knows what he traded to Russia to be able to stay there. Basically, speaking truth to power from safety does not impress me. The reporter who was jailed for protecting a source during the GW administration is far more impressive. For their own personal enrichment, lol. As everybody knows, Assange is currently living like royalty in that embassy he can't leave under threat of assassination. They have an NDA for their employees. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/It specifically cites that they are not allowed to release information because it would diminish it's value. Assange is just one member of wikileaks. We don't know much else. How big is their staff? Where do they operate out out of? Who pays them? This is all information I would like to know. Wikileaks talks about forcing transparency on goverments and I only want the same level of transparency for wikileaks. That seems fair. Who watches the watchmen? Exactly. As powerful as the CIA and NSA are, the US citizens have far more power over them than wikileaks. We know where they operate. They have lists of employees and answer to the Senate and house. Wikileaks answers to god knows who? Leaks of information are fine, but I have no idea how long wikileaks has been camping on this information. It looks to be targeted at influencing the upcoming election in France. That isn't a free exchange of information and transparency. It is a targeted leak with a specific political goal in mind. Wikileaks isn't releasing information about people spying on the US. But I am 100% sure France spies on us. And you think it would be better if nobody knew, rather than WikiLeaks being strategic with their information and leaking when it would be most effective? I would prefer that the goverment put Samsung on blast for making TV with a mic on it that can be hacked into, but that didn't happen. But it isn't a zero sum game for me. I think the information is important, but I do not like how it is being weaponized against elections. Really? Consumers wanted to Skype from their TV. Samsung installs a mic and says "now you can Skype from your tv, have fun". That's all that happened here. If you think consumer electronics have high standards with regards to security, you've got another thing coming. You want high standards for security on consumer electronics you had better lobby your congressmen really hard, because the end user wants things cheap and consumer protection comes pretty much at the bottom of shit they care about when they buy a new device. The 'internet of things' will be really fun. Thousands of different devices with too low sales number to spend any time thinking about security and that will never get an update.
I believe the main defense of the internet of things is supposed to be that they only possess very short range communication in a (hyper)local network. The actual "internet" bit is done through a router (Alexa, Google Home, or something like that) which can be secured better. Whether it actually is is another story, but that's supposed to be the main theory for how IoT won't just outright broadcast everything about you.
But yes, information security and IoT is a massive problem.
|
On March 08 2017 03:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:45 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Well, good for you. You're wrong.
Go ahead and add something more than one-liners if you have some "depth" to add to the discussion rather than simply talking about how no one else knows what they're talking about. Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard. Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for. It is pretty simple to follow. He is arguing that the point of weakness for any system is not being connected to the internet, but the human element.
Well sure, the statement that you made right there is basically true - but I'm not the one who made the point that access to a network is the major point of vulnerability (my first comment was simply that financial systems have been breached in the past, to which he replied "but muh services so gud u have 2 be bad 2 get haxed"). Beyond that he's countering some point that I'm not sure anyone made.
Maybe if we're defining in terms of very specific use of the term "unhackable" to mean someone who uses software exploits to break into a system, but that's just semantic bullshit in that case. These days "hacker" can mean anything from someone who abuses software exploits to some kid who writes web code and assumes himself to be hot shit for doing so. LightSpectra strikes me as more of the latter.
|
On March 08 2017 03:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 08 2017 03:31 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 03:06 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:56 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:43 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 08 2017 02:39 Mohdoo wrote:On March 08 2017 02:29 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
And yet banks still get hacked. You're confusing two different things. An individual being hacked is very different from a hacker gaining full access to the core databases. No, I just said that any system connected to a network can be hacked. You are just adding conditions to the argument which wasn't the premise in the first place. But core bank databases are connected to a network. And they can 100% be hacked too if you are able to grab the I/O and reverse engineering the encryption algorithm and masquerading your IP address to be the ones with permission. "reverse engineering the encryption algorithm", right... Since you're clearly a master cryptographer, perhaps you can tell me when your paper that describes vulnerabilities in Twofish is going to be published. You'll be heralded as a genius and probably become a multi-millionaire over night. On March 08 2017 02:54 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 08 2017 02:42 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
They are a third party organization of unknown affiliation that releases stolen information for their own personal enrichment. They are accountable to no one but their unknown backers. Even reporters citing anonymous sources can be held accountable for what they report and have served jail time for protecting a source. Wikileaks takes none of these risks while getting paid unknown amounts of money from unknown parties. I am not naïve enough to think they have my best interest in mind.
Snowden is another matter. Although I supported him leaking some information, he also used that information to buy passage through Hong Kong and to Russia. And god knows what he traded to Russia to be able to stay there.
Basically, speaking truth to power from safety does not impress me. The reporter who was jailed for protecting a source during the GW administration is far more impressive. For their own personal enrichment, lol. As everybody knows, Assange is currently living like royalty in that embassy he can't leave under threat of assassination. They have an NDA for their employees. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/It specifically cites that they are not allowed to release information because it would diminish it's value. Assange is just one member of wikileaks. We don't know much else. How big is their staff? Where do they operate out out of? Who pays them? This is all information I would like to know. Wikileaks talks about forcing transparency on goverments and I only want the same level of transparency for wikileaks. That seems fair. Who watches the watchmen? Exactly. As powerful as the CIA and NSA are, the US citizens have far more power over them than wikileaks. We know where they operate. They have lists of employees and answer to the Senate and house. Wikileaks answers to god knows who? Leaks of information are fine, but I have no idea how long wikileaks has been camping on this information. It looks to be targeted at influencing the upcoming election in France. That isn't a free exchange of information and transparency. It is a targeted leak with a specific political goal in mind. Wikileaks isn't releasing information about people spying on the US. But I am 100% sure France spies on us. And you think it would be better if nobody knew, rather than WikiLeaks being strategic with their information and leaking when it would be most effective? I would prefer that the goverment put Samsung on blast for making TV with a mic on it that can be hacked into, but that didn't happen. But it isn't a zero sum game for me. I think the information is important, but I do not like how it is being weaponized against elections. Really? Consumers wanted to Skype from their TV. Samsung installs a mic and says "now you can Skype from your tv, have fun". That's all that happened here. If you think consumer electronics have high standards with regards to security, you've got another thing coming. You want high standards for security on consumer electronics you had better lobby your congressmen really hard, because the end user wants things cheap and consumer protection comes pretty much at the bottom of shit they care about when they buy a new device. The 'internet of things' will be really fun. Thousands of different devices with too low sales number to spend any time thinking about security and that will never get an update. I believe the main defense of the internet of things is supposed to be that they only possess very short range communication in a (hyper)local network. The actual "internet" bit is done through a router (Alexa, Google Home, or something like that) which can be secured better. Whether it actually is is another story, but that's supposed to be the main theory for how IoT won't just outright broadcast everything about you. But yes, information security and IoT is a massive problem.
lol. If I was a mean person I would share this post with some friends to laugh at.
|
On March 08 2017 03:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2017 03:44 Plansix wrote:On March 08 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:19 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:12 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:On March 08 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On March 08 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Very well. Your claim seems to be that national government hacks (and I suppose also financial systems) are very possible, it's just that most governments don't bother because it would be too destructive. What is your evidence for that claim? I suppose the most direct evidence that you can hack financial systems and "national governments" (well I meant in the sense that "nation-states hack each other" because "national government" isn't any one cyber entity) is that such hacks actually exist. The Russians hacked US financial systems before, for the purpose of studying the way the financial market functions. Hacking banks is a rather well-known reality, as perhaps the point RisK made would indicate. Various agencies in the government, e.g. the OPM (China hack) have been recorded as well. Regarding why hacking for malicious, destructive purposes like destroying systems is rare(r)... well I would think that would be somewhat obvious from a common sense evaluation of it, but we could simply look at the political treatment of malicious hacking. NATO, for example, considers cyber warfare to be the same as regular warfare for the purposes of Article 5. And it goes without saying that "we can hack you too" is always a reality for any hacking done. Yeah, but all of those major hacks like OPM and Yahoo were found to be due to absurdly negligent security practices on behalf of the ones getting hacked. That actually strongly suggests that the financial transaction system and our national security comms are not really hackable. If they were, those people that went after Target and Home Depot would be salivating over the opportunity. Sure, negligent security practices play an important role in getting hacked - and of course in increasing the scope of what actually got hacked. Doesn't mean that any more secure targets can't be hacked. It's certainly not a "Wild West" of "anything out there can be hacked whenever you want" but it's very far from "nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices." I'm trying to get you to prove "it's very far from 'nothing can be hacked if it has good security practices'". I'm quite knowledgeable on cybersecurity, so I'm going to tell you right now that unless you really, REALLY know what you're talking about, you'd best just walk away from this debate. Your knowledge has been proven in the form of one-liners that tell everyone that you know what you're talking about, and that's it. I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd. You have proved it by giving one-liners implying that you disagree with all people and only you know what you are talking about. Want to prove it? Go for it. Why do you think this: "I mean, you're trying to prove that "systems that are secured by people with good security practices cannot be hacked" which is patently absurd." You're asking me to refute your proof-less allegations for you. I will admit right now that a lot of the things that I'm deeming to be practically unhackable are not theoretically unhackable. But in the near future we will have lots of technologies widely available that is both practically and theoretically unhackable. For instance, the blockchain tech developed by IBM (first used for Bitcoin) that will replace our conventional financial transaction system will be one such example. Yeah, you're making an argument that involves a whole lot of goalpost-shifting and general idiocy. I see no reason to give you any more attention in that regard. Even now I have no goddamn clue what you're trying to argue for. It is pretty simple to follow. He is arguing that the point of weakness for any system is not being connected to the internet, but the human element. Well sure, the statement that you made right there is basically true - but I'm not the one who made the point that access to a network is the major point of vulnerability (my first comment was simply that financial systems have been breached in the past, to which he replied "but muh services so gud u have 2 be bad 2 get haxed"). Beyond that he's countering some point that I'm not sure anyone made.
So you have to put infantile babble in my mouth, eh?
I've already told you precisely what I'm responding to, I'm not sure how much simpler I have to be. Maybe I should re-phrase in infantile babble.
You've yet to name any financial systems that have been breached.
Maybe if we're defining in terms of very specific use of the term "unhackable" to mean someone who uses software exploits to break into a system, but that's just semantic bullshit in that case. These days "hacker" can mean anything from someone who abuses software exploits to some kid who writes web code and assumes himself to be hot shit for doing so.
I've already admitted multiple times that the easiest way to breach a system is through social engineering. However, not all systems have human beings that attend to them, so that's not always possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
