That doesn't help when the company behind the device disappears or stops supporting the device. Or is hacked to convert all the devices they manufactured into a botnet.
Running a ransomware gang is immoral. Catching someone running a ransomware gang is good. If publishing their name helps catch them, it's also good. Not sure where do you see the gap between legality and morality in this case
People often forget that Threat Actors (TA) are the ones keeping the infosec alive. They are doing a good job of scaring people into implementing actual security protocols and thereby improving everyone's security posture. The whole infosec would collapse without TAs, let's not forget that. They create jobs.
It's not a "made-up term", it's shorthand for a well-known argument. Not allowing re-usable arguments is like not allowing the use of libraries in software: It wastes time better spent on moving the frontier forward.
Well, to be honest, those old enough remember when cryptography was considered someting for the military and special services, and considering using encryption would put you under immediate suspicion. Now we can at least argue we need it to protect us from the cyber crime, even if we really have privacy and free speech in mind
German govt is also one of the most corrupt and vastly incompetent govt. It's run by bunch of boomers. Most of the prolific ransomware gangs have terrible opsec. De-anon'ing them is child's play. Most of the opsec-aware TAs never even get attributed, let alone get caught for any breaches.
It's on like place 10 out of 180, which makes it one of the least corrupt places.
It also has some surprisingly non-boomer departments, like the Sovereign Tech Fund. Either way you need to celebrate police doing good things and immoral actors being exposed, it can only have good outcomes.
Perhaps it deters them, or deters the next generation of such hackers. Or at least it makes their life less enjoyable, which is fair since they were only able to afford their travels due to their illicitly acquired wealth.
What's wrong with verifiable credentials? It's an important thing to have it seems? Your passport or a bank card are verifiable credentials, or at least are designed to be.
What do you mean "shifting to smartphone"? It's not a natural process - it's a technical decision to shift them to the smartphone, and a really bad one. We already have smart cards, they work and do not depend on any corporations, even less foreign corporations.
We even have smartcards with e-ink displays and I'd personally want them to succeed here instead of moving security-critical apps to smartphones..
Because Google then abuses its position to inject unremovable spyware with elevated privileges into the phone which the user then can't defent against without making the phone "unsecure" and thus unsuitable for these apps.
If these apps really need a smartphone, I'd at least want it to be free of ad-related garbage in the system. I'm fine with not being able to flash a custom ROM on the smartcard as it doesn't contain hostile software.
Now if even Apple starts showing ads, there's no other choice but to restist this..
None yet, will try to remember not to clear cookies :) Sometimes games that don't maintain user accounts let you save progress in a file and restore it later, so that it survives loss of browser state, see e.g. https://microcorruption.com/
Thank you for the game by the way! It's nice to recall my asic classes, and looking forward to GPU specific chapters.
reply