Comment Re:lol, eat shit fascists (Score 1) 659
huh? when did i say anything about rape? your mom's cunt is open to all, free of charge, ya weirdo
Comment Re:lol, eat shit fascists (Score -1, Troll) 659
None. They'll all be shacking up in your mum's cunt
Comment lol, eat shit fascists (Score 3, Insightful) 659
you know who you are 3
Comment Re:Why? (Score 3, Interesting) 81
no where in the summary did it say or imply that the goal was specifically for a military benefit. ...just, wtf are you babbling about, and how is it that you can't understand the importance of a state to demonstrate it's technical progress?
Comment Re:So uhh (Score 1) 99
As we've seen several shops were affected so it looks like the hackers got access via the Danfoss site.
There isn't any reason to believe that they got access via the Danfoss site. Again, the endpoints were accessible to the public internet. If they're accessible to the entirety of the public internet, that means the hackers had zero need to go through Danfoss's infrastructure.
Comment Re:So uhh (Score 1) 99
Pretty easy to understand why they are internet connected. We're talking here about a lot of freezers in many shops, all supplied and controlled by Danfoss. Remotely controlling this without internet access is hardly possible.
Thank you for offering your security expertise, which absolutely explains why these endpoints needed to be accessible to the public internet. Like you said, it's "hardly possible" to just restrict connectivity from Danfoss's network only.
Comment Re:Beyond stupid (Score 1) 99
Last summer my local Tesco had the fridges break down because they were overloaded. If the managers could see that the staff continually leave the doors open then this problem would happen much less often.
what exactly are the store managers and their subordinates doing all day that they're not noticing staff leaving the fridge doors open continually?
Comment Re:This could be a good thing (Score 1) 47
OP didn't say anything about state-backdoors. wtf are you talking about
Comment Re:security is "loser thinking" (Score 1) 164
It's also so far out of context that we can't know what he was responding to. We're also only getting one side of an argument. Someone was sad because their boss yelled at them, and they ran to crap website to complain. Why? We don't know and shouldn't assume anything based on what little there is.
The context is provided in the very first paragraph of the article. wtf are you talking about
Comment Re:"Poor me, I'm under-funded" (Score 1) 39
sorry bro, anyone with a functioning brain stem stopped reading the second you started whining about DEI
Comment Re:Maybe I'm stupid, but isn't this a lot of spin? (Score 1) 222
How exactly do you figure that "they didn't have a problem reporting the request from the white house" contradicts the statement that "the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices."?
Seriously, read those two sentences a few times over and then explain wtf you're talking about
Comment Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score 1) 222
lol, and your comment is agenda-free, isn't that right comrade?
Comment Doing the minimum the law requires. (Score 1) 87
"They'll do the minimum the law requires to respect user choice,"
Like, no shit? Is it really a big shock to people that Microsoft -- or any megacorp -- isn't doing more than the law requires?
Comment Re:A better law (Score 1) 50
That's one hell of a dumbfuck definition of "better" if your idea for a better law is one in which the people creating said law can't figure out how the fuck it would even be feasible for a business to operate under it, so leaves it up to them to figure out or face criminal prosecution.
A better law would actually be:
1) "the internet gets to be private and anonymous by default
2) "Deal with it."
Comment Re: wtf is JPEG-XL (Score 1) 50
oof, you really think you wrote quite the zinger there, eh?
