Looks like the link to the original report (not in the Guardian article, but posted a couple times in the comments) might be Slashdotted. I found an archived copy at Internet Archive. It was posted last April and updated last May.
If you're asking about the file domains.txt , that's not the "bad" domains, that's the "legitimate" advertisers who were victimized by the scheme. The whitepaper doesn't have full technical detail, but it sounds like the bot-farms used hosts files or private DNS to serve pages that seemed to be within those domains, without ever hitting the origin servers or even a public CDN. The list of "bad" actors, by IP address range, is the file IPs-CIDR.txt .
Over the years I've bought a few items from a mail-order vendor that uses Yahoo! for their checkout/payment. Nothing since the breach in question, though... their deals haven't been that good recently.
Yahoo! also offers "premium" mail service, no ads, IMAP access may be a premium-only feature.
I would support an effort to use direct national IRV for the President, but with a healthy dose of caution about making such a major change. An "incremental" change that I'd support before that would be to have a week-later runoff if the popular vote doesn't have a majority, or if it doesn't match the expected decision of the Electoral College, maybe with the ballots limited to the higher vote-getters from the first round.
The exact procedure for appointing electors varies by state, but in most (all?) states the electors are nominated by a party. For example, in Michigan, the Republican electors were nominated at the state convention in late August. The people voting at the convention were county delegates; county delegates were chosen by vote at a county convention a few weeks before; the people at the county convention were precinct delegates and incumbent elected officials; the precinct delegates were elected back in May. The elector from my district is a 70ish retired white guy from Oakland County who has never held elected office other than precinct and convention delegate. It sounded from the remarks of his supporters like he came from a blue-collar background and had been apolitical for much of his younger life, but had been a tireless volunteer since becoming politically active.
If Trump does something sufficiently heinous and notorious between now and mid-December, or if he's actually dead, it's possible that some, most or all of the Republican electors could defect, but if they do so, they're more likely to vote for some other Republican than for any Democrat. If not all agree, that could pass the election to the House. There again, a Republican-controlled House is unlikely to choose Clinton; although it's possible as some sort of brokered deal (maybe keep Clinton as president but with Pence or Ryan as vice-president, for example).
Since it'll be offline for a while, perhaps... Israeli Online Attack Service ‘vDOS’ Earned $600,000 in Two Years.
vDOS — a “booter” service that has earned in excess of $600,000 over the past two years helping customers coordinate more than 150,000 so-called distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks designed to knock Web sites offline — has been massively hacked, spilling secrets about tens of thousands of paying customers and their targets.
The vDOS database, obtained by KrebsOnSecurity.com at the end of July 2016, points to two young men in Israel as the principal owners and masterminds of the attack service, with support services coming from several young hackers in the United States. [...]
The law that Snyder signed in 2014, Public Act 345 of 2014, codified as section 445.1574 Prohibited conduct by manufacturer, has a lot of detailed regulations about how manufacturers may treat dealers. The requirement that manufacturers only sell through dealers is terse, and buried in the middle of it:
(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following: [...] (h) Directly or indirectly own, operate, or control a new motor vehicle dealer, including, but not limited to, a new motor vehicle dealer engaged primarily in performing warranty repair services on motor vehicles under the manufacturer's warranty, or a used motor vehicle dealer. This subdivision does not apply to any of the following: [...] (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local
government or agency. [...]
(There are several exceptions, some are grandfather clauses for pre-2000 manufacturer-owned dealers, the others don't appear to apply to Tesla.) Subsections (h) and (i) were present in the prior version of the law, so I'm not sure how old some form of that requirement is. The bill changed the tail end of subsection (i) from a reference to "the manufacturer's" dealers to "franchised" dealers, but the substantiative changes to the law were a new subsection (y) "Prevent, attempt to prevent, prohibit, coerce, or attempt to coerce a new motor vehicle dealer from charging a consumer any documentary preparation fee allowed to be charged by the dealer under the laws of this state" and a new section (3) "This section applies to a manufacturer that sells, services, displays, or advertises its new motor vehicles in this state".
That's one thing I thought of after I saw the announcement, but I doubt that's the primary reason. Probably the main reason is just that they want to avoid the service getting eaten up by people who don't even understand what the "quality" and "resolution" settings on their cameras or other camera-enabled devices mean. Even with Google's compression, I imagine it's not too hard to use steganography to fit the Constitution, or a chunk of the Bible, or most of 1984, or the Kama Sutra, or the technical plans for a planet-destroying battle station in an image.
If a service like Google, Amazon, Facebook, or Yahoo! resizes and recompresses the image data, that's one thing. If they start stripping iTXt chunks that contain copyright or attribution information, that could be a serious legal problem; likewise if they reduce quality so much that it obscures a watermark containing a copyright or trademark notice.
The first time, he makes a big deal about the address in question not being really his, but one he did use for WHOIS registration. I know there are people who have legitimate reasons for hiding their personal address when operating a controversial website, but the solution for that isn't to give a totally bogus address. Or maybe the CSA saw that it had been used as a "private" registration (not knowing it had been subsequently revealed) and assumed it was a relevant secret on that basis? And how is it's Amazon's fault if the address was used to cause the sending of a replacement credit card? Did the scammer rent a room at said hotel and request that the card be sent there?
The second time, he complains about the disclosure of the last purchased item and the shipping address. I'd say that the majority of the time when there's fraud, if the real customer calls in, he'd like to know where the item is actually going so he can include that in his police report. In spite of the scammer's attempt, the agent really didn't give out any useful information about the credit card.
The third time, we don't have a the transcript, so it's possible that the agent read off all the addresses, the AWS username, and all credit-card numbers ever associated with the account. More likely, the agent said, "I'm sorry, I can't give you that information. I can send a copy of your invoice to your e-mail address on file."
Even the last-purchased item is arguably sensitive. What if it's a bulk-pack of condoms, for example? Or (back to Amazon's roots) a book on the list of banned books? I'd encourage Amazon to close that hole, but I'm not sure I have a good solution.
but there are actually a few phone numbers that I remember, and can type on a telephone keypad (or the numbers-only widget on a smartphone) quicker than I can look them up (even with type-ahead on the person's name). They're also harder make data-entry errors with than a written-out e-mail address, or, worse, someone's Facebook or Google+ name.
The path and domain are not authenticated to make sure site A does not set a cookie fraudulently for site B.
These are called "third-party cookies", and browsers (for example, Firefox) already have knobs to disable them. That's not the real issue here, however.
Another problem seems to be, the browsers present all the values associated with the name to the web site, even the cookies not set by that site.
Not only that, a site could get cookies set by "parent" and "child" sites. Furthermore, a lot of web-programming languages (including PHP, ASP.NET, Classic ASP, and GWT) expose the cookies as a key-value store where the key is simply the name of the cookie, and don't document which cookie they use if the browser sends multiple ones with the same key. (Java is a bit better, it just exposes a bucket, but that's harder to work with.)
It's a "chinese restaurant" among the marketplace, too.
A few years ago I set up seller accounts on three of them. One of those marketplaces bought out the other two, so now I have one account (luckily they allowed me to merge the accounts, with some loss of history).
Brain off-line, please wait.