Is this one of the most brutal hacks in recent history?
Can’t say it’s not deserved considering the scope of data exposed.
Can’t say it’s not deserved considering the scope of data exposed.
No, not really. Epik can probably continue with their business relatively unscathed.
This isn't going to straight up eviscerate the company like some ransomware attacks we've seen recently.
In this case the hackers were either lazy or incompetent, they could've defaced every single Epik customer domain and made it very difficult for Epik to restore the DNS configurations. For some reason they didn't do that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There aren’t many other options that I’m aware of.
So, it’s entirely possible even new customers have joined for lack of other options.
I’ve resisted using them, and this incident vindicates why I’ve been hesitant to, but that still leaves me with no options for safely hosting thought that’s against authoritarian-approved narratives.
Once again, nuance seems dead, with no place for free thinkers in the middle between the extremes.
No, we don't. You get blocked from mainstream registrars by spreading hate and making the excuse that this is somehow "counter narrative, science-driven questions", but you know very well that that is not being honest.
Science requires discussion and testing of theories and hypothesis. You then use the data you observe in testing to reach you conclusions. Sometimes your initial hypothesis is supported, sometimes its not. Shutting down all discussion before any data is collected is not science, its anti-science in fact. It is like half the world forgot this.
I'm pretty happy you're getting booted for doing things that are that fucking dangerous and damaging. Stop doing them.
Although it seems your criteria has already quickly expanded from “hate speech” to also “dangerous and damaging speech”, I’m curious at what point you would become concerned yourself?
Is your only criteria for when the line is crossed an open admission by those in charge that they are enforcing one political side over another, with no attached moral justification?
What if someone you respected in your personal life were suddenly deplatformed? What if, tomorrow morning, you personally experienced and verified something to be untrue that today, based on the current narrative, you believe to be true (and therefore “fucking dangerous” if opposed)?
If I’m wrong, and truly only the most vile of speech is being (justifiably) removed, then what circumstances would have to change for you to share my concern?
I’m not being rhetorical or facetious, I’m generally interested in hearing where the line is for you.
You are happy anything you disagree with gets banned. What happens when your side loses power and the opposition decides to ban you as they deem you dangerous and damaging. I would assume you are going to turn yourself in to be disposed of?
Edit: You claim doing science is dangerous and damaging and will kill 10s of thousands of people. So how did the vaccine get made? Magic?
Bad faith is what you did. I never once mentioned anything that is dangerous or could cost live. Talking about medicine side effects or talking about off label drug use are not dangerous and do not cost lives. Your wrongfully try and claim it is.
Not really. The internet appears to have a two-caste system:
1. Facebook, Twitter, etc. Twitter hosts plenty of hate, but because they have a "policy" (regardless of its actual effectiveness), they're good. Facebook allows mass murderers to livestream their killing sprees, and their subsidiary, Instagram, literally hosts open-air sex slave markets. But because they have a(n ineffective) policy against these things, they're fine.
2. Gab, Parler, Bitchute, etc. These platforms also host hate. But because they have a policy that embraces free speech, they have significant deplatforming issues.
It's important to note that in our current caste system, it doesn't matter what you ACTUALLY DO. It only matters what your policy is, regardless of whether you enforce that policy or not.
Probably because that would have escalated the situation, and given the baddies[0] leverage to go after Anonymous with a lot more than a 4-hour blubberfest.
This was definitely the goal.
> leverage to go after Anonymous
This doesn't make any sense.
Sigh...why is it that we can't seem to interact with each other in this medium, without lobbing implied insults at each other?
Try "This doesn't make sense to me." or even "I'm afraid I don't understand your point."
I won't bother explaining it. It's not that important. Be assured that it will make sense to some folks.
Have a nice day.
There we go again...
This online world. I'll tell you...
Microsoft's Azure has had multiple cross-tenant exploits revealed in the last 3 months, absolutely inexcusable flaws. One of them exposed a large swathe of Fortune 500 companies' data.
You're not "safer" at Azure than a small provider spending almost nothing on security, because of the impact of more attention and a larger target on your back.
Dunking on providers for being hacked is essentially victim blaming. There's a roughly 100% chance the providers you choose are vulnerable or have lost your data at some point in time.
Yes a determined hacker will be able to breach systems and securities and vulnerabilities in hardware and software are found all the time. But a company that invests in security will almost always be less likely to be hacked and your data stolen. This does not mean the company is immune but, like in the case of Epic, if you store your data in an insecure location, you're practically asking to be hacked. It's not "victim shaming" to point fingers at a company with appallingly bad security
You seem to be claiming Azure is less likely to be hacked, however Azure has had cross-tenant security vulnerabilities.
You can't claim Epik is an "insecure location" while Azure is not while Azure has the absolute worst kind of security vulnerabilities. I'll remind you that Microsoft spends multiple billions of dollars on security and has large security and incident response teams :)
The motivation behind hacking Ubiquiti, SonicWall, SolarWinds and even Azure is very different and that matters.
In fact, Cloudflare currently provides services to Gab.
Is this a case of double standards on your part for political beliefs of the founders?
That's different from a book only featuring nazi iconography and text.
Regardless of our respective views, yours is not an accurate comparison.
Your response here is basically saying "Why are you trying so hard to catch this serial killer when cars kill so many more people".
The appropriate action is to find any illegal content there and report it directly to either ICANN or to the authorities to force the registrar to take it down.
[0] https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/lets-encrypt-is-enabling...
Gab rolled their own SQL injection prevention and failed at it, published the source for it (because they forked Mastodon and had to) and got hacked. When they got hacked they tried to cover it up and did barely anything to fight the fire they created. They got hacked again because they never reset any user tokens in the aftermath.
Parler got hacked due to them building a platform on Wordpress, using 3rd party plugins that were riddled with security holes that they never updated. On top of that due to their decision to use WP their entire platform got scraped using the sequential IDs.
And we've all seen this entire Epik debacle.
I see these as a complete betrayal of user trust and it makes any similar platform or service potentially dangerous to its users, that's all. If you're interested in my political opinion: I'm very torn between censorship and free speech as far as any entity in guardianship of others' speech is concerned, I still haven't found a balance where I'd feel comfortable planting myself because no decision happens in a bubble and is shielded from consequences in a bubble.
So, to circle back, I don't dislike Cloudflare for hosting Gab, I wouldn't even say I hate Gab for being Gab, I just avoid it. I don't know if I'd do business with Gab or not, but I'd say this: if you develop a reputation, whether thanks to you or people outside of your influence (the press or social media, for example), you have to manage it and act accordingly or risk causing a fallout.
Now, personally, I'd avoid white supremacists and anarchist groups, malware providers, hacking groups and any extremists as far as doing business with myself.
However, I'm not in charge of a giant company so I don't have to draw the line and I'm thankful for that, I certainly don't know if I'd have the wisdom to both consider my best interests, my company's best interest and the world's, all at once.
Yeah. Thanks to some bug bounties, which is a small part of the billions spent on security with some hackers is one of the solutions to this.
Without that, I think you would have a wild west of 0day exploits every day on lots of high profile companies. One day Anonymous will try to target someone else that they don't like and it could be any random S&P 500 company next. Who knows.