Without context, I just don't understand why this anecdotal thread should be considered credible.
Disclaimer: I use FOSS password managers for everything possible but have to use LastPass for some non-personal stuff and I very much dislike it
Without context, I just don't understand why this anecdotal thread should be considered credible.
Disclaimer: I use FOSS password managers for everything possible but have to use LastPass for some non-personal stuff and I very much dislike it
Not everything posted on HN has to be verified true. The decision calculus here seems strongly in favor of signal boosting it, so that people who need to can take defensive action, even if it turns out to be wrong.
The big difference between the two examples is this: LastPass is known to have bugs. Huge amounts of data were stolen from them and we just found out that it was a lot more than we thought.
For all we know, they were storing passwords in the clear somewhere.
Trivia note: the first compiled language I used was PL/I, and the compiler was notoriously buggy and would crash on well-formed programs. Our teacher told us to put do-nothing statements in when this happened (`PUT SKIP(0);` if I recall correctly), and with some trial and error, those would fix it.
No it isn’t.
> What would you have the people who are using LastPass do, stop using it?
Yes.
> Because some crypto dude…
No?
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/lastpass-say...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2019/09/16/google-w...
https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/lastpass-2019-pas...
Yes. After their last major breach I exported all my data and deleted all my credentials and account with LastPass. Seeing the details of this breach, I'm super happy I did.
The thing that's bad, is that apparently their developers have access to (backups off) production data. That implies that their security infrastructure is not different from regular startups at all so all of their marketing is just bullshit. They didn't sacrifice developer productivity for security on this point, so they can't be trusted to have sacrificed anything for security at any point.
That's subjective and has no value in determining whether the post is true.
"Not everything posted on HN has to be verified true. The decision calculus here seems strongly in favor of signal boosting it, so that people who need to can take defensive action, even if it turns out to be wrong."
What? Proven true, no, any sort of evidence, yes. As for taking actions, there's a cost.
"I suspected someone used a 0day on me" is not exactly inspiring confidence
"Initially I imagined I was targeted by a 0day or rootkit"
which actually does not make sense, because it implies he thinks those two things are fungible. He's obviously not a security expert, but he's also obviously not totally technically incompetent.
Also the people talking about “burning zero days”… every time you use an exploit (ignoring the exact meaning of 0 days) it doesn’t become burned by the first person. The hacker could use it on hundreds of people before it’s discovered and patched by whatever software it targets. That could take months.
Way to make yourself feel important. It's not that you made some terrible choices yourself, like using a known-insecure password manager SaaS, or putting real money into crypto. Nono, somebody pulled a 0day on me, what can ya do? Shrugs
That together with others here claiming they have a LOT, makes me think they might have hot, cold, soft and hardware wallets.
From one of the tweets:
> I did not download anything. My machines are clean, and I have physical 2fa on everything. None of the links or contracts I interacted with were malicious. Nobody else had physical access to my PC.
Yeah sure. Sounds like my aunt when she messed up her PC and loudly claims "but I didn't do anything!" Surefire sign that she did. Turns out it's true, every time.
One entity has something to lose, the other doesn't?
1. You don't know if this person has nothing to lose
2. Even if they have nothing to lose that doesn't mean they are being honest.
I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion, and this just comes off as an ad hominem attack. Flat earthers claim that there's an economic interest in lying to them? And you think that claim is particularly genuine or even similar to this argument?
> You don't know if this person has nothing to lose
It is possible that they have some competing business and are trying to damage LastPass, but there's absolutely no evidence of that, nor any suggestion other than to double-check your credentials and your expected security if you are a LastPass customer. So, if they do have an interest, they're doing a particularly bad job of acting within it.
> Even if they have nothing to lose that doesn't mean they are being honest.
And we're not going to reach 100% certainty of any fact through discussion on a message board. It is interesting that some people spend a lot of effort trying to ensure this obscurity gets injected into the conversation, and it suggests that their own motivations should be questioned.
All in all, on the balance of apparent probabilities, there's more reason to trust this person than not. You can attempt to assail that logic if you like, but I would appreciate it if you stuck to the facts of the argument instead of kicking up dirt.
So feel free to go ahead and jump to conclusions :)
Is a meme
This is your regular reminder that all crypto is scam , this is a simple mathematical fact.