HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

steffanA

no profile record

コメント

steffanA
·11 か月前·議論
Same campaign
steffanA
·昨年·議論
The autorun.inf would be in the flash drive, not the executable they uploaded to Any.Run. Were any pics of the flash drive contents shared?
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
Nothing sophisticated about this attack.
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
The people who DDoSed Internet Archive never claimed to be behind the breach. That was some media companies who misreported this.

The breach happened over a week before the DDoS attack, according to Troy Hunt.

Stop looking for conspiracy theories.
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
Article says API token was stolen in original breach.
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
This is bad enough. This alone is a privacy bug/data leak.

Theoretically, someone could scrape the pages and compile a list of exposed email addresses.
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
There is a strange dynamic between the threat actors who conduct these breaches and researchers.

When not used for extortion and for "status" in the hacking community, they share them with researchers (commonly HIBP) to warn people about a site's security and so that site is forced to fix things.

Definitely a strange dynamic.
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
More details here about the data breach. Stolen database contains 31 million records.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/internet-arch...
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
It's doubtful to me that this is due to malware.

Many malware hijack search settings. However, very few hijack default browsers themselves these days. In the past (10 years ago) it was much more common.

Furthermore, I don't know of many malware that touch the .PDF file extension associations, and there are plenty of other associations that would be better to hijack.

Feels more like a sloppy fix to comply with EU's DMA.
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
Including Firefox who previously bypassed it:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/13/22671182/mozilla-default-...
steffanA
·2 年前·議論
So you bought and fed 14,500 books into the AI to make these summaries?
steffanA
·3 年前·議論
Title is clickbait. I am sure the content of the article clears it up, but the title implies Microsoft is forcing all users to pay for normal security updates.

In reality, it's your choice to stay on an end-of-support OS and purchase updates if you wish to remain secure.
steffanA
·3 年前·議論
Because the title makes it sounds like Microsoft will charge for any security update in the future.

These are for end of life products and it is very common for companies to require additional support contracts to keep supporting them.

You do not have to continue using said version of Windows, upgrades are now essentially free, and as long as you are on a supported version of Windows, you will continue to get free security updates.
steffanA
·3 年前·議論
Such BS clickbait. This article should be removed from Ycomb.

Microsoft is not charging anyone for security updates unless you wish to use the operating system after end of life.
steffanA
·3 年前·議論
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying different titles on a story.