qual

>I don't understand why people ask for a definition. A quick search brings up many useful definitions

Note how the definition there doesn't match any of the three definitions people gave me here, and none of the three here seem to match each other. Also, as your link says, the definition seems to have changed drastically in the past few years, so I can't even be sure that the link has the most up-to-date definition.

So, I was asking someone who seemed to be very passionate about being "against woke culture", to hear it directly from them. This is a conversational site, I figured it'd be fine, but seeing that my question is now downvoted I guess I need to better learn what conversations and questions are appropriate here.

I'm still new around these parts. Forgive me.

Thanks for taking the time to write this out, I think it helps me understand a bit better. Every definition seems to be sort of different and personalized but I think it's beginning to coalesce into something in my mind, rather than just leaving me confused.

Usually when I try to ask this question, I just have angry people being angry with me, and I end up more confused. So it's nice to have some legitimate explanations come my way.

>Performative nonsense designed to appeal to emotions instead of doing something about the implied problem. (Guns and censorship, respectively.)

Thanks! This helps me understand it a bit more. Sort of a synonym for "virtue signalling" it seems?

>Note that I am not the one who brought up the term to the conversation.

Of course, but since you said you were vehemently against it, I thought you'd be the better person to give me some perspective and help me learn.

>I did want to avoid the labels as there's always someone who comes up and ask you to define the label instead of talking about the issue itself. In this case, censorship.

I would have found it much clearer if your comment said "I am against censorship at it's core, vehemently", and as an added bonus you wouldn't be annoyed by me asking about it.

But, to be clear, the reason I asked about the label instead of the issue is because I don't understand what issue(s) woke culture represents to you. So trying to talk about those issues would be difficult.

My impression so far is that woke culture is more than just censorship. I'm very anti-censorship, but I've also been called "woke" in passing as an insult, so unfortunately I'm still left a bit confused. Thanks anyways, though!

(Not the person you were replying to)

I'm curious what/how you define "woke culture", because the only definitions of "woke" I've ever heard are basically "thing I don't like" or "the left". Neither of those definitions have helped me understand what you are so vehemently against.

Can you help me understand what woke culture is to you?

This is a genuine question.

>If you know the hash of some data, then you either already have the data yourself, or you learned the hash from someone who had the data.

From the article, you do not need to have the data nor learn the hash from someone who had the data.

>Commit hashes can be brute forced through GitHub’s UI, particularly because the git protocol permits the use of short SHA-1 values when referencing a commit. A short SHA-1 value is the minimum number of characters required to avoid a collision with another commit hash, with an absolute minimum of 4. The keyspace of all 4 character SHA-1 values is 65,536

>Come on, this is not surprising.

Very cool that it is not surprising to you.

But to others (some are even in this thread!) it is both new and surprising. They unfortunately missed your 4 year old comment, but at least they get to learn it now.

You're presenting this as if its a new idea, but the security industry tried the above (for the majority of the time that "computer security" has been a thing) and... it didn't work! That's the whole reason public disclosure came about in the first place -- there's quite a rich history there if you're interested.

Some other thoughts:

>You let the manufacturer know, and you let them decide for the next steps.

Which, as history has proven, the "next steps" is generally to sweep it under the rug and to be forgotten about until it's exploited by a bad actor.

>it's not your business

But, what about when it is? On-topic: I drive a car, so I care about vulnerabilities in traffic lights and they may directly affect me. It's also my business if my personal data is stolen, or my identity, or corporate data, etc.

>You helped: no lawyers, no problems.

No problems... Until the vulnerability is exploited and it causes me a problem.

Could you help me understand what you are suggesting is done instead?

To me, it seems like you're suggesting that vulnerabilities are just left in play until someone malicious comes along and decides to do some real damage. But that seems so silly that I must be missing some alternative that you're thinking about.

>Your outrage sounds disingenuous.

I've read through these comment chains a few times, but I'm having a really hard time finding the "outrage", disingenuous or otherwise. Can you quote the part of the comment that displayed outrage?

>Do you and their security engineers even live in the same time zone?

Reading through this thread, you can find where the OP says that the time zones were accounted for.

>nobody's arguing that there are cases where you'd physically destroy a device, while cryptographic erasure of the data is not required as well.

I am very explicitly saying cryptographic erasure is not required if you are following physical destruction standards (in ISO 27001 and NIST 800-88, at least).