whydoyoucare

Whether the internet has made our lives better or worse depends on the perspective (half full or half empty), and is an excellent water cooler conversation. :-)

\~\? works on macOS, as well as CentOS.

A very straightforward technical solution is to convert all html emails to plain text (ASCII). Mutt users rarely get phished. :-)

I thought so too, but no, it wasn't.

The normal workflow is so ingrained in our company culture, that I received an email from our IT team about not clicking on embedded links, and that email had a embedded link to "learn more". ;-)

I always suspected technical tools were more effective (time, effort, money) than the training programs. However, only company-wide training programs provide visibility to the CISO, so they tend to be popular even if ineffective.

Because you cannot fix humans, technology is the most effective approach.

That was my first gut instinct too. Good to know I am not alone. :)

I agree -- Ascension is also complicit in this, and merely paying lip-service to HIPAA. The Senator's letter, on the other hand, paints a one-sided picture of the matter.

Aren't advancements in AI actually helping drug discovery?

We scream at the expired certificate, yet happily let CloudFlare be an official MitM. How ironic is that? :)

Where the argument is rooted is helpful in determining if there is any sort of compromise or "seeing other's viewpoint" can be had. - Beliefs: Lowest level, simply held to be true. Arguments at this level cannot change anyone's mind and are pointless waste of time - Values: Higher up, what you value more. Still deep, but some middle ground possible with lot of effort - Morals: Right or wrong, middle ground and compromise or change of mind possible - Ethics: Top level, just morals into action. Easiest to argue/change mind.

The article rendering hurt my eyes, and then it was a pdf of the source code! :-(

I genuinely liked your opening statement (disagreeing...)

I am sorry to hear you had such a raw experience. Maybe you were dealing with pretty clueless engineers, since most do realize a buffer overflow should be treated exploitable unless proven otherwise. I've had better experience trying to argue the cost of fix -- it being pretty low was incentive enough for engineering to fix it.

That said, I am worried evilsocket may not be taken seriously next time he finds a vulnerability with CVSS 9.9. To some extent I am surprised by his argument on not knowing CVSS scoring rubrik. There may have been language barrier at play as well, leading to some of his sentences coming across as more abrasive than they should have been.

We must first precisely define "level of security" that is expected from OpenSSH and a commerical version. Only then the discussion about who can guarantee what would make sense.

You can pay for it and sign a file full of null characters. Signing has nothing to do with quality from what I understand.