Department of War Doesn’t Defend its Web Streams From Hackers
Department of War Doesn’t Defend its Web Streams From Hackers
theintercept.com
Department of War Doesn’t Defend its Web Streams From Hackers
14 comments
-
-
...and so they stand by and laugh about some stupid details while their democracy is teared down and cruel dictatory is built up right there before their eyes.
-
I don't think it's like that. I think if they have nothing to laugh at, they would all kill themselves which would also not help
-
cruel dictatory is built up right there before their eyes.
Technically incorrect; they're part of it, so they're on stage.
-
I'm afraid they don't believe that either.
-
-
-
The plan must be to flood our adversaries with vulnerable services so all their manpower is tied up in attacks on low-impact systems.
-
that is an anti-crawler anti-spam technique:
https://www.osnews.com/story/141545/nepenthes-a-dangerous-tarpit-to-trap-llm-crawlers/
-
-
Doesn't defend!? They're straight up just posting the stream keys..
-
So, getting rid of the Defense moniker is truth-in-advertising like how you can't call em fruit loops if there ain't any fruit in em?
-
That’s why it’s spelled Froot.
-
It's spelled that way because Fruit Loops was too generic to trademark. There is a story about froot loops changing its name due to a lawsuit but that was proven apocryphal. There are other brands with this being a real issue that happened.
In 2020 there was an Australian lawsuit with hopes to force Kellogg to change the name because Froot Loops had over the years become a slur for disabled people. It's failed.
-
Exactly
-
-
-
Obviously these are honeypots.
/s
14 comments
Well duh; it’s the department of war not the department of defense.
(Hopefully obvious /s)
Oh fuck, I hadn't heard about the fucking gibbering idiot dropping yet another mask and saying all the quiet parts out loud.