azuth

We need a ban on checking the manufacturer/supplier of a device/os instead of checking for APIs.

Frankly most consumers only consider screen size from specs, brand and price (not value necessarily).

You can always buy your hardware.

Sure a dumb phone won’t record for Google. Current ones don’t and probably can’t be made to.

But recording would be trivial to implement even on a dumb phone if it becomes acceptable to the majority. Hell it could become a legal requirement.

We cannot run away from these issues by using old phones, old vehicles, ‘physical’ media etc. Eventually they will be unavailable. Some, old vehicles, really should be for other reasons.

Or as others have pointed out, you might not be recorded by your phone but you will be by the others’.

We need to persuade more people to actively oppose such measures outright. Defend privacy, control of our devices etc explicitly.

Obviously protecting children must always be a priority

No it really doesn’t have to always be. Protecting children should be balanced against harm to the rest of society. The vast majority of children will thankfully go on to live far more as non-children.

Nope he is 100% a product of the United States of America and it’s ideology. East Germany, Russia, China have nothing to do with it.

Certainly they have not at all stopped misinforming people. There are also still elements that promote hatred.

Yeah but at least that organization has not ever instigated a war, right?

If you actually read his github you would know that there is a different version of the responsible component between the recovery environment and an installation. Only the RE has the issue.

I’ve read the XZ vulnerability. The very same thing can happen in a closed source corporate project. There are many arrests of foreign intelligence agents that worked in big tech amd/government. It would of course be easier to cover up. As would vulnerabilities discovered by ai, since they can limit who can check their code.

Were they the developers of the ssh package? Microsoft is the developer of the vulnerable bitlocker package and the ones who chose to ship it.

I am employed, most employers are obviously not as corrupt as the biggest corporations on the planet, they simply can’t afford to.

I agree we can’t know. We can know for FOSS software. You are treating uknownable as being less than the known bugs in Foss software. That’s dishonest, lad.

What are the indications that the BitLocker vulnerability is already being utilized?

Microsoft shipping a vulnerable version of the recovery environment. It is the ‘exploit’.

Alleged by a guy who was fired from Microsoft. I’d take that with a pinch of salt.

Such is the nature of closed source software. You select people who will remain complicit till they have a grievance against you. Even if they don’t and talked for moral reasons do you think they would not been fired for it?

That being said, open source repos are being attacked constantly with attempts at intentional malicious code injection - I’m sure you’ve heard of XZ Utils? How many others went through and are being exploited without anyone noticing?

Who knows. How many more went through at closed source software a limited amount of people can test in the same way?

They will be patched. There is also no indication that they 'be been known and exploited till recently.

This was allegedly deliberately non patched to be exploited.

Getting a system without bugs and security issues is impossible, you can at least avoid intentional compromise.

Unfortunately not, the main reason the majority of people use gmail is that they don’t even know there are other email providers.

I think it was accepted in systemd. There was no commit in the kernel because such things are really don’t belong in the kernel.

But the law it was a response too is horrible. If any ‘app’, regardless of it including any unsafe content (or content at all really) must ask for this information from the OS. Otherwise the developer and/or controller (which can be whoever installed the app) is liable for thousands of dollars.

This only makes sense if you think the only ‘apps’ that exist are ones written by FAANG.

Which move are you referring to? Because most of them include far more than that.

Because they are slave states with no regards for human rights?

You have an insanely distorted view of the world.

It is only fair you get something back for all those decades of support to Israel.

Greek name meaning he who likes horses, the name of Alexander the great’s father, then a Spanish King’s who colonized the islands.

Therefore actually spelled with a Φ and the issue being different transliterations of it.

You seem to forget that the A-10 is only about 50 years old. The armor, redundant controls, and flight capabilities (such as being designed to fly while missing half a wing, half the entire tail, and an engine) are there to keep the pilot safe. They have landed after being hit more than once, and entirely due to it’s design.

Yeah, it was also designed to kill tanks with the gun which it doesn’t do. As for flying with missing half a wing, it hasn’t happened with an A-10. An F-15, an unarmored plane, has landed missing a whole wing in real life. Many planes, all unarmored, have taken hits and survived.

The A-10 isn’t an air superiority fighter; it’s an attack craft and does that job well enough than any grunt on the ground is disappointed when a request for air support is answered by anything BUT an A-10.

Grunts have no clue. Literally, they listed the A-10 having a copilot as a reason why they prefer it.As in they misidentify aircraft as the A-10.

The A-10 also only did that during low-intensity, counterinsurgency operations. Against infantry with technical. The M-61 is perfectly capable of destroying technicals. Go lookup a video of it in action and tell me it’s not capable and you need the GAU-8.

Yes it can do the job, it doesn’t do it better than multirole fighters that you are going to have anyways. It actually does it worse. It was restricted to 20nmi from the border in Desert Storm during day time. It was assigned to destroy enemy vehicles with standoff munitions from medium altitude, to keep it safe from AAA. Meanwhile F-16 did low level attacks with unguided bombs on SAM units that had organic AAA defenses.

In any case the US has a huge military budget so wasting money on the A-10 is not an issue.

That’s not the F-35’s role, that’s the F-16’s role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it’s not hampered by armor.

It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.

Which is the issue, the A-10’s core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.