• 0 Posts
  • 48 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 19th, 2024

help-circle






  • I worked in a Costa del Mar warehouse once. The generic shades were $20, and right next to the brand name shades ($200). The brand name might have had some invisible enhancement, but they looked exactly the same to me besides the logo embossed into them. Both were polarized and mirrored exactly the same way.

    What I’m saying is this: buy cheap generic ones. If you must have that logo, glue one on or something. I don’t understand brand worship.





  • “I don’t personally understand it, therefore God did it” (Argument from Ignorance, or God of the Gaps fallacy)

    I hear this with regard to evolution, chemistry, bacteria, weather. They don’t know how something works, that’s proof enough for them. Eventually they say “then how was the universe created? There had to have been a creator!” (First cause argument) Or “The eye is so complicated, it had to be designed” (Watchmaker Fallacy)

    I used to listen to The Atheist Experience podcast, but it got repetitive hearing the same arguments from religious people, over and over. I also didn’t like how mean the hosts could get sometimes, but I understand their frustration…





  • I want an open source cellular baseband chip. That’s the chip that acts as a networking connection to cell phone towers. Not only would the drivers be open, but the hardware as well. It might be a little larger than most, as I would want it to be possible for users to dismantle it (destructively, of course) and verify against tampering.

    Bunnie Huang’s Precursor was a good start, but it lacks networking (as far as I know)

    (Are crowdsourcing links allowed? I’m not going to link to the crowdsupply page, just in case, but it is more informative)




  • That’s wild… how’d he get the email client to send the NTLM hash? That’s the real story, there. If you can remotely pull sensitive files like that, you already own that computer. That’s an email client vuln, not an issue with the method of encryption.

    Actually what is sent is the user’s LAN Manager (LM) or Windows NT LM network authentication challenge response, from which the user’s LM or NT hash can be computed.

    Oh… that’s not good. I’m guessing the client was Outlook. In which case, Outlook had a vuln and that was the issue, not the encryption. Or maybe it was windows itself which was vulnerable.

    I skimmed kind of quick, but it sounds like Kevin used html email to embed something that loaded from a server he owned. That gave him the target IP, he then did some kind of NetBIOS request where windows sent the NTLM challenge response. That was apparently vulnerable to cracking in such a way that revealed the actual NTLM hash of the windows user being emailed. Then THAT hash was crackable to reveal the actual password of the user.

    Not totally sure I read that right, but wow, that is an old ass vuln for windows to still have as late as 2017.