darkarmani (u/darkarmani)

darkarmani commented on Trump pardons convicted Binance founder wsj.com/finance/currencie... · Posted by u/cowboyscott

mightyham · 2 months ago

Is the irony not lost you that Joe Biden pardoned his own son for crimes he was absolutely guilty of. I don't see how that is any less corrupt. This isn't whatboutism either because I'm not trying to say that what Trump is doing is okay, I'm pointing out that this behavior is not particular to Trump and his supporters. The large majority of Americans are fine with corruption as long as it's their team.

darkarmani · 2 months ago

One can not be happy with that and understand that Trump would have found ways to lock up his son for 20 years. No one thinks this dude was going to be punished for political reasons.

darkarmani commented on I Went to SQL Injection Court sockpuppet.org/blog/2025/... · Posted by u/mrkurt

tptacek · 10 months ago

Because once you have the schema you can issue FOIA requests that include queries for them to run.

darkarmani · 10 months ago

Is the schema considered private information or just information not required to be released via FOIA? ie: Can't some nice employee leak this information or is it legally protected?

Once the information is released, can anyone can make FOIA requests using the schema?

darkarmani commented on I Went to SQL Injection Court sockpuppet.org/blog/2025/... · Posted by u/mrkurt

hot_gril · 10 months ago

There's a solid chance that the schema gives away what DBMS is being used. But even if it didn't, I'd still call it a file layout in this context.

darkarmani · 10 months ago

The gov't releasing the hardware and software licencing used in CANVAS already gives that away.

darkarmani commented on DigiCert: Threat of legal action to stifle Bugzilla discourse bugzilla.mozilla.org/show... · Posted by u/DanAtC

DeepSeaTortoise · 10 months ago

Why do you all think DigiCert handled this badly?

1. Bugs happen. Critical ones, too. They didn't try to brush this under the carpet, but admitted to it, acted to resolve it and were transparent about it.

2. They worked quickly to make it happen. Would 24h been nice? Sure, but 24h is not much shorter than 120h. In general, 24h is plenty of time for some exploits and 120h doesn't open the window to many more. It would have been very different if it took them months or years to resolve it.

3. They genuinely engaged with the critics on bugzilla, even after Sectigo's CCO went completely off the rails with trying to strip customers off legal recourse and demanding to blacklist those who try to make use of it.

4. They could have taken legal actions against Sectigo's CCO directly but took the extra step to ask them to stop this nonsense. They didn't demand anything more and even outlined steps Sectigo needed to take to prevent any legal problems down the line, like affirming that their CCO did not make these statements on behalf of Sectigo, an affirmation that they would notify their employees to not make any actions that would violate the laws mentioned in their letter, affirm that their CCO would be instructed not to violate any of the laws outlined in their letter and lastly confirm that, upon consulting with their CCO, they were able to conclude that his statements were not meant to harm DigiCert.

The only ick is the short timeframe they expect a reply within, but that's sadly usual corporate US law practice...

Basically that letter is the result of asking an US law firm for help and telling them to be nice about it and helping their opponent through the process.

darkarmani · 10 months ago

> They could have taken legal actions against Sectigo's CCO directly

You are only suggesting they could have handled it worse. Why would they take legal action against the CCO for statements on a bug report other than to squash transparency?

darkarmani commented on DigiCert: Threat of legal action to stifle Bugzilla discourse bugzilla.mozilla.org/show... · Posted by u/DanAtC

SpicyLemonZest · 10 months ago

Should've been more specific. You can ask a court to do all kinds of things, but the individual judge who reads your filing doesn't have to (and in most cases can't) carefully analyze your arguments that day. They need time to think it over, and probably hearings where you and the other party can explain all the arguments for why certain rulings should or shouldn't be made. A contract dispute like this, where one party says they have a right to do something and the other party says they don't, is almost always going to take longer than 1 or 5 or 30 days for a court to figure out.

Temporary restraining orders are the biggest exception. If DigiCert is about to do something crazy like take down all your websites, courts are generally willing to put a temporary stop to it without understanding all the details. "Preserve the status quo" and "prevent irreparable harm" are the buzzwords.

darkarmani · 10 months ago

> If DigiCert is about to do something crazy like take down all your websites, courts are generally willing to put a temporary stop to it without understanding all the details. "Preserve the status quo" and "prevent irreparable harm" are the buzzwords.

So if DigiCert's irreparable harm was great would that prevent it? Like legally requiring CAs to follow their revocation policies or pay millions in damages?

darkarmani commented on Mysterious New Jersey drone sightings prompt call for 'state of emergency' theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/anigbrowl

gradus_ad · a year ago

I live in NJ. I've seen these drones. They are not commercial airliners or helicopters. They are loud, fly low and slow, and make abrupt turns unlike any planes I've seen. Their lights are also very different from other aircraft.

I can see how it's tempting to chalk this up to hysteria, but they are absolutely large drones of some kind.

darkarmani · a year ago

That sounds like a legal height then.

darkarmani commented on Mysterious New Jersey drone sightings prompt call for 'state of emergency' theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/anigbrowl

ptero · a year ago

Neither FBI nor Pentagon have ability to fly drones in the US airspace at will. On the contrary, they, like everyone else, have to get FAA approvals and those always leak. And usually in fact published by the FAA who needs to warn pilots of potential threats -- one could go to the official FAA website and search those NOTAMs.

Ignoring FAA by the FBI or the military just doesn't happen, the price to pay is WAY too high.

NSA or spooks could theoretically be behind this, but why do it where it annoys people and attracts attention and not in some desert or foreign place? Something doesn't add up.

darkarmani · a year ago

They don't need approval for under 400 FT AGL in class G airspace.

The idiots reporting on it have NO idea how high these drones are. And the military has a bunch of carved airspace in various places. I think last time i looked (4 weeks ago), there was some reserved airspace off Cape Hatteras for the US Marines.

darkarmani commented on Mysterious New Jersey drone sightings prompt call for 'state of emergency' theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/anigbrowl

j_timberlake · a year ago

Quick summary after following this for a few days: FBI says they're rotary and fixed-wing drones, White House says they aren't foreign adversaries, Pentagon says they aren't USA military, all 3 insist that there's no indication of a real threat despite the drones being bigger and higher tech than retail drones.

Politicians are PO'd that something about this doesn't add up: How can anyone know these aren't a threat without knowing whose they are? Why isn't anyone bringing them down? Where do they land? Is this similar to the Chinese spy balloon?

I've seen a huge number of theories by now, and not one of them actually fits.

darkarmani · a year ago

> despite the drones being bigger and higher tech than retail drones.

How does anyone know how big these are? I've heard reports like this:

1. They looks larger than normal drones. 2. The look like they are operating at a height greater than 400 ft AGL.

How do they know the height? If they don't know the height, they certainly don't know the size. If it looks large, it isn't very high.

If it is large and high, I would think they would get some radar contacts.

If these are heavier than 55 pounds, I think we'd see the FAA jumping all over it. I also don't see why any LE would announce that they are actively figuring it out as they'd want to keep the element of surprise and track the drone back to the operators.

> Why isn't anyone bringing them down?

Only federal authorities can do anything to aircraft. This is in the realm of the FAA.

> How can anyone know these aren't a threat without knowing whose they are?

What kind of threat are we worried about here that wasn't around yesterday (last year)?

> White House says they aren't foreign adversaries I don't think the military is going to reveal its methods and capabilities.

darkarmani commented on The Onion buys Infowars nytimes.com/2024/11/14/bu... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

rs999gti · a year ago

> Lawfare?

Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech, NOTE: I did not say free speech. What he did is reprehensible but not enough that he is basically black balled from making a living. Penalties yes, loss of livelihood no.

darkarmani · a year ago

> Yes the court's judgment is so high, 1B USD, that he cannot make money without it being garnished. How does he get back to work? I personally do not think anyone should lose their livelihood over speech

He was harassing parents of dead children in order to personally enrich himself. Why do you think he shouldn't have to forgo his ill begotten gains? It's only 1B USD, because he refused to stop doing it. And then he decided not to really show up for court and accept the summary judgement of 1B USD.

Most of his penalty has nothing to do with speech. He can keep on speaking all he wants. He might suffer consequences, but he is free to say whatever he wants to.

darkarmani commented on The Onion buys Infowars nytimes.com/2024/11/14/bu... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

itsoktocry · a year ago

It could go either way? It might be close, or maybe not?

Imagine taking any of that seriously. Didn't they give Hillary an 80% chance?

darkarmani · a year ago

How could Hillary lose if she had an 80% chance? That seems impossible (if i'm bad at math)!