Re:Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
by dang on Friday April 02, 2021 @04:07PM
(#26675395)
Please don't do flamewars on HN. I've warned the other commenter above but you've broken the site guidelines as well. Not cool.
Re:Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
by imwillofficial on Saturday April 03, 2021 @02:15AM
(#26678760)
Understood, I'll check my tone.
Re:Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
by bbarnett on Friday April 02, 2021 @09:00AM
(#26671066)
Btw, with respect to your 'show me the law', 'mandated' doesn't mean 'legislated'.
That very same IBM whitepaper you cited, claims the FCC mandated it. As in, pushed an interpretation of a regulation. Are you claiming the whitepaper is wrong?
The whitepaper which you used to validate your claims?
Or, are only the parts of it which you agree with correct?
Re:Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach “Catastrophic”
by imwillofficial on Friday April 02, 2021 @12:01PM
(#26672606)
As far as the white paper, I mixed up Cisco and IBM in my head on that.
As far as “mandated”, laws and policy mandating back door access have been shot down repeatedly in the real world.
The claim of an FCC mandate in a white paper does not indicate legality of deployment in the real world is what I mean.
The one linked in the tomshardware url, in your own post! The whitepaper by IBM, you even talk about in your post!
Years later, in 2010, an IBM security researcher showed
Apparently you're discussing how IBM showed this, without even reading them doing so?!
So now I've done more research into IBM'S whitepaper, which you summarize, than you?
Dude... wth?