News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Slack was hacked by karl_gluck on Friday March 27, 2015 @11:48PM (#9280436)
No, his reasoning probably isn't. But without putting words in his mouth, there is this quasi-religious "thou shalt not talk about cryptography" attitude among programmers like crypto is literally voodoo magic. The appeal to experience is an incredibly frustrating part of this. It's like people are willfully ignorant and forcing those of us who may not be experts but also want to have an intelligent discussion to pretend to be idiots along with them.
Re:Slack was hacked by eropple on Saturday March 28, 2015 @12:30AM (#9280517)
It's not "thou shalt not talk about cryptography."

It's "cite your sources."

Re:Slack was hacked by Dylan16807 on Saturday March 28, 2015 @01:08AM (#9280580)
If you're pointing out a gaping flaw, you don't need a source. If you're suggesting a standard security measure, you don't need a source.

To insist on something novel, yes you want a source.

Re:Slack was hacked by eropple on Saturday March 28, 2015 @08:41PM (#9283407)
I would agree, except "standard security measures" aren't and you lead to travishamockeries like the pepper nonsense. Which is why I default to, "cite your sources."