4 ms·
It is curious to me why GCHQ didn't just contact GitHub to acquire github.com/gchq but instead decided to go with the long and cumbersome github.com/GovernmentC
by int_handler 11y ago
It is curious to me why GCHQ didn't just contact GitHub to acquire github.com/gchq but instead decided to go with the long and cumbersome github.com/GovernmentCommunicationsHeadquarters. Perhaps it is a British thing [1].
[1] https://www.addedbytes.com/blog/if-php-were-british/ https://www.addedbytes.com/blog/if-php-were-british/
- fishnchips 11y agoMaybe they tried but from my experience GitHub does not care one bit about cybersquatting. On the other hand I'm not James Bond so who knows ;)
- int_handler 11y agoGitHub explicitly has a Name Squatting Policy [1] that states: > Account names may not be inactively held for future use. GitHub account name squatting is prohibited. Inactive accounts may be renamed or removed by GitHub staff at their discretion. I have been able to acquire a couple of GitHub names that have been inactive for several years by contacting GitHub support, and they usually reply within a day or so. [1] https://help.github.com/articles/name-squatting-policy/ https://help.github.com/articles/name-squatting-policy/
- flurdy 11y agoThey probably have the skills to acquire it without contacting GitHub as well. But that may be bad PR...
- sangnoir 11y ago> They probably have the skills to acquire it without contacting GitHub as well. I'd say they definitely have the skills to acquire it, if QUANTUM {INSERT|DNS}[1] are still operational. As you said, it's probably not worth it. 1. http://blog.fox-it.com/2015/04/20/deep-dive-into-quantum-insert/ http://blog.fox-it.com/2015/04/20/deep-dive-into-quantum-ins...