3 ms·

A channel dedicated to creating point-and-click cracking tutorials for complete [expletives] gets banned (go figure.) People cry: waahhh, free speech, think of

A channel dedicated to creating point-and-click cracking tutorials for complete [expletives] gets banned (go figure.) People cry: waahhh, free speech, think of the [security researchers.] Sorry, but I fail to see how any of this relates to infosec. If it were really about security research then most of the content would be about theoretical topics like classes of vulnerabilities, how PoCs work, how to write basic shell code, links to assembly programming, and so on. But instead these geniuses give us gems like: how to run [this script] to break this [system version], a guide for tween dummies. They distill their knowledge and weaponise it for use by anyone, and that's not security through obscurity. That's knowingly building a loaded gun, showing people that its cool to fire it, handing it to children, and then saying: lol, don't use this okay, totally for research only! Yeah, sure. Anything for dat ad revenue, right? Face it, none of the people watching these videos are there for education. The only people this benefits are the script kiddies. InfoSec researchers sure as hell aren't using YouTube for their vuln disclosures and don't need to be spoon fed cooking recipes for doing pen tests or R & D.

macspoofing 7y ago
>People cry: waahhh, free speech, think of the [security researchers.] What do you think free speech means? Speech you like? And yes, think of not only groups you can think of like "security researches" (sic) but all those groups you can't think of. These policies are a dragnet. Yeah, they'll MAYBE catch some guys you think shouldn't be on there (and by the way, I'm pretty sure YouTube was banning those guys anyway), but they'll catch a hundreds times more. People who maybe doing peripherally related things, like educational content, or historical content, or satirical and comical content, or a mix of all those and infosec stuff, in all kinds of languages, etc., etc. etc. But you'll say "They can just appeal", and you know what, if Twitterverse makes a stink about something, maybe it'll work, but 99% of those will never appeal and that content will be lost. Or maybe they'll lose their appeal because what constitutes infringement will fall on the interpretation of some offshored minimum-wage worker (much respect to them), or capricious whims of executives who don't want bad publicity. >The only people this benefits are the script kiddies. You sure about that? Really? Really really? How about them reporters in censor-happy countries, I bet you they are script kiddies too because they aren't programmers. That's one example, but how about all those other groups you and I can't even think of because we're just not that aware of all the things that happen in the world. And how do you think you learn about infosec? I bet a non-trivial amount of InfoSec professionals started off as 'script kiddies'. In fact, I bet all the good ones were 'script kiddies' (pretty sure Snowden was a script kiddie). You know what the difference is between a vulnerability testing tool for use in securing your network vs probing another for nefarious penetration? Nothing. --- I fully get the motivation of these companies. They want safe content for advertisers, so YouTube will never be a free speech zone. What I don't get are cheerleaders, usually on the left now, who want these behemoths to keep adding more and more restrictions. Who want a corporate behemoth to act like their mommy and daddy and protected from things they are afraid of and do the same for others too.

macspoofing 7y ago

>People cry: waahhh, free speech, think of the [security researchers.] What do you think free speech means? Speech you like? And yes, think of not only groups you can think of like "security researches" (sic) but all those groups you can't think of. These policies are a dragnet. Yeah, they'll MAYBE catch some guys you think shouldn't be on there (and by the way, I'm pretty sure YouTube was banning those guys anyway), but they'll catch a hundreds times more. People who maybe doing peripherally related things, like educational content, or historical content, or satirical and comical content, or a mix of all those and infosec stuff, in all kinds of languages, etc., etc. etc. But you'll say "They can just appeal", and you know what, if Twitterverse makes a stink about something, maybe it'll work, but 99% of those will never appeal and that content will be lost. Or maybe they'll lose their appeal because what constitutes infringement will fall on the interpretation of some offshored minimum-wage worker (much respect to them), or capricious whims of executives who don't want bad publicity. >The only people this benefits are the script kiddies. You sure about that? Really? Really really? How about them reporters in censor-happy countries, I bet you they are script kiddies too because they aren't programmers. That's one example, but how about all those other groups you and I can't even think of because we're just not that aware of all the things that happen in the world. And how do you think you learn about infosec? I bet a non-trivial amount of InfoSec professionals started off as 'script kiddies'. In fact, I bet all the good ones were 'script kiddies' (pretty sure Snowden was a script kiddie). You know what the difference is between a vulnerability testing tool for use in securing your network vs probing another for nefarious penetration? Nothing. --- I fully get the motivation of these companies. They want safe content for advertisers, so YouTube will never be a free speech zone. What I don't get are cheerleaders, usually on the left now, who want these behemoths to keep adding more and more restrictions. Who want a corporate behemoth to act like their mommy and daddy and protected from things they are afraid of and do the same for others too.