4 ms·
23 years of experience + Existing codebase demonstrating care for matter such as filtering input == experienced. Certainly not clueless. I said absolutely noth
by eternalban 6y ago
23 years of experience + Existing codebase demonstrating care for matter such as filtering input == experienced. Certainly not clueless.
I said absolutely nothing about a honey pot. Review my posts. Occam's razor strongly suggests to not make un-necessary assumptions. My post challenges your assertion of incompetence. You need to remove that assumption from your analysis.
- rsynnott 6y agoThe thread was about the claim that it _must_ be a honeypot because it's so incompetent. What's your theory for how this happened, if neither incompetence nor deliberate?
- eternalban 6y agoWell, take that up with the GP. > What's your theory for how this happened, if neither incompetence nor deliberate? Honestly no theories, just rubber necking here :) but since you ask, here is what my shaving session with Occam brings up: - cognitive impairment (alcohol, various fun chemicals) - emotional agitation (relationship, personal matter, etc) - rushed for time (silly mistake) - arrogance ("I can do C++, Scala, JS, and PhP. This Ruby stuff will be cake, and I do not need to ask my team why they had those 'funny' filters on top of the function") - malicious coding ("Sure, I'll help you scale it. I hate SV too. I hate it so much I spent 7 years at FB.") So re. that last possibility, I also do not agree with your GP that this indicates that that platform was a honeypot. This specific event can be construed as placing a backdoor in their code.