4 ms·
This has a clear benign use. Of course it sucks that you can also use it in a hostile manner - but the fact that this tool is publicly available rather than hid
by krageon 4y ago
This has a clear benign use. Of course it sucks that you can also use it in a hostile manner - but the fact that this tool is publicly available rather than hidden in the pocket of some unscrupulous blackhat means that every space that uses verification with these methods can now incorporate this type of testing. That's a net benefit for society.
I do think disclaimers like this are a little juvenile (it reeks of a US-ian litigation mentality), but you can easily imagine why they put it there. Perhaps instead of the author being less naive, you need to be more empathetic.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y agoMore generically, I think there's a big difference between releasing proof of concepts, and fully weaponized tools. While the latter is also usable by red teams, it also gives attackers (who often wouldn't have the resources to build the same) the weapons they need. Personally, I like when people release proof of concepts, and hate it when they release weaponized tools. Especially when I inevitably end up reading reports where APT groups are using those tools.
- ls15 4y agoIs a pen that contains ink a weaponized tool?
- Planktonne 4y agoThis is a tool with a clear benign use, along with a bunch of malign ones. If you create something with significant potential for harm, then you should at least think about that, the potential consequences, and possible mitigations. I wouldn't term it a failure of empathy to ask that people consider the impact of their actions on others. I totally get why they have the disclaimer, and I wouldn't ask them to remove it, but I don't think it's enough. Given the clear potential for harm here, the potential uses and misuses of this tool should have been addressed directly.