4 ms·

The repository has been deleted. In addition, 26 other repos have been removed from the account. This is in line with DOGE members' quick response scrubbing dat

by 0x_rs 1y ago

The repository has been deleted. In addition, 26 other repos have been removed from the account. This is in line with DOGE members' quick response scrubbing data whenever put into spotlight, as previously seen with another "teen hacker". [0] Archived repo page: https://archive.ph/LI7tt https://archive.ph/LI7tt; archived previous repo count: https://archive.ph/tgkg5 https://archive.ph/tgkg5 0. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/i-no-longer-hack-paypals-doge-staffers-hacker-past-raises-red-flags https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/i-no-longer-hack...

grandempire 1y ago
[flagged]
- LiquidSky 1y ago
  These are government employees, you don't get to do that.
  - spauldo 1y ago
    Government software can't be copywrited, but the government is under no compulsion to share it. That's what FOIA requests are for.
    - godelski 1y ago
      Actually, they are. It's really more a question of with who and of course don't apply to classified material. But the SHARE IT act really helps formalize what was already happening. Most code is shared and made public. It's paid for by the public. Though it's usually not easily searchable as it's distributed via different platforms, means, and may even require submitting a freedom of information request first. But in more cases than not, there is obligation to share when requested. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9566 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9566
      - spauldo 1y ago
        The "when requested" is the point I was making. FOIA is how you request such software. If you want a copy of the elisp libraries I wrote to automate creation of field devices on military fuel farm SCADA systems, you'll have to submit an FOIA request. Unless someone at the DoD decides to share it out of the goodness of their hearts, you have to ask for it.
        spauldo 1y ago
        I guess I should have been clearer - the "private repository" mentioned in that bill only has to be available for government employees, and even then only on request. Public repositories are an option, but the government doesn't have to choose that option. The main point is to encourage reuse within the government, not to be a source of free public domain software for the public.
        santoshalper 1y ago
        Almost everything the government makes IS public domain, including the software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...
        spauldo 1y ago
        Just because it's public domain doesn't mean they are obliged to make it available to the public. As noted above, they do have to make it available to other government agencies, but it's the government's choice to place it in a public repository. All public domain means is that if you happen to acquire a copy of it, you can do whatever you like with it.
        herewulf 1y ago
        Sounds fascinating! Other than the FOIA bit. Do you have a blog post or something with more detail about this work?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - grandempire 1y ago
    You have to keep git repos public as a government employee?
    - zeckalpha 1y ago
      Would be a good trial of the GPL.
      - grandempire 1y ago
        You only have to give GPL source to the people who you distribute software to. You can fork anything privately for yourself.
        whoknowsidont 1y ago
        [flagged]
        grandempire 1y ago
        Please fill me in.
        zeckalpha 1y ago
        Distribution has a pretty low bar. If your private fork is on GitHub, have you distributed it to GitHub?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > speculative articles like this... speculative articles like this But we know it isn't speculative based on these public data. You're arguing they should have covered up better. I agree. But that doesn't make (a) it okay or (b) this article speculative.
  - grandempire 1y ago
    > You're arguing they should have covered up better. No I’m arguing that they are under heavy scrutiny from the media - it’s very difficult to get any work done publicly in that environment. > this article speculative. Other comments have addressed the possible usage of this tool. The connection is dubious.
- amitrip 1y ago
  [dead]
progval 1y ago
Archived repository: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https://github.com/markoelez/async-ip-rotator https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory... You can download it as a Git repository from https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/swh:1:rev:e948d1b2baad2711c69bf0be860881f4718f1dce/raw/ https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/sw...
- jychang 1y ago
  Legally, they're allowed to modify and use GPL code internally without redistributing the source. The only mistake was publishing the source code to a public git repo without the LICENSE file, which may be a GPL violation. I say "may", because I'm not sure if you have internal code on a public git or FTP server, is that consider "distributing"?
  - 77pt77 1y ago
    > publishing the source code to a public git repo without the LICENSE file, which may be a GPL violation. Great. You can get a federal judge to sign on that. Maybe they can be ordered to facilitate some kid of resolution. I'm sure they are trembling as I write.

by 0x_rs 1y ago

grandempire 1y ago

[flagged]

LiquidSky 1y ago
These are government employees, you don't get to do that.
- spauldo 1y ago
  Government software can't be copywrited, but the government is under no compulsion to share it. That's what FOIA requests are for.
  - godelski 1y ago
    Actually, they are. It's really more a question of with who and of course don't apply to classified material. But the SHARE IT act really helps formalize what was already happening. Most code is shared and made public. It's paid for by the public. Though it's usually not easily searchable as it's distributed via different platforms, means, and may even require submitting a freedom of information request first. But in more cases than not, there is obligation to share when requested. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9566 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/9566
    - spauldo 1y ago
      The "when requested" is the point I was making. FOIA is how you request such software. If you want a copy of the elisp libraries I wrote to automate creation of field devices on military fuel farm SCADA systems, you'll have to submit an FOIA request. Unless someone at the DoD decides to share it out of the goodness of their hearts, you have to ask for it.
      - spauldo 1y ago
        I guess I should have been clearer - the "private repository" mentioned in that bill only has to be available for government employees, and even then only on request. Public repositories are an option, but the government doesn't have to choose that option. The main point is to encourage reuse within the government, not to be a source of free public domain software for the public.
        santoshalper 1y ago
        Almost everything the government makes IS public domain, including the software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...
        spauldo 1y ago
        Just because it's public domain doesn't mean they are obliged to make it available to the public. As noted above, they do have to make it available to other government agencies, but it's the government's choice to place it in a public repository. All public domain means is that if you happen to acquire a copy of it, you can do whatever you like with it.
      - herewulf 1y ago
        Sounds fascinating! Other than the FOIA bit. Do you have a blog post or something with more detail about this work?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- grandempire 1y ago
  You have to keep git repos public as a government employee?
  - zeckalpha 1y ago
    Would be a good trial of the GPL.
    - grandempire 1y ago
      You only have to give GPL source to the people who you distribute software to. You can fork anything privately for yourself.
      - whoknowsidont 1y ago
        [flagged]
        grandempire 1y ago
        Please fill me in.
      - zeckalpha 1y ago
        Distribution has a pretty low bar. If your private fork is on GitHub, have you distributed it to GitHub?
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> speculative articles like this... speculative articles like this But we know it isn't speculative based on these public data. You're arguing they should have covered up better. I agree. But that doesn't make (a) it okay or (b) this article speculative.
- grandempire 1y ago
  > You're arguing they should have covered up better. No I’m arguing that they are under heavy scrutiny from the media - it’s very difficult to get any work done publicly in that environment. > this article speculative. Other comments have addressed the possible usage of this tool. The connection is dubious.
amitrip 1y ago
[dead]

progval 1y ago

Archived repository: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory/?origin_url=https://github.com/markoelez/async-ip-rotator https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory... You can download it as a Git repository from https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/swh:1:rev:e948d1b2baad2711c69bf0be860881f4718f1dce/raw/ https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/sw...

jychang 1y ago
Legally, they're allowed to modify and use GPL code internally without redistributing the source. The only mistake was publishing the source code to a public git repo without the LICENSE file, which may be a GPL violation. I say "may", because I'm not sure if you have internal code on a public git or FTP server, is that consider "distributing"?
- 77pt77 1y ago
  > publishing the source code to a public git repo without the LICENSE file, which may be a GPL violation. Great. You can get a federal judge to sign on that. Maybe they can be ordered to facilitate some kid of resolution. I'm sure they are trembling as I write.