2 ms·

> forcing them to pack up and move shop to GitLab instead. https://gitlab.com/nightmare-eclipse https://gitlab.com/nightmare-eclipse Blocked user @nightmare-e

> forcing them to pack up and move shop to GitLab instead. https://gitlab.com/nightmare-eclipse https://gitlab.com/nightmare-eclipse Blocked user @nightmare-eclipse Looks like they’re banned on GitLab as as well?

parliament32 5mo ago
I suspect MS threatened them with a SmartScreen blackhole for the domain, I'm not surprised they pulled it.
- josephg 5mo ago
  I don’t like the idea Microsoft can bully other websites into blocking content they don’t like.
  - akerl_ 5mo ago
    Do we have any evidence they did that other than the comment you replied to speculating?
    - keepupnow 5mo ago
      Yes they definitely did that. Find evidence to the contrary.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
      - no-name-here 5mo ago
        Is this sarcasm? Or are you saying that the onus of providing proof is not on the those making the claim, but instead that the onus of proof is on those who did not make the claim?
        snvzz 5mo ago
        Sure you can provide an alternative explanation? Otherwise, that's the best we have.
        no-name-here 5mo ago
        > Sure you can provide an alternative explanation? In terms of a possible explanation for why GitLab would take an action, was it considered whether the (disturbed?) user violated GitLab's Terms of Service? Is the assumption that GitLab didn't just enforce their ToS, but that they're instead more likely to be secretly acquiescing to backroom bullying between companies over specific users?
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        It seems clear that the Bitbucket devs paid bribes to Gitlab to ban this user to drum up anti-GitHub sentiment.
        baobabKoodaa 5mo ago
        You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to draw that conclusion.
Aurornis 5mo ago
Are there any copies of what he supposedly posted? I have a hard time believing someone posted groundbreaking exploits to two separate Git websites and not a single person cloned them. I also think it’s funny that people are alleging .gov conspiracies that end in a publicly hosted “blocked user” page instead of just 404-ing or something.
- jwitthuhn 5mo ago
  Forks are still alive on github, so it seems unlikely microsoft did this to suppress the code. Unless they are wildly incompetent, which I don't want to outright reject as a possibility. https://github.com/xiaoji235/bitlocker-bypass-tool-for-winre https://github.com/xiaoji235/bitlocker-bypass-tool-for-winre Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to see a list of all the forks now that the main repo is dead, but you can search the phrase "A huge thanks to MORSE, MSTIC and Microsoft GHOST for making this public disclosure possible" to find more copies.

parliament32 5mo ago

I suspect MS threatened them with a SmartScreen blackhole for the domain, I'm not surprised they pulled it.

josephg 5mo ago
I don’t like the idea Microsoft can bully other websites into blocking content they don’t like.
- akerl_ 5mo ago
  Do we have any evidence they did that other than the comment you replied to speculating?
  - keepupnow 5mo ago
    Yes they definitely did that. Find evidence to the contrary.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - no-name-here 5mo ago
      Is this sarcasm? Or are you saying that the onus of providing proof is not on the those making the claim, but instead that the onus of proof is on those who did not make the claim?
      - snvzz 5mo ago
        Sure you can provide an alternative explanation? Otherwise, that's the best we have.
        no-name-here 5mo ago
        > Sure you can provide an alternative explanation? In terms of a possible explanation for why GitLab would take an action, was it considered whether the (disturbed?) user violated GitLab's Terms of Service? Is the assumption that GitLab didn't just enforce their ToS, but that they're instead more likely to be secretly acquiescing to backroom bullying between companies over specific users?
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        It seems clear that the Bitbucket devs paid bribes to Gitlab to ban this user to drum up anti-GitHub sentiment.
      - baobabKoodaa 5mo ago
        You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to draw that conclusion.

Aurornis 5mo ago

Are there any copies of what he supposedly posted? I have a hard time believing someone posted groundbreaking exploits to two separate Git websites and not a single person cloned them. I also think it’s funny that people are alleging .gov conspiracies that end in a publicly hosted “blocked user” page instead of just 404-ing or something.

jwitthuhn 5mo ago
Forks are still alive on github, so it seems unlikely microsoft did this to suppress the code. Unless they are wildly incompetent, which I don't want to outright reject as a possibility. https://github.com/xiaoji235/bitlocker-bypass-tool-for-winre https://github.com/xiaoji235/bitlocker-bypass-tool-for-winre Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to see a list of all the forks now that the main repo is dead, but you can search the phrase "A huge thanks to MORSE, MSTIC and Microsoft GHOST for making this public disclosure possible" to find more copies.