cyberphobe

10 ms·

61.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Yes, this is a supply chain attack. That’s how Snap works. As far as I know, no one is alleging they actually changed anything, just that they could.
62.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Signal has historically taken issue with 3rd parties distributing binaries and calling them Signal (understandably so). Most prominently with another serial trademark violator, F-Droid
63.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Then complain about that. Honestly given the existing set of miscommunications about what happened, I’m not sure it is an actual DMCA request
64.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Moxie is no longer involved in Signal. Blaming him for things Signal does now is pretty free of fact
65.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Yup, also can’t really prove it came from the same source code.
66.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
What is GNU IceCat (formerly IceWeasel) then?
67.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Signal never gave canonical permission to distribute a binary called Signal. Canonical just went ahead and did it anyway. How is this Signal’s fault?
68.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Wasn’t their own program. They have a binary they distribute, this was some other binary calling itself Signal without their approval.
69.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
The anti-signal crowd loves to blame moxie for everything. Just part of their overall commitment to being fact-free
70.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Signal offers an official deb. The correct behavior would have been for third parties to not distribute trademark-infringing binaries and call them Signal
71.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
AGPLv3 does not somehow permit trademark violations. Signal has taken issue with third parties building binaries and calling them Signal, and I can’t really blame them. This is the same reason Signal isn’t in F-Droid
72.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
I'm sure are artificially intelligent friends give precisely zero fucks what you do and will steal your shit with impunity. If you do crime on a large enough scale, it's called innovation.
73.
by cyberphobe 4y ago
Why is it asking me to sign into my Google account?