dpkonofa

9 ms·

61.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Considering that the court already determined that Apple is owed the commission for the initial lead, it absolutely would survive a court challenge.
62.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That’s not really relevant. OP said they would deny any warranty work if there was even a drop of water on the outside. I’m proving that hyperbole isn’t true.
63.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
This is not true. I fully submerged my phone in a pool and took video underwater and they replaced it under warranty.
64.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
>even if a drop of water gets on the external case, they will refuse to honor the warranty This is both not true and so hyperbolic it's ridiculous. IP68 is only colloquially "waterproof" as none of the IP ratings have an i
65.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That's IP68 Water Resistance. That's not the same thing as Waterproof.
66.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
None of those things would trip the internal liquid sensors, though. That's the entire point. If the phone is actually up to spec (which, I have to assume it is), then any internal liquid damage would have to come from using the phone
67.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Yes but the triggers are inside the phone, not inside the port. This detection is only for liquid in the port so as to prevent corrosion and damage to the port itself.
68.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Are you a lawyer, by chance? Because this is the exact argument I keep making and the part that I really don't understand at all at the anti-Apple positions people take. If they were truly a monopoly, I'd be all for breaking it up
69.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
You probably won't answer this now since it's so much later but can you point out where I was snarky? I'm being absolutely serious here because I don't understand where I was snarky to where you jumped to "So maybe
70.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
The analogy does fit. You're just mischaracterizing it. To continue on with your example, that's not what happened with 23andMe. If you gave your son access to your checking account via some account info sharing feature and someon
71.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
For starters, I didn't downvote you and couldn't even if I wanted to since HN doesn't allow you to downvote replies to your own comments. For another, I got the threads confused and thought you were talking about the accounts
72.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
Yeah… you can’t protect users from themselves and, apparently, others.
73.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
I think you misunderstood my Tor reference. The person that exhilarated the data from the hacked site attempted to sell the data via Tor, not that Tor somehow leaked user’s data.
74.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
> We’re talking about raw DNA data here that is accessible No, we’re not. Have you ever used 23andMe before?
75.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
The current info that's been released seems to indicate that they used a botnet over the course of several months and had access to the "last known login location". So there wasn't any "smashing" happening and
76.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
This is the part you don't have right: >approximately all of which did nothing wrong They shared some of their data with the users who messed up. All of their info wasn't accessible. The only data that was accessible was the da
77.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It's not unfair. The data that was exfiltrated is data that was accessible to the users. If someone gives their routing number and checking number to a scammer, that is also considered "using the platform in any way other than int
78.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
I think you're being a bit dishonest with these replies. By any definition of the word "system", you're implying that they act in concert as a single unit. The entire point of a botnet is that none of the endpoints are i
79.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
I still don't understand how so many people can have that info public. Blows my mind...
80.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That's not what happened. The 7 million users didn't have their data stolen. The compromised accounts had access to data that those users opted-in to share with those accounts. Imagine that you have a bank account and you share
81.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That assumes that haveibeenpwnd knew about this leak which would only be possible if the leaked data was posted publicly. It doesn't seem to have been as the hacker was looking to sell the information.
82.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
How would you know they're compromised before you know they're compromised? According to the info I've read about this, the site and database that was breached was not published publicly but was sold privately on the dark web
83.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
You can't see just anyone's DNA. You have to opt-in to the program and share it with specific users, in nearly every case someone who is a distant relative that is tantamount to a stranger.
84.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
No, we're not playing a semantics game. The access wasn't "unauthorized" if the person that "hacked" it was using the person's right email and password. MFA was also available and the hacked accounts did n
85.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
A botnet is not a single system. It is a network of multiple compromised computers or devices, in all kinds of locations. Each piece of a botnet could be in a different country or even city. HIBP only knows about breaches that are made publ
86.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
That’s the problem. There wasn’t anything suspicious. From what I’ve read, the “hackers” used a botnet, aided with location/IP data from the leak. There would be nothing suspicious about a login with the correct email and password comi
87.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
I think you’re misunderstanding what happened in this situation. Nothing was stolen from 23andMe and no 23andMe accounts were “hacked into”. The “hack” happened on another site and the hacker got a database leak of usernames and passwords f
88.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
You won’t have to. They could have forced MFA and been done with it. That doesn’t make it their fault that they didn’t. It just means they could have done better and assumed that at least some users (read: most) are ignorant about best prac
89.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
You don’t know that they weren’t. HIBP is not omniscient. It doesn’t automatically get a list of leaked account info unless that info is published publically. Based on the current evidence I’ve seen so far, that’s not the case. It seems lik
90.
by dpkonofa 3y ago
How would they know which passwords were breached? The data leak was from a different site and not from 23andme . Additionally, current evidence suggests that the breach was not known on haveibeenpwned prior to it being used and the reus

More ›