Despite significant criticism and a year-long controversy, Mozilla continues to promote and partner with OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Security expert Brian Krebs reiterates his concerns that OneRep's business model is inherently flawed and potentially harmful. He argues that OneRep benefits from the very data brokers it claims to fight, creating a conflict of interest. Further, he highlights the risk that OneRep, by collecting sensitive user data, could become a valuable target for hackers or even sell the data itself. Krebs questions Mozilla's continued endorsement of OneRep given these ongoing concerns and the lack of transparency around their partnership.
A KrebsOnSecurity post reveals that a teenager claiming to be part of Elon Musk's Dogecoin development team likely fabricated his credentials. The individual, who uses the online handle "DogeDesigner," boasted of contributing to Dogecoin Core and attending prestigious institutions. However, investigation showed his claimed university attendance was falsified and his "graduation" from "The Com" refers to a controversial online forum known for promoting illicit activities, including hacking and carding. This raises serious questions about the veracity of his Dogecoin involvement and highlights the potential for misrepresentation in the cryptocurrency space.
Hacker News commenters reacted with skepticism and humor to the KrebsOnSecurity article about a teenager involved with Dogecoin development claiming to have "graduated" from a hacking forum called "The Com." Many questioned the credibility of both the teenager and "The Com" itself, with some suggesting it's a relatively unknown or even fabricated entity. Several pointed out the irony of someone associated with Dogecoin, often treated as a joke currency, having such a dubious background. The overall sentiment leaned towards dismissing the story as insignificant, highlighting the often chaotic and unserious nature of the cryptocurrency world. Some users speculated that the individual might be embellishing their credentials.
A misconfigured DNS record for Mastercard went unnoticed for an estimated two to five years, routing traffic intended for a Mastercard authentication service to a server controlled by a third-party vendor. This misdirected traffic included sensitive authentication data, potentially impacting cardholders globally. While Mastercard claims no evidence of malicious activity or misuse of the data, the incident highlights the risk of silent failures in critical infrastructure and the importance of robust monitoring and validation. The misconfiguration involved an incorrect CNAME record, effectively masking the error and making it difficult to detect through standard monitoring practices. This situation persisted until a concerned individual noticed the discrepancy and alerted Mastercard.
HN commenters discuss the surprising longevity of Mastercard's DNS misconfiguration, with several expressing disbelief that such a basic error could persist undetected for so long, particularly within a major financial institution. Some speculate about the potential causes, including insufficient monitoring, complex internal DNS setups, and the possibility that the affected subdomain wasn't actively used or monitored. Others highlight the importance of robust monitoring and testing, suggesting that Mastercard's internal processes likely had gaps. The possibility of the subdomain being used for internal purposes and therefore less scrutinized is also raised. Some commenters criticize the article's author for lacking technical depth, while others defend the reporting, focusing on the broader issue of oversight within a critical financial infrastructure.
Summary of Comments ( 1 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43052262
Hacker News users discuss Mozilla's continued promotion of OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Several commenters express skepticism about OneRep's effectiveness and long-term value, suggesting it's a recurring cost for a problem that requires constant vigilance. Some propose alternative solutions like Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection or opting out of data broker sites individually, arguing these are more sustainable and potentially free. Others question Mozilla's motives for promoting a paid service, suggesting potential conflicts of interest or a decline in their commitment to user privacy. A few commenters defend OneRep, citing positive experiences or emphasizing the convenience it offers. The overall sentiment leans towards distrust of OneRep and disappointment in Mozilla's endorsement.
The Hacker News post titled "Nearly a Year Later, Mozilla Is Still Promoting OneRep" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters expressing concerns about Mozilla's continued partnership with OneRep, a data removal service.
Several commenters questioned the efficacy and trustworthiness of OneRep, citing personal experiences or skepticism about the service's business model. One user described OneRep as a "band-aid" solution that doesn't address the root causes of online data exposure. Another commenter expressed doubt about OneRep's ability to effectively remove data from the internet, suggesting that it might primarily focus on removing data from easily accessible sources while leaving more deeply embedded information untouched. A recurring theme in these critical comments is the suspicion that OneRep might be profiting from the ongoing problem of data proliferation rather than truly solving it.
Some users shared alternative strategies for managing online presence and protecting privacy, such as using privacy-focused search engines, opting out of data broker services, and exercising greater caution when sharing personal information online. These comments generally framed OneRep as an insufficient or potentially misleading solution compared to more proactive approaches.
At least one commenter pushed back against the negative sentiment, arguing that OneRep could be a valuable tool for individuals who lack the technical expertise or time to manage their online presence effectively. This comment suggested that while OneRep might not be a perfect solution, it can still serve a useful purpose for some users.
Another point of discussion centered around Mozilla's motivations for promoting OneRep. Some commenters speculated that Mozilla might be receiving financial compensation for the partnership, while others suggested that Mozilla might genuinely believe in the value of the service. This discussion highlighted the tension between Mozilla's non-profit status and its potential financial incentives.
Finally, a few commenters questioned the relevance of the original KrebsOnSecurity article, pointing out that Mozilla's promotion of OneRep was not a new development. This suggests that the Hacker News discussion was partly driven by a misunderstanding of the timeframe involved.