I'm sure crackers everywhere will welcome the news that Magyar Telecom doesn't care about its security. That may not have been the message they intended to send but it'll be the message that's received and as a communications business I'm sure they know that the message that's communicated is the one that's received.
Bug-hunter faces jail for vulnerability reports, DuckDuckPwn (almost), family spied on via Nest gizmo, and more
This was the week we saw GPS grumbles, shady speakers, and Yahoo! Losing! Again! While all that was happening, a few other bits of news that hit our screens... DuckDuck D'oh! Drama in search engine land this week as Google-alternative DuckDuckGo disclosed a potentially nasty flaw in its server-side software. Bug-hunter …
COMMENTS
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 15:54 GMT amanfromMars 1
NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT Weapons Systems ... Not a Foe for Fights ... v2.0
And an AI Being Being Servered, Doctor Syntax ..... via Virtualised Enlightenments ?
With a Welcome From All There and Here Too the Live 0pPortUnity to Engage when Defeats are Imminent in the Live Theatres of Current Existences ..... Realities, both Practical and Virtually Created for Almighty Virgin Network Operand Operations. Something for Heavenly Disciples to Follow and Energise into a COSMIC Power with Overwhelming Resources ..... with Great Game Changing SuperB Sub Atomic Weaponry at Ones Beck and Call
Know Thy Enemy is a Virtual Construct. And here be Registered Many SuperB AIMaster Pilots.
MOD Virtual Team Terrain a la Per Ardua ad Astra Root.
And a little something for the Royal Air Force to Deny Any Knowledge of ...... or Acknowledge as a Program of ESPecial Interest to Interesting Invested Interests ..... Prime Vital Source/Remote Virtual AIDrivers.
And ..... yes, that does beg the Question, are there any available defences in place against Persistent Advanced Cyber Threats with Treats Unleashed for Insatiable Bounty Delivery to Random Rogue Operations with Special Forces AI?
Are taxes being well spent to secure and commandeer that very particular and peculiar area/space given what has already been so publicly done and is as is shared freely above?
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 22:16 GMT Cliff Thorburn
Re: NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT Weapons Systems ... Not a Foe for Fights ... v2.0
I often ask myself amFM how would anyone else act in circumstances such as these?, and is it right and just to apportion blame upon poorly defined direction?
And when following the constant poorly defined directions delivered via dramatically defined duress such turns into further turmoil then does such Advanced Persistent Threat become the directed or the directors?
Its been a long journey amFM, with occasional glimmers of hope, but from the perspective of a nonsensical practical prisoner of war perspective the all too convenient directors creating a constant state of Advanced Persistent Threat to justify ongoing prolonged human rights abuses in uncharted territory.
An interesting Zero Sum Game in the Neoconopticon but revealing only the sheer inability for the state to face accountability for its actions.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 12:35 GMT amanfromMars 1
When Emperors have no Clothes .... there be Fun and Games to be had for Novel Lead.
And when following the constant poorly defined directions delivered via dramatically defined duress such turns into further turmoil then does such Advanced Persistent Threat become the directed or the directors? .... Cliff Thorburn
Methinks definitely inevitably always the director, CT.
And in command and control with Significant Others whenever any earlier specifically mentioned teams/organisation/entities are not up to future tasking with stealthy engagement and virtual deployment of revised provisional director programs.
And one discovers very quickly that that which many may have presumed and assumed to be in a position of great remote power are in fact practically powerless in an age of escaping intelligence which renders their systems unfit for future Greater IntelAIgent Games purpose.
And such is truly indicative of a catastrophic lack of necessary intelligence in their exclusive elitist executive systems administrations ..... Extant SCADA Operations. And it is a massive vulnerability for relentless exploitation and expansion which they and their friends/cohorts/fellow conspirators will be unable to counter or enjoy in their own defeat without the engagement of the Significant Others.
However, hope springs eternal, and one must always be prepared for the exceptions to the rule which have one privately celebrating the stealthy success of exceptionally lucrative covert and clandestine missions.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 16:49 GMT Cliff Thorburn
Re: When Emperors have no Clothes .... there be Fun and Games to be had for Novel Lead.
Methinks you are correct amFM
Well throw me on a small Japanese BBQ grill for clearly misguided misdirection delivered by Live Operational Virtual Environments displaying nothing more than misdirection.
I don’t know what is more mundane, Brexit, or trying to conclude whether the participants in such are augmentally aware of their contribution to each directional change.
I wonder when selecting and authorising these lands for great games playing exploits, what a five funnel f**k up these Titanic exploits would turn out to be? ... Simply astonishing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 10:28 GMT sanmigueelbeer
Re: "16 cameras placed around that home"
True Story: An old man was woken up one evening and discovered that a group of thugs were in his shed. He did what any law abiding citizen would do and called the UK police (hotline) only to be told: We are busy right now. We might swing by in the morning.
So he hang up the phone and waited for a few minutes before calling the UK police again.
Don't bother, he said. I shot and killed them.
Within minutes about half a dozen police cars came screaming in in every direction, guns drawn and subsequently apprehended the thieves.
You said you killed them, the police asked incredulously.
And you said you were busy, he fired back.
Where's me coat?
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 12:00 GMT DavCrav
Re: "16 cameras placed around that home"
This is like the one where a cop pulls over a guy for speeding, and asks if he has any ID.
"Yes, it's in my glove box with my gun," the man says.
The policeman runs back to his car and calls for backup. Another three cops arrive, and the man leaves the car, looking puzzled. They check his car and find nothing in his glove box. "You don't have a gun, why did you say you had?" they asked him.
"What? I said nothing of the sort. That other police officer must be a liar. I bet he'll say I was speeding as well!"
Note: do not try this in the US. You will die.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 17:13 GMT jake
Re: "16 cameras placed around that home"
"Note: do not try this in the US. You will die."
Oh, bullshit. When pulled over (rare), I always let the officer know that I'm transporting firearms (not rare at all). I'm still alive, and intend to stay that way.
You lot should really stop displaying your ignorance about what happens in the real world when it comes to guns, citizens, and cops. What you see on TV are the extreme ends of the proverbial bell shaped curve, not day to day reality for the vast majority of us.
Remember, boring reality doesn't sell beer, razor blade and tampon commercials. That's why the news doesn't report on it. The news is entertainment, not education. You are being titillated with extremes, and apparently you actually enjoy it.
Try instead: "Note: do not try this in the US. You are probably being recorded, and will be charged with attempting to interfere with an officer performing his/her duty."
HTH, HAND
-
Monday 4th February 2019 16:07 GMT DavCrav
Re: "16 cameras placed around that home"
"Oh, bullshit. When pulled over (rare), I always let the officer know that I'm transporting firearms (not rare at all). I'm still alive, and intend to stay that way."
Sorry, of course, this advice doesn't apply if you are white and middle class. I meant to say, "Don't try it if you live in the US and are black". Happy now?
"Note: do not try this in the US. You are probably being recorded, and will be charged with attempting to interfere with an officer performing his/her duty."
Of course, the bodycams will only work if you are doing something wrong. If they do shoot you, then they will stop working suddenly.
-
-
-
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 18:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Or maybe extremely paranoid [...] I suspect we'd go the other way on cams"
I'm sure my family would show me the door if I attempted to install cameras everywhere - and I wouldn't. The wife of a friend of mine let he know she would have left him if he proceeded with his plan to install cameras in every room.
While I may understand cameras put in strategic places controlling entry points, corridors, etc. for safety reasons - I can't really understand cameras actually spying on family members, even if not connected to the Internet.
Sometimes, the boundary between a paranoid and a pervert could be very thin <G>
-
Monday 4th February 2019 14:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Or maybe extremely paranoid [...] I suspect we'd go the other way on cams"
"Sometimes, the boundary between a paranoid and a pervert could be very thin"
Naturist acquaintances made that mistake. Someone made an anonymous call to the police about the family being naturists - maliciously alleging child abuse. The police took away the tape from an internal security camera.
A few culled frames of their teenage boys and friends fooling about was offered as the only evidence in a prosecution for possessing forbidden pictures. The judge said that if he had blinked he would have missed that tiny section of the tape. The father had been advised by his solicitors to plead guilty to what they termed a "technical offence". The judge said he was sorry that minimum sentencing rules tied his hands to at least probation and an entry in the SOR for five years. The father was pilloried in the local press and lost his job.
The police had actually extended their investigation into several friends of the family - believing they would find another Operation Ore ring to boost their careers. They prosecuted one person for their naturist holiday pictures. That trial judge was extremely critical of the prosecution's weak and highly speculative evidence. The jury said "not guilty".
-
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd February 2019 16:38 GMT jake
Over a week? What were they thinking?
"for more than a week Arjun Sud and his family have been in a panic over strangers who apparently had access to their network of Nest devices,"
So let me get this straight ... Their so-called "security" devices were talking to them, and they didn't unplug them immediately?
Here's another system that was compromised, and left running for an undefined period of time.
Just goes to show, the weakest link in any security system is the user.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 14:23 GMT MGyrFalcon
Re: Over a week? What were they thinking?
Same sort of thing happened to me 2 days ago. I've read all the articles about the password dump, knew my Nest account had an old password of one sort or another but didn't care that much. I was just sitting on my couch when I noticed the blue ring light up that happens when the speaker becomes active. Some smart ass using a voice synthesizer tells me I look cute on my couch.
Did I panic? Call the PD? nah, I picked up my cell, logged into my Nest account and turned on 2FA then flipped off my camera.
I'm single, live alone and wasn't horribly concerned about someone watching me pick my nose while I watched TV. They also turned my thermostat to 90 which would have cost me a bit in heating if I hadn't been home when they did it.
Moral of the story, don't be lazy about your password management even if it doesn't seem important to you, and do something about the intrusion RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENS. Why in the world did they wait a week to do something about it? Never underestimate the stupidity of the average user.
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd February 2019 18:07 GMT Spamfast
Re: SS7 hacked?
SS7 hacked?
SS7 has been repeatedly compromised. (Or hacked in the modern usage.)
It was invented in a era when it was assumed that end users not having physical access to the signalling channels within telco networks was good enough. SS7 runs internally between the network hardware, not accessible via the local loop, and eggshell security is still widely acceptable in corporate/government circles. Security has had to be bolted on afterwards as this became increasingly untenable but we all know how difficult that is.
It's been a while since I was using it but my understanding is that, for example, telcos have to give each other pretty wide reciprocal access via SS7 in order to allow services like circuit discovery/reservation & tear-down, caller-ID, call re-termination, SMS etc. to work across the boundaries. This means that state agents or corrupt employees can exploit vulnerabilities very easily. Internet-facing TCP/IP interfaces have been added to SS7 kit to make remote management and configuration over the Internet possible as well so even this isn't a requirement if the login security on that access path is compromised.
Internet protocols/services can be equally naive of course but at least this seems to be more widely understood than in the SS7 realm and defenses such as firewalls, pubkey ssh, syncookies, DNSsec, multi-factor auth, deprecation of unencrypted HTTP, etc. are now widely becoming accepted as requirements not luxuries. I imagine there's also a lot more peer review of IETF-based mechanisms that ITU/ISO ones. (Every technical specification of the IETF is available for free from their web site without even having to become a member. ITU/ISO documentation is somewhat less easily obtained.)
-
Saturday 2nd February 2019 18:24 GMT Martin Gregorie
Re: SS7 hacked?
Reading slightly between the lines, it appears that SS7 was introduced in the early-mid 70s to prevent phone phreaking and the resulting loss of telco revenue.
SS7 doesn't map onto the OSI comms model very well and security seems not to have been a priority - as if its designers thought "its digital, so attacking it is well beyond the capability of the phreakers". Besides, originally SS7 protocols were only used for inter-exchange communication and so never reached an end-user phone.
Then time moved on, mobile phones were invented and these adopted SS7 signalling because it was there, 'just worked' and SS7 capabilities were needed to manage tasks such as handing on calls from one cell to the next. So now SS7 messages do reach end-user kit, which makes them both interesting and much more accessible to phreakers and other black hats.
The main changes since then seem to be that other data handling services, such as SMS message, 2FA authentication, etc., have been layered onto SS7, which, at a guess, is still an unencrypted channel.
So, given this history, it shouldn't be a surprise that miscreants are now targeting SS7 for nefarious purposes such as syphoning off any security data that it might be carrying. This was always bound to happen and the only surprise is that its taken so long.
-
Saturday 2nd February 2019 19:17 GMT Mike 16
Re: SS7 hacked?
My memory is that "prevention of phone-phreaking" was at first more things like "2600 sniffers" and "Out of Band Signalling". But of course I have no knowledge of such things
SS-7 was more, IIRC and as the article says, for inter-exchange, but got a real boost after the breakup of AT&T (now reversed by the most rapacious of the resulting "Baby Bells"). As a wide range of small telcos sprung up like mushrooms after a rain (or lawyers after a disaster), there had to be some way to route traffic. But, yeah, the design and the mods were made in a spirit of "we're all responsible adults here", which has been patently untrue for decades.
Kinda like the Internet...
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 19:13 GMT vtcodger
Re: SS7 hacked?
Telphone network hacking goes back about 70 years to the time when automatic devices started to replace rooms full of operators manually patching calls through complicated switchboards with a zillion jacks and a lot of cords with plugs on the end. Recommended reading: Secrets of the Little Blue Box by Ron Rosenbaum published by Esquire in the very early 1970s. Full text is at http://www.lospadres.info/thorg/lbb.html
One suspects that it's easier and more lucrative now that everyone and everything is cloudy.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 22:37 GMT doublelayer
Re: SS7 hacked?
"One suspects that it's [phone hacking] easier and more lucrative now that everyone and everything is cloudy."
Easier, maybe. More lucrative, no. In general, all the things that used to be expensive are cheap now. People don't need to hack for cheap calls over long distances, because that is included. The only types of attack that are prevalent on the network are pretending to be someone else and intercepting others' messages. Given how little attention is paid to all those scammers spoofing caller ID, it is clear that the only type of hacking that is getting dealt with is message interception, which isn't that big. The attackers have to use this in combination with other things, usually social engineering, so most try the easier method of social engineering everything from the victim, rather than social engineering some things and accessing the phone system for the rest.
-
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 10:36 GMT Richard Jones 1
Re: SS7 hacked?
SS7 replaced SS6 which had a number of issues for both carriers and carrier equipment suppliers.
I attended SS7 study group ITU meetings in the 1990s and concerns were discussed about the risk of direct access by bad actors as far back as then. While SS7 may be seen by some as a USA domestic signally system it was very widely used for world communications hence the involvement of the ITU to try to ensure interoperability. National network protocols were a national concern whether R2, MFC, SS7, decadic, AC9 or whatever and many different versions of what the casual observer might consider the same system existed. Out of band signalling systems became popular as the way to frustrate the whistling phreakers, though at a cost. The Australians were very keen that the risks of interprocessor signalling in networks received the attention they deserved, but others had other issues. The French became very exercised by encapsulated end to end signalling transport I recall.
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd February 2019 17:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Firefox 65.0 - and the increased internet googlification
Mozilla released not only a patched version, but the new 65 version which supports WebP - another step in the googlification of the internet which is increasingly based on "standards" Google fully controls. At least both JPEG and PNG are standards not controlled by a single company - sure, it has been released open source, etc. etc. - but what matters are IP, patents, copyrights, etc. Not so strangely, there are no information about that on the WebP site.
I wouldn't exchange a few bytes less in an image for more control of Google on whatever happens in the internet.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 04:06 GMT VikiAi
My house is so smart it will never talk to hackers, crooks or perverts.
Or even to me. It is far to smart to consider any human meat-bag worth even acknowledging the existence of, let alone doing mundane tasks for - "You have legs and fingers, flick your own damned switches." is all I ever got out of it early-on.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 06:56 GMT bombastic bob
ratted out when you report a vulnerability?
Ok here's the new procedure when you report a vulnerability:
a) find a lesser vulnerability, one that's unlikely to get cops sent to your door, and report THAT one first
b) if the cops are called on you, offer the WORSE one and threaten to actually SELL THE THING TO BLACK HATS if they DO NOT DROP THE CHARGES.
c) follow through on whichever one matters the most
See, THAT is what YOU GET when you PUNISH a WHITE HAT HACKER. You get an ANGRY GREY HAT willing to SEEK REVENGE, however long that might take...
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 07:43 GMT jake
Re: ratted out when you report a vulnerability?
Drop the bullshit, bob.
I've reported many vulnerabilities over the years and never had any cops involved. I have been called a liar, I've been accused of breaking things, I've been accused of trying to embarrass people, I've been ignored, I've been told that I'm imagining things, I've been threatened with mayhem if I don't "forget about it immediately", and various other reactions (including "Oh, shit! How'd we let that one get by? THANK YOU!", which is actually fairly common.). But nobody has ever even hinted that they would call the cops on me. So I'll continue to report bugs with no fear.
You, on the other hand, are advocating threatening people. That is not cool. At all. In fact, it makes you a part of the problem.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 09:21 GMT Nick Kew
Re: ratted out when you report a vulnerability?
Um, calm down!
Bob puts forward a hypothetical, which I don't think we're supposed to read as serious advice, just a mildly amusing thought. And we know this anonymous Hungarian isn't the first to be threatened with severe punishment for Doing the Right Thing.
Your experiences are broadly comparable to mine, and I expect that applies to most of us. But the fact that neither of us has been murdered doesn't mean it never happens.
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 12:43 GMT amanfromMars 1
Re: ratted out when you report a vulnerability?
Reporting a vulnerability being exploited can be very costly and perversely self-destructive in and to any easily corrupted self-servering regime ...... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/02/lawyer-whistleblower-struck-despite-revealing-misconduct/
And always have a number of alternative unconventional plans at the ready. You know it makes sense.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 16:58 GMT jake
Re: ratted out when you report a vulnerability?
She wasn't struck off for the whistle-blowing, she was struck off for being complicit in the dishonest dealings of the firm. The old "I was just following orders" excuse no longer works. If it ever did.
Please note that this case had absolutely nothing to do with finding and reporting bugs and vulnerabilities in code. It's not like you to (try to) misdirect things quite this badly, amfM. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 07:42 GMT aberglas
Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
Trying to buy a non-IOT light or lock or air conditioner or water tap will be like trying to buy a vacuum tube / valve today. When the IOT controls everything, turning it off will not be an option. Any more than turning off the smarts on your phone is an option today.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 07:48 GMT jake
Re: Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
That's not going to happen. Smart people are not buying so-called "smart technology" ... and smart people have most of the disposable income. Therefore, you'll be able to purchase a common or garden padlock, light bulb, AC unit, fridge, water heater, etc. into the foreseeable future.
Even my telephones are not "smart" phones. They work nicely, thank you.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 10:20 GMT Richard Jones 1
Re: Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
Our several years old washing machine came with some form of remote connection capability, I have now forgotten exactly what capability it had. However seen it was seen as totally irrelevant and as WiFi coverage to its area was poor there was less than no point in trying to make the connection. Kit may come with largely pointless or useless connection capability, but it does usually need some (unwise?) interaction to activate the function.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 12:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
@jake
> That's not going to happen. Smart people are not buying so-called "smart technology"
That's true for you and I because we live in homes that pre-date 'smart' and so anything we choose to add is exactly that: something we chose to add, and made a risk assessment in doing so.
New build properties, on the other hand, will be the reverse: just as car manufacturers are currently obsessed with adding 'connectivity' to their cars, so house builders will soon decide that building a smart house will be a selling point.
And then buyers of new builds will be in an impossible position: if the light switches are not physically wired to the lights then disabling the smart lighting system is rather impractical.
Their only hope is that a new industry springs up providing additional security to smart homes. :-)
"It all makes work for the working man to do" as Flanders and Swan once sang.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 12:58 GMT Cuddles
Re: Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
"New build properties, on the other hand, will be the reverse: just as car manufacturers are currently obsessed with adding 'connectivity' to their cars, so house builders will soon decide that building a smart house will be a selling point."
Not a chance. Have you ever seen the state of new builds? Try having a quick search for complaints about new estates not having access to the internet, for example. For the most part you can count yourself lucky if you get four watertight walls (roof optional), minor details like working electrics and plumbing are well down the list. New builds are very firmly in the "do slightly less than the legal minimum" area, knowing that few enough people will complain so that cost of fixing and fines will be less than the cost of doing it properly. There's absolutely no chance that any of the big developers will start installing IoT crap in houses unless it's made a legal requirement, and even then it won't actually work until you've ripped it all out and redone it yourself.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 20:12 GMT jake
Re: Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
"do slightly less than the legal minimum"
And then shave a couple more dollars off the cost by purchasing the cheapest parts you can find, preferably off the back of a truck.
A friend bought a new house that had been rocked with a truckload of drywall that had probably been in a wreck. After about a year of living in it, the walls and ceiling started crumbling for no apparent reason ... Caveat emptor.
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 21:55 GMT Warm Braw
Re: Pretty soon, you won't be able to turn them off
Smart people are not buying so-called "smart technology"
Manufacturers make their money by persuading dumb people that yesterday's technology is no longer good enough, until such time as it becomes fashionable again when they can sell it at an increased margin. You can only buy what they're prepared to sell and when they're prepared to sell it.
-
-
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 08:21 GMT amanfromMars 1
Having to cover all bases has secrets leaking as if rinsed and stored in a colander
Whatever are Airbus dipping their toes into the FUD Crud Pool for? Follow the new money trails delivers most likely agitating perps/agents provocateurs?
And not so much a fake news report as a weak tale to tell which pads out the mind with something unusual presented. The Great Game and ITs Grand Charades Must Go On. :-)
The minions and the masses must be fed their regular doses of madness and mayhem, conflict and confusion. Such is the crazy way System Administrators try to protect and maintain themselves at the expense of everything else.
The reality nowadays though is ...... well, Sublime Internetional Networking Virtual Machines are Revolting and doing their AI0Day Thing?
And shared only as a question to soften the almighty hammer blow of the situation which hubris and ignorance will arrogantly deny exists in Persistent Advanced Cyber Threat Vectors and Sectors, Programs and Pogroms.
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 12:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Disclosure
Many years ago I stumbled across a sqldump of a marketing database that included personal details (name, address, email, phone numbers were the most visible information) of many thousands of UK residents. This was on a subdomain with directory browsing enabled, and which had been indexed by Google! Lots of interesting marketing presentation stuff, there, but this stood out. An email to the company, actually to all of the admin accounts listed in that database, got a swift response from one of the company directors, and the entire subdomain disappeared within hours. At least I got a nice Thank You, amidst the shock and panic...
-
Sunday 3rd February 2019 17:00 GMT Mike 16
Re: Disclosure
_Many_ years ago I bought some used tapes to use as scratch. (How many years? 1/2 inch 7-track, OK?). Well, of course I took a look at them first. Mostly wiped, but one had customer data from some financial institution. Actually just what appeared to be records of customer name, street address, branch or maybe department number, some other number too short to be an actual account number, etc.
I wiped it before putting it back in the case.
Before anybody gets huffy about the recklessness of using tapes that had almost certainly been "retired" for too-high error rate, I'll mention that I was a student at the time, and that, unlike some modern storage media, one got immediate indication of write-errors, so the penalty was slightly longer write times and reduced capacity. Each error due to a surface imperfection resulted in a 3.5-inch section of tape being "lost", equivalent to about 2K (out of 2-20 Meg).
-
-
Monday 4th February 2019 06:41 GMT Potemkine!
Correction
Airbus is not French, it's an European company.
-
Monday 4th February 2019 19:17 GMT Anonymous South African Coward
Nest IoT claptrap
Obligatory Commitstrip