Three middle-aged Dutch hackers slipped into Donald Trump's Twitter account days before 2016 US election Three “grumpy old hackers” in the Netherlands managed to access Donald Trump’s Twitter account in 2016 by extracting his password from the 2012 Linkedin hack. The pseudonymous, middle-aged chaps, named only as Edwin, Mattijs and Victor, told reporters they had lifted Trump’s particulars from a database that was being passed …
This post has been deleted by its author
I just tested with my email address and it does say when the breach was at least discovered. So if you're password was changed more recently then the latest email breach, you are probably safe.
I say Probably, because haveibeenpwned only know about the breaches that have been discovered after all... ;)
Funnily enough, my email address ended up in the breach for the game EVONY. I've never heard of the game, let alone played it so buggered if I know how that happened, but it just goes to show that your email will turn up everywhere on the internet, even in places you never would have expected...
I've been using haveibeenpwned for years (and donated to them) - it's a great source for honeypot email addresses too, discovering that the people selling these hacked databases are also stuffing them with fake email addresses. once someone's got your email address and password then they can create fake accounts for you everywhere to "demonstrate" that their database is valid...
and I got to an article in Dutch at the bottom of which it claims that the orange one's password is YOUREFIRED. We can only hope that that will become true in a few months time.
Given the democrats are currently telling Biden to repeat everything Trump said two months ago, whilst panic-publishing policies that are just Trump's law'n'ordah rhetoric with the serial numbers filed off, I suspect their internal polling shows a growing support for Trump that they didn't anticipate, and I further suspect that he will take home a win in November.
This post has been deleted by its author
Let's imagine two polling companies. One manipulates their poll results to get the answer they[1] want, one does not. People employ these companies and make decisions based on what their polls say. The decisions based on the manipulating company will be less right than those made by the other one. And since there is money resting on the decisions ('I need to move my business out of the UK if Corbyn wins: will he?') they rapidly stop commissioning polls from the company which is manipulating them, which dies.
In other words: stop spouting conspiracy theories, troll.
[1] Who, by the way is 'they'? Certainly not anyone who wants the polling company to make money: is it the deep state? The cabal? The libs? The illuminati? Me.
"They" are the political parties that commission polls, and the polling organisations themselves, who suffer from the same political biases as everyone else, and will structure their polls in a way that gives them the answers they want to present to the public. This isn't some conspiracy nonsense; it's entirely public and has been the subject of satirical commentary for as long as opinion polls were a thing.
You do understand that there are polls commissioned by people other than political parties, right? And you did understand my point that polling organisations with political bias will be weeded out by people who commission polls because they want the truth? And you realise, of course, that bookies (see root of the thread) who give the wrong odds will end up losing money? Oh, no, you didn't understand any of that. Never mind.
The Marist poll, supposedly independent, was run by a professor who worked at Marist College in Poughkeepsie. It kept skewing Democrat anyway. I figured out why when the local paper, the Poughkeepsie Journal, published an editorial by the professor. A died-in-the-wool Democrat, he was. So non-politicians skew polls the way they see things. Who'da thunk it?!? These days, I don't know what happened to the Marist poll. Guess the prof retired or something.
Hm. Anonymous commenter wants to spread FUD. I concede that polls can be unreliable (see Trump/Clinton 2016* and Brexit). However, as someone else pointed out, if the bookies get it wrong, they lose money: they have no reason to give a damn about anything else. As such, things seem to be looking up for once.
*Of course, by any normal definition, Trump actually lost in 2016.
PS – A very brief search would have led you to the Marist Poll website. Slightly more effort would have led you to at least one source that indicates it's notably less biased and more accurate than most other polls (scroll down to the table).
PPS – In fact, because I was interested, I dug a little deeper, and I was amused to find more recent figures indicating that Marist appears to be up there with the best of the bunch at the moment (try sorting by '538 Grade'), and actually has a slight Republican bias. I call bias on the part of the anonymous poster...
Popular vote rhetoric is meaningless The states elect the president. The people of those states choose who their state will vote for. This system was implemented to prevent the more populous states overriding the will and rights of the less populous and more rural.
The president is president of the union of the states, not president of the majority voting population. His role is to act as the executive of the federal union, in matters concerning the union as a whole, not the whims of the largest four or five states. The state governors and legislatures govern for their populations.
In fact it's 'yourefired' (lower case):
$ echo -n yourefired | openssl sha1
07b8938319c267dcdb501665220204bbde87bf1d
So the man who is now president of the USA had a single-case, all-natural-language password which he hadn't changed for four years for hist Twitter account, one which would be easy to guess if you knew his history. This would be hysterically funny if it was not so terrifying.
If he had chosen two random words (obviously 'battery staple' are not two such since we all know where they originated and anything smart will be trying them), then he would have made his password about 55 billion times harder to brute force (with the dictionary size on my machine), yes. At a billion hashes a second, that's the difference between 55 seconds to brute force it and 1,744 years.
The Linkedin leak in 2012 was well-publicised. Any competent organisation interested in security was certainly aware of it. His password is two English words: a brute-force dictionary attack on his password based on knowing the hash would take tens of seconds if you can compute a billion hashes a second, which is very achievable.
In other words the Russians were certainly in his Twitter account in 2016 and before as, probably, were any number of other state security organisations.
He has staff.
Some of them are even still not corrupt.
Don't imagine for a moment that he has the right launch codes, even if he knew where to find them.
In fact, given the American farce of an election, it's likely no president has ever been trusted with the real launch codes. Even when they were 000000.
Who would he need to hit If it's going to escalate into a full-blown nuke war? That would be the ones with return strike capabilities. Which are: Putin? Njet. Xi? Nope. Modi? Nah. Dictators, or would-be dictators that he's chummy with, aspiring to join them. Johnson and Morrison might be a little miffed but offer to hand back the remaining bits they can find of whatever has hit the UK and Orstraylia while assuring that this unfortunate incident won't damage their relationship. France might be the only nation with atomic strike capabilities that would actually mount a meaningful response.
I think your model of how such a thing might start is ... oversimplified. Much more likely is something like: Trump nukes Iran, someone (Russia?) nukes Israel in retaliation, US nukes Russia, Russia nukes US, game over. Or something involving North Korea.
I don't know if that escalation path is plausible, but something like that is much more likely than a direct US-Russia thing. That kind of thing (not involving nukes, obviously) is how WWI started.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
