Anonymous ID: 4ec581 June 26, 2019, 9:43 a.m. No.6846548   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6674 >>6747

>>6846488

sewn = past tense of sew, as in to sew a garment

 

sown = past tense of sow, as in sowing and planting seeds

 

reap = to harvest a crop

 

You want to learn the difference or I'll gonna hazta post that cat again

Anonymous ID: 4ec581 June 26, 2019, 10:06 a.m. No.6846698   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6732

>>6846657

All they needed to do was design in and implement some reasonable form of cryptographic identification on the message sender. Like a TLS handshake to authenticate the sender.

But NOOOOO, that would have taken a little more thought and a little more bandwidth.

We download software from trusted sources because we trust cryptographic authentication protocols. They are not perfect and certain angles exploited by hackers exist (e.g. man-in-the-middle, brute-force attacks against weak keys, compromised certificate authorities, etc.) but they are a reasonable, prudent step and widely implemented in every kind of device and software system.

 

Same thing with the Domain Name System (DNS). Originally there was no authentication – the client device was supposed to simply trust that the DNS correctly mapped a domain name to an IP address and no consideration was even given to the possibility of spoofing or other attacks.

Anonymous ID: 4ec581 June 26, 2019, 10:10 a.m. No.6846717   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>6846692

I don't know, but the stylized human form is very common to all kinds of organizations that purport to be for children. Foundations & kindergartens & such. They're probably not all pedo, but

perhaps some are.

we did a graphics dig on it last year.

Anonymous ID: 4ec581 June 26, 2019, 10:18 a.m. No.6846762   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6829

>>6846732

Not exactly that.

An anon I know attended some of those early standards meetings and was involved in the development of RFCs (internet procol standards).

Most of the software engineers sent to the meetings by various companies and universities were just geeks trying to do what they perceived as necessary.

They were not sensitive to the possibility of threats because they were university grads, young, somewhat naive, and liberally indoctrinated via their education.

If university people, they were looking to score a paper or their name on a standard, to advance their career and get a grant funding further work.

If corporate people, they were looking to fulfill some goal on their personnel plan so their manager would give them a good personnel rating and they could look forward to a bonus, a raise, or possibly a promotion.

The system is set up with those kind of motivations, which are not sinister per se.

However the combined result of all the motivations is or can be quite sinister, in the way you point out.

But the individuals working on these kinds of projects, let's say 20 years ago, were less attuned to the possibility of threats that have become quite commonplace today.