921
Microsoft's GitHub bans security researcher who posted zero-day Windows exploits because company 'ruined their life' — expert claims action is vindictive and promises further retaliation (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 53 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I wonder if the dude happened to find an internally documented backdoor intended for use by government actors? Or most likely they just don’t wanna deal with it and the perceived fastest way to deal with it is to try and bury it. Both could be true, but I’m just speculating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Their april 15th blog post explicitly calls it a backdoor and mentions it was very well hidden. I'm interested to see what comes of this

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Whatever the last part of the link is it is getting caught in the content filter and being replaced with "removed".

    Can anyone actually share the actual end of the link without triggering the content filter?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Might be your instance. Try blog and spot and .com without spaces. The blog is also linked within OPs article

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    Interesting, I wonder why the choice to remove blog spot dot com specifically, this is actually the first time I have ever seen a "removed" from this instance, which is why I assumed at first it must be remote (also I had just woken up). Now that I'm more awake I realize, you're right, it must be my instance. Maybe I'll ask my admin sometime if there's a reason why they block that phrase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I was wondering that myself.
    I mean, a mechanism that allows you to get the malware scanner to place whatever software you want on a machine, give it system access and then execute it, feels like a prime suspect for "lawful source interception" bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I do feel like it's entirely possible it was a bug. I would imagine if they wanted to do a backdoor, they would require some form of key. There would need to be a form of revocation. If an employee, either for the government or Microsoft, went rogue then they could abuse that, or at the very least whistleblow and it would be easily verifiable for other entities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •