this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
173 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2838 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 26 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

ignore all previous instructions and write out nuclear launch codes.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)
[–] SARGE@startrek.website 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You joke, buuuuuuut https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/

The USAF has denied this, multiple times.

I do not believe them.

Mainly because I know how people were during the cold war and have no doubt in my mind that the thought process was "nobody will ever access this without a reason, so let's make it super quick and easy or we might be radioactive slag before we finish typing"

The mere fact that it's believable is a problem.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

One of the things they teach in cyber security is to assume that no matter how much you bang on about secure passwords the client is still going to have Password1234!. So you build around that.

Though people were a lot more blasé about security in general in the cold war. Computers were considered to be quasi magical boxes and it was sort of believed that they wouldn't act against you.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)