Re^2: We got hacked again.

by BrowserUk (Pope)

on Nov 20, 2012 at 11:39 UTC ( #1004695=note: print w/ replies, xml )

Need Help??

You're right about the font.

But the point about authentication stands.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^2: We got hacked again.
Re^3: We got hacked again. by ColonelPanic (Friar) on Nov 20, 2012 at 13:34 UTC
Except that this is not a failure of authentication. When's the last time you used duct tape on a duct? --Larry Wall	[reply]
Re^3: We got hacked again. by mbethke (Hermit) on Nov 21, 2012 at 15:17 UTC
How would you like people to be authenticated? Like have someone check copies of ID cards whether they say "BrowserUK" before admitting someone? Run soundex or "graphex" on user names before allowing them? Not admitting users unless they can prove ownership of a like-named account on another forum with at least $n posts? Can't be "authenticating" as in "checking that the user is actually the owner of the account she's trying to use" as there's nothing wrong with how that's implemented as far as I can see.	[reply]

Node Status^?

node history
Node Type: note [id://1004695]
help

Chatterbox^?

How do I use this? | Other CB clients

Other Users^?

Others chanting in the Monastery: (8)

As of 2013-05-25 17:05 GMT

Sections^?

Information^?

Find Nodes^?

Leftovers^?

Voting Booth^?