1. The idea that the NSA possesses such an inherent (and permanent) advantage vs. all others on planet earth that there could exist vulnerabilities / exploits that only it could exploit (and nobody else; American hubris at its finest possibly)
2. The idea that there are no 'double agents', 'spies' (etc.) that are embedded within the relevant intelligence agencies dealing with these secrets.
3. The failure to put a 'cap' or timestamped limit for when the vulnerability will be patched. For example, perhaps they find a vulnerability that they consider to be NOBUS in 2011, and decide to leave that exploit unpatched - when does it become patched? Surely, the NSA cannot have believed that they stumbled across exploits that nobody would ever be able to exploit at any point in time - either then or in the future, right?
4. The NSA has frequently made purchases of certain exploits on the 'grey market' from various vendors. To leave those exploits unpatched exhibits stupidity in its rawest form because, by virtue of the fact that there exists a 3rd-party vendor with the ability to find certain zero-day vulnerabilities in software (among other things), means that the assumption should be that there exists 3rd-parties (in general), with the capability to find the same bugs / exploits and leverage them by passing that information on to their respective intelligence unit(s).
This policy of 'NOBUS' has resulted in tens of millions of Americans becoming the victim of various data breaches, hacks, ransomware etc.
1. The idea that the NSA possesses such an inherent (and permanent) advantage vs. all others on planet earth that there could exist vulnerabilities / exploits that only it could exploit (and nobody else; American hubris at its finest possibly)
2. The idea that there are no 'double agents', 'spies' (etc.) that are embedded within the relevant intelligence agencies dealing with these secrets.
3. The failure to put a 'cap' or timestamped limit for when the vulnerability will be patched. For example, perhaps they find a vulnerability that they consider to be NOBUS in 2011, and decide to leave that exploit unpatched - when does it become patched? Surely, the NSA cannot have believed that they stumbled across exploits that nobody would ever be able to exploit at any point in time - either then or in the future, right?
4. The NSA has frequently made purchases of certain exploits on the 'grey market' from various vendors. To leave those exploits unpatched exhibits stupidity in its rawest form because, by virtue of the fact that there exists a 3rd-party vendor with the ability to find certain zero-day vulnerabilities in software (among other things), means that the assumption should be that there exists 3rd-parties (in general), with the capability to find the same bugs / exploits and leverage them by passing that information on to their respective intelligence unit(s).
This policy of 'NOBUS' has resulted in tens of millions of Americans becoming the victim of various data breaches, hacks, ransomware etc.
BY LibreCryptography
Warning: Undefined variable $i in /var/www/tg-me/post.php on line 283
Most people buy Bitcoin via exchanges, such as Coinbase. Exchanges allow you to buy, sell and hold cryptocurrency, and setting up an account is similar to opening a brokerage account—you’ll need to verify your identity and provide some kind of funding source, such as a bank account or debit card. Major exchanges include Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini. You can also buy Bitcoin at a broker like Robinhood. Regardless of where you buy your Bitcoin, you’ll need a digital wallet in which to store it. This might be what’s called a hot wallet or a cold wallet. A hot wallet (also called an online wallet) is stored by an exchange or a provider in the cloud. Providers of online wallets include Exodus, Electrum and Mycelium. A cold wallet (or mobile wallet) is an offline device used to store Bitcoin and is not connected to the Internet. Some mobile wallet options include Trezor and Ledger.
That strategy is the acquisition of a value-priced company by a growth company. Using the growth company's higher-priced stock for the acquisition can produce outsized revenue and earnings growth. Even better is the use of cash, particularly in a growth period when financial aggressiveness is accepted and even positively viewed.he key public rationale behind this strategy is synergy - the 1+1=3 view. In many cases, synergy does occur and is valuable. However, in other cases, particularly as the strategy gains popularity, it doesn't. Joining two different organizations, workforces and cultures is a challenge. Simply putting two separate organizations together necessarily creates disruptions and conflicts that can undermine both operations.
