NVIDIA has Allegedly Been Hacked, Internal Systems Compromised

[zlobby]

"Proper" malware is able to go undetected and obtain new packages. All you need is a mapping of the company and its structure and you work from there.

I like you, @Jism. You seem to have some understanding of it.

For the lesser informed here - once there is an APT in place, it's a matter of time and patience to get what you want.

 

[mechtech]

I like you, @Jism. You seem to have some understanding of it.

For the lesser informed here - once there is an APT in place, it's a matter of time and patience to get what you want.

My negative bank account?

 

[eidairaman1]

IDK, if only they were putting more effort on developing secure solutions instead of telemetry and ways to scam buyers?

More telemetry

 

[OC-Ghost]

Good news: nVidia network security&policy is so good, you need to copy a system to get access.
Bad news: Apparently part of nVidia doesn't or didn't force encryption on devices attached to corporate, beginner mistakes.

 

[zlobby]

My negative bank account?

You won't believe what an once empty bank account can do if it suddenly receives a large transfer of funds. Just like this, out of the blue.

Maybe the incoming money are linked to some very bad people, say terrorists or whatever, and then you need to explain it all. Only that you can't. Now you can only play someone else's game.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

once there is an APT in place, it's a matter of time and patience to get what you want

APT? Apartment? Already have one!

More telemetry

yea to track hackers better

 

[zlobby]

APT? Apartment? Already have one!

Advanced persitent threat. My bad.

 

[mechtech]

You won't believe what an once empty bank account can do if it suddenly receives a large transfer of funds. Just like this, out of the blue.

Maybe the incoming money are linked to some very bad people, say terrorists or whatever, and then you need to explain it all. Only that you can't. Now you can only play someone else's game.

Been there done that lol. Did a short stint overseas mining. Worked 12-hr shifts whole month and was paid monthly. I gave my banker heads up though and sure enough first paycheck there was questions but he took care of it. Actually happened twice. After wedding when deposited all the gifts got a call from bank. Told them was wedding gifts and then they were like hey would you like any help investing this? I said will be 0 once pay off the wedding lol

 

[zlobby]

Been there done that lol. Did a short stint overseas mining. Worked 12-hr shifts whole month and was paid monthly. I gave my banker heads up though and sure enough first paycheck there was questions but he took care of it. Actually happened twice. After wedding when deposited all the gifts got a call from bank. Told them was wedding gifts and then they were like hey would you like any help investing this? I said will be 0 once pay off the wedding lol

Ah, weddings! What a business it is! Only beaten by divorces...

And that's the things you can explain to IRS and banks. Imagine if Bin Laden's cousin wires you a couple hundred thousand $? Well, or at least FBI says the money are from his account.
Now, someone wiring you that much money from an alleged 'most wanted' guy definately means business. What do?

 

[Katie]

Told you not to use Windows 11. Telemetry, data collection, auto updates enforcement, DRM, local censorship solution, keep you clouded, Macism, homogeneous society, mandatry agreement, antivirus only kills keygens freeware, etc. etc. What's next? Another Golden Age of software?

 

[mechtech]

Ah, weddings! What a business it is! Only beaten by divorces...

And that's the things you can explain to IRS and banks. Imagine if Bin Laden's cousin wires you a couple hundred thousand $? Well, or at least FBI says the money are from his account.
Now, someone wiring you that much money from an alleged 'most wanted' guy definately means business. What do?

For me it would be the CRA (Canada revenue agency) Either way I would expect in a country such as the USA or Canada, the authorities would follow the rule of Law and do a thorough investigation. And then sieze the 'bad guys' money, unless wife spends it all first lol

 

[zlobby]

Told you not to use Windows 11. Telemetry, data collection, auto updates enforcement, DRM, local censorship solution, keep you clouded, Macism, homogeneous society, mandatry agreement, antivirus only kills keygens freeware, etc. etc. What's next? Another Golden Age of software?

It's the same with Win 10 as well. Win 7, once patched with everything gets similar amount of telemetry and the rest of M$' shite.

 

[Chomiq]

Maybe they tried to install the LHR unlocker?

 

[Valantar]

It's unthinkable that NVIDIA don't have a backup of the data that was taken from them.

Obviously they do. Data loss is hardly ever the problem with hacks like this, but rather the sharing of proprietary data is.

I just love reading ancient history and thinking about a lot of great thinkers back then. I'll never be rich, in fact, I doubt I will ever be able to ever buy a house. I find great pleasure in knowledge for knowledges' sake, and discovering how much we have lost in modernity to our baser instincts. On the same hand, you only need a lot of money if you have a lot of expenses and also... ones perception of reality. but I digress.

I mostly agree with your sentiments in this thread, though I would caution against putting too much value on nostalgia, ancient thinkers, and ideas that historical societies were somehow better - that is literally never the case. While our current world is deeply, deeply messed up, and IMO needs a radical reconfiguration on myriad levels, there have been no large scale historical societies that have managed to not be equally messed up in their own way. And this is reflected in the thinking of their philosophers as well - while I do think Western Enlightenment philosophy has caused massive damage across the world for the past few centuries, it's not like the quasi-fascism of Plato was ultimately much better. And while he's obviously an easy negative example, he's not an outlier. What we need is new thinking, not idealized rehashings of the ideas of slavers, conquerors, religious zealots or otherwise flawed thinkers. Personally I'd recommend looking into existentialist phenomenology (and ideally more recent developments, even if Husserl is also worth reading), but that's just me.

Nice to know somebody thinks like me on here.... My only question is this: can we REALLY look at the reality around us of the entire world and truly claim technology has a been a NET benefit for the individuals of our species? For the world as a whole? Technology and civilization can be likened to a factory farm, yes, the livestock in them are more plentiful then ever, but the quality of their life is abysmal.

For that question to be answerable, we need to clearly define "technology", which ... well, from the work I've done delving into philosophy of technology for the past few years isn't really possible without drawing arbitrary lines like Heidegger's (who, for the record, was a nazi) delineation between "modern" techology and older tools. Which essentially boils down to "something something more advanced something materials something grumble something I don't like it". Of course the current term 'technology' is a relatively recent invention (and at first used to mean something along the lines of the knowledge of how to perform an activity or use a set of tools in order to produce a specific outcome, rather than the current use where it typically designates a broad category of things), and is as many colloquial terms not really clearly definable. In the end, any object used for a purpose is a tool, whether naturally occurring or made in some way, and the line between 'tool' and colloquial 'technology' is essentially meaningless beyond indicating (a deeply problematic and ahistorical) idea of 'technology' being 'new'.

Of course, we can always discuss whether the human ability to use and make tools for ever more complex purposes is a net benefit, and I would mostly say no. Though I think you're framing the question wrong: whether or not it's a net benefit for the individuals of our species is myopic; the question is whether it's a net benefit to the world. And that's a pretty clear-cut no.

To the people who have "nostalgia" of a time when technology wasn't a thing, I would just say "what if" kind of debates are always going to be fruitless. "What if the Europeans didn't invade America, what if gunpowder was never invented...". Technologie reached the current point as a natural evolution of us trying make life easier. There wasn't really a time where life was "better in every way", the problems were just different. In the current state of the world, "plugging out the internet" would be disastrous, and not just for big companies.

Fruitless? Not at all. I also don't like the nostalgia that often dominates these discussions (that hews far too close to reactionary thinking, romanticizations and idealizations of non-existent pasts, and ultimately fascism to me). But the discussions are highly useful and necessary, as we need to be able to question and think critically about the fundamental systems of our world. Framing technology as a "natural evolution" is deeply problematic. It looks like that because of its large-scale randomness and arbitrariness, but framing technological development as natural or inevitable is deeply, deeply flawed revisionist thinking, and only works logically if you start from the present state and write your history in reverse, narrativizing the random successes that have led to the current state while ignoring the wildly branching nature of this development, the myriad false starts and failures, and how any reasonable definition of merit (the equivalent to biological 'fitness' in the "technology as natural evolution" metaphor) is entirely divorced from the facts of which technologies succeeded and which didn't. Technological development has been deeply bound up in societal rules, norms, practices, power dynamics and economic realities as long as anything resembling a society has existed, and while the overall development can never be claimed to be planned (too many shifts, failures and unplanned events throughout history for that), it is nonetheless entirely contingent on human society. Framing it as "natural" is a rhetorical device that only serves to obscure the sociohistorical specificities that underpin and make possible these developments.

 

[dyonoctis]

Obviously they do. Data loss is hardly ever the problem with hacks like this, but rather the sharing of proprietary data is.

I mostly agree with your sentiments in this thread, though I would caution against putting too much value on nostalgia, ancient thinkers, and ideas that historical societies were somehow better - that is literally never the case. While our current world is deeply, deeply messed up, and IMO needs a radical reconfiguration on myriad levels, there have been no large scale historical societies that have managed to not be equally messed up in their own way. And this is reflected in the thinking of their philosophers as well - while I do think Western Enlightenment philosophy has caused massive damage across the world for the past few centuries, it's not like the quasi-fascism of Plato was ultimately much better. And while he's obviously an easy negative example, he's not an outlier. What we need is new thinking, not idealized rehashings of the ideas of slavers, conquerors, religious zealots or otherwise flawed thinkers. Personally I'd recommend looking into existentialist phenomenology (and ideally more recent developments, even if Husserl is also worth reading), but that's just me.

For that question to be answerable, we need to clearly define "technology", which ... well, from the work I've done delving into philosophy of technology for the past few years isn't really possible without drawing arbitrary lines like Heidegger's (who, for the record, was a nazi) delineation between "modern" techology and older tools. Which essentially boils down to "something something more advanced something materials something grumble something I don't like it". Of course the current term 'technology' is a relatively recent invention (and at first used to mean something along the lines of the knowledge of how to perform an activity or use a set of tools in order to produce a specific outcome, rather than the current use where it typically designates a broad category of things), and is as many colloquial terms not really clearly definable. In the end, any object used for a purpose is a tool, whether naturally occurring or made in some way, and the line between 'tool' and colloquial 'technology' is essentially meaningless beyond indicating (a deeply problematic and ahistorical) idea of 'technology' being 'new'.

Of course, we can always discuss whether the human ability to use and make tools for ever more complex purposes is a net benefit, and I would mostly say no. Though I think you're framing the question wrong: whether or not it's a net benefit for the individuals of our species is myopic; the question is whether it's a net benefit to the world. And that's a pretty clear-cut no.

Fruitless? Not at all. I also don't like the nostalgia that often dominates these discussions (that hews far too close to reactionary thinking, romanticizations and idealizations of non-existent pasts, and ultimately fascism to me). But the discussions are highly useful and necessary, as we need to be able to question and think critically about the fundamental systems of our world. Framing technology as a "natural evolution" is deeply problematic. It looks like that because of its large-scale randomness and arbitrariness, but framing technological development as natural or inevitable is deeply, deeply flawed revisionist thinking, and only works logically if you start from the present state and write your history in reverse, narrativizing the random successes that have led to the current state while ignoring the wildly branching nature of this development, the myriad false starts and failures, and how any reasonable definition of merit (the equivalent to biological 'fitness' in the "technology as natural evolution" metaphor) is entirely divorced from the facts of which technologies succeeded and which didn't. Technological development has been deeply bound up in societal rules, norms, practices, power dynamics and economic realities as long as anything resembling a society has existed, and while the overall development can never be claimed to be planned (too many shifts, failures and unplanned events throughout history for that), it is nonetheless entirely contingent on human society. Framing it as "natural" is a rhetorical device that only serves to obscure the sociohistorical specificities that underpin and make possible these developments.

There's a fair amount of stuff that we are doing right now with technology that we've already tried to do before the concept of an electronic computer was even a thing. A lot of people tried to make speech synthesis before computers where even a thing, they made object that mimicked the way that our bodies works. Making an artificial life form that is capable of though was also a very old fantasy of ours. Automaton couldn't really think, but they gave the illusion that they could act like us in a limited way.

I do admit that a lot of stuff evolved because we got rid of religious belief that only God is allowed to make some things, but humanity as a whole always had that will to make tools to get further ahead. "Engineering" weither it's about making a pointy stick, a bow, or a centralised heating system has been a key component to our survival. Being smart is literally the only thing that we got for us.

I make a distinction between questioning how the world got to be like it is now, (I literally had to do that for my thesis on emotional recognition by an A.I, and the shit storm that it could start) and Trying to rework the past. I should have precised that, to be fair. "what if "scenario about the future are important, but when it's about the past it's an exercise that can be interesting to read, but can hardly make an impact on the now and future. Especially when in some case those exercise can look like a way to fantasize about a better outcome, instead of trying to deal with the current issues