General > General Technical Chat
Wanted: Source of fake USB flash drives
<< < (5/6) > >>
james_s:
I can't imagine how you'd get your amazon account banned for receiving fake goods, you're the victim not the perpetrator. If anyone other than the seller has any blame at all it's Amazon, listings like that ought to be flagged as suspicious automatically and investigated.
CatalinaWOW:
I actually purchased a couple of the "2TB" drives as a lark.  So far can't say what the capacity is because they are incredibly slow.  But they do seem to hold at least 400 Gbyte.  I don't have the knowledge to identify what is inside to know if there is any chance the capacity is real so I am not going to do a teardown.  They will probably just go into the trash as a you get what you pay for lesson.  The case is actually nice enough I might put a worthwhile drive into it.
wraper:

--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 16, 2020, 03:26:38 am ---I actually purchased a couple of the "2TB" drives as a lark.  So far can't say what the capacity is because they are incredibly slow.  But they do seem to hold at least 400 Gbyte.  I don't have the knowledge to identify what is inside to know if there is any chance the capacity is real so I am not going to do a teardown.  They will probably just go into the trash as a you get what you pay for lesson.  The case is actually nice enough I might put a worthwhile drive into it.

--- End quote ---
Define "hold". You can write files there and all will appear fine. The problem is reading them back. They usually will even read but will contain a few GB of data which you wrote last.
exe:

--- Quote from: wraper on March 15, 2020, 10:44:35 pm ---
--- Quote from: exe on March 15, 2020, 10:16:10 pm ---Just in case, the link is a typical deliberate misinformation from MS marketing department ("get the facts", etc).

--- End quote ---
Just in case provide any proof this report has anything to do with Microsoft.


--- Quote from: wraper on March 15, 2020, 10:44:35 pm ---Or methodology of how vulnerabilities were counted.

--- End quote ---

--- End quote ---

I read the original article, I might got it wrong, so my apologies. It's still leaves a lot of questions to me. Like, why they chose debian kernel, and not redhat or oracle? I believe because it was easier to make up numbers they wanted. And why they took all the history from 1999 (which was long ago and nothing to do with current state of the project)?

Here is my two cents how I'd do it. I wouldn't even compare two OS, I'd compare two deployments that do a similar thing (say, a file server or a webserver). All setups should be hardened, otherwise it simply doesn't make sense for production (containers, virtualization, etc). I'd also count only vulns that are relevant to me. This way it gives a much better idea of real security, not paper security based on vague metrics.
wraper:

--- Quote from: exe on March 16, 2020, 11:58:09 am ---And why they took all the history from 1999 (which was long ago and nothing to do with current state of the project)?

--- End quote ---
To show how things changed over time? What improves and what becomes patched crap impossible to maintain?

--- Quote ---Like, why they chose debian kernel
--- End quote ---
They compared multiple OS, including Red Hat and others. Debian just turned out to be the worst.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod