- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
They knew when to hold em. Knew when to fold 'em. Just not when to walk away and when to run.
You must log in or # to comment.
Why on earth would they have an exposed USB port on these things!?
Bizarre. But the article outlines a lot more vulnerabilities. Seems like every part of this device is poorly secured.
IOActive’s hacking technique exploited glaring security vulnerabilities they found in the shufflers, the researchers say: They bought their own Deckmates for testing from second-hand sellers, one of whom told them a password used for maintenance or repair. They found that this password and others they extracted from the Deckmates’ code were configured in the shuffler with no easy way to change them, suggesting they likely work on almost any Deckmate in the wild. They also found that the most powerful “root" password to control the shuffler—which, like all the Deckmate’s passwords, they declined to publicly reveal—was relatively weak.
This is just ridiculous / hilarious.
Maintenance.
A lot of these devices rely on security by obscurity and the fact that casinos have lots of cameras. Also, casinos expect any significant coordination between players and employees is caught eventually, because people are human and under film from multiple angles. Cheaters usually get greedy so they’re easy to spot, because they don’t know when to get out and some just can’t help bragging anyway.
A lot of casinos are publicly traded so they’re cheap as hell. The burden of dealing with cheap awful hardware/software is placed squarely on the employee’s shoulders. “Corporate” thinks it understands security but will always buy stuff like this without consulting anyone that knows what they’re doing.
This particular device isn’t something you’d be able to access easily, you’d have to be an employee or risk being spotted screwing around with the machine. Or have a vendor badge ;)
Why do people bother sharing paywalled articles?
Wasn’t paywalled for me. Wired allows a certain number of views per month so it’s not always obvious you’re posting something paywalled.
Either it’s not paywalled for them or it’s still good journalism and maybe journalists shouldn’t work for free.
No one implied they should work for free. In fact (according to rumors) there are several alternatives for writers to monitize their content without completely walling off the articles.
Do tell.
Google “how writers monitize their content on the internet” it should give you some good insights, as it’s not a very complicated topic.
Oh fascinating, the top response is working for a subscription-based publication that has editorial staff and pays them. The second is freelancing for a subscription-based publication by selling articles to them. Wow.
You’re clearly so skilled with reading, but maybe if you can count past two, you can see the alternatives I mentioned previously.
You mean the rumored several alternatives, that I asked you to elaborate on, and you told me to Google? Yes, clearly you listed specifics.
I’ll guess that if you bought a subscription to the website, you don’t see the paywall. So you might share it like anything else cool online, forgetting that this thing is paywalled and not everyone will be able to see it.
I use Bypass Paywalls Clean.
I do too and it works great. Unfortunately, I tend to be on my iPad in the evenings or early mornings, so I get stymied.
Use firefox browser desktop mode and click the reader mode icon next to the url. it pulls the article text out so you can still read it without the paywall
Reader mode is clutch for getting around paywalls. I’m just waiting for the day it suddenly stops working.
Unpaywalled article: At 12ft ladder
Hey thanks
archive link: https://archive.is/nDlA0
Is this what Roman Nagel had to rig up to save Livingston’s butt?
