Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "The Lunduke Journal"
channel.
-
48
-
34
-
33
-
25
-
15
-
13
-
@ DOGE was just an existing agency, renamed.
Your citation of the Constitution is a misunderstanding. The President is embodied all Executive Authority. This includes Police powers. What DOGE is doing is an example of the Police powers and is only being used against the Executive branch, therefore Congress can have no say, as, effectively, it is something the President could do in person.
The section of the Constitution you're talking about is where the president wishes to create a department and needs money, Congress will need to appropriate and apportion the funds. There could be some limits set on the way a department operates, but those limits cannot supersede executive authority - the heads of executive agencies could not be appointed by Congress, for example.
Ultimately, the question is "is this something the President could do in person?" If the answer is yes, then the president can delegate someone to do it on his behalf. That is what he's done with DOGE.
13
-
9
-
7
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
The scandal is the blasé nature of the response.
People, in general, do not appreciate how attacks work. It's not about one vulnerability that unlocks everything, it's about chaining vulnerabilities - getting onto the network via some neglected, "unimportant" device, then leveraging that to gain further, deeper access.
Knowing that all you need to do is find any UNIX system on a network and you've got root access? It's pure gold.
Vulnerabilities will happen, yes, and we shouldn't be jumping off bridges everytime we find one... But there needs to be an appropriate response.
An unauthenticated, network-accessable RCE in software, is the security equivalent of a doctor killing a patient and should be treated as seriously.
If not, you're simply in the wrong business and things will never get any better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1