"really all you need is basic admin knowledge of Entra ID"
> Yes, because any "basic user of Entra ID with basic knowledge of it" has found undocumented types of tokens, and stringed them with another Graph API vulnerability, to impersonate users...
Basic Entra ID users don't even know what an Entra ID token is exactly.
Having knowledge of the exploit itself does not seem to factor in to determining the complexity of the exploit. Rather, it appears to document the complexity of executing it against any given target, given that the exploit is known to the attacker (and someone else has done the hard work of finding it). See the 'A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control.' part in the documentation of 'high'.
In this exploit, there are hardly any conditions beyond the attacker's control which must be satisfied.
Interesting video and anlysis to learn how a gimbal camera tracks and records objects, but that doesn't really address any of the points as to what those objects (since there were several, observed first by radar operators before fighter jets were dispatched) may have been.
No, YOU can see that, but many cannot, including the radar operators in the first place, who scrambled fighter jets after they had already observed those objected doing crazy manoeuvres, like dropping 10,000 feet in 2 seconds and vice-versa.
Do you have a reliable source for this claim? I don't believe claims from pilots without corresponding evidence because I know a bunch of civilian and military pilots and many fall victim to the same logical fallacies, hearsay and poor memory that regular people do. Show me the data.
It's impossible to reach conclusions about the motion of the object solely by looking at the FLIR footage.
But that's irrelevant if you understand anything about the logistics here.
There are really only two possibilities here: either the object really was moving as claimed, or multiple retired military aviators are lying in unison.
As described by the aviators who've described things publicly (Fravor, Dietrich, Underwood, Slaight, Underwood), these encounters cannot possibly involve a gross misunderstanding about the motion of the object.
The UAP was initially spotted by the Princeton on radar. The fighters were initially 60 miles away from the object(s) and were directed on an intercept course by the Princeton, at which point they observed it via some combination of visual observation and/or FLIR. At this point we're talking about a minimum of four aviators (pilot+WSO aboard each fighter) and the radar operators on the Princeton and likely other ships as well. A second flight of at least one (but perhaps more likely two) F/A-18 were dispatched to later confirm. Brings the total to 6-8 aviators.
If the radar operators on the Princeton didn't have a precise understanding of the object's speed, location, and heading they would not have been able to direct the pilots to intercept the objects.
If the aviators had a gross misunderstanding of the UAP's motion they would have been out of visual and FLIR range found themselves quickly, so even an initial gross misunderstanding would have become quickly apparent.
The Alert Five aircraft does (the aircraft they scramble to intercept). It does get followed up by another aircraft a few minutes later, though.
> the F/A-18 is a two-seat aircraft so (if they are being truthful) that's a minimum of four pilots
It's has one or two seat versions. The second seat is not a pilot seat.
> In fact, I think radar is what allows the IR camera to follow the object's motion?
The camera can do it's own contrast based tracking or be slewed to follow another sensor such as radar, navigation data, or datalink from another aircraft.
Apologies, I edited for clarity so the wording from my post is all changed around. I probably managed to actually make it less clear as well. Been that kind of day.
> The Alert Five aircraft does (the aircraft they scramble to intercept).
> It does get followed up by another aircraft a few minutes later, though.
Thanks for the correction. It seems the initial encounter was with 2 aircraft diverted from the training exercise and the follow-up was indeed a single aircraft (during which the publically-available FLIR footage was recorded)
> It's has one or two seat versions. The second seat is not a pilot seat.
These were two-seaters. The WSO is also a pilot in common parlance (they have flight controls back there for emergencies) but not in Navy parlance (they are flight officers). I try to remember to use the more general term of "aviators" but sometimes I use it interchangeably with "pilot" which is not strictly correct.
Perhaps most relevantly, the WSO's training focuses even more on operating and comprehending the output of sensors (FLIR, radar, etc) than the pilot's training.
> The camera can do it's own contrast based tracking or be slewed
> to follow another sensor such as radar, navigation data, or
> datalink from another aircraft.
Yeah. So just to be clear, any "misconception" about the motion of the UAP(s) would involve misconceptions on the part of six aviators, one radar and its associated crew (the one on the Princeton) and possibly multiple additional radars (aboard the 3? Hornets that may or may not have been been directing the FLIR)
The most relevant thing, I think, is that there's no way the Princeton could have vectored the Hornets to a UAP ~60 miles away unless the Princeton's radar had an accurate reading of the UAP's speed and direction.
That's why (for that particular aspect of the story) it seems like there's no possible middle ground. They are not mistaken. They are either lying in a coordinated and consistent way (possible; it's the military) or they are telling the truth.
Mick West covers this issue. It was a illusion, as the stationary object appears to zoom past the confused pilot. In any case this is not a hellfire missle analysis.
If several fighter jet pilots, plus several radar operators on the ship, are all confused the same way looking at the same events, that's rather frightening.
debunked several times. The tic tac was four pilots with an illusion, chasing a paper bag or bird. Stationairy object. Its gimbal rotation. The camera is moving, the object is moving very slowly, the jet is moving very fast. Its a camera rotation test footage.
The puerto rico is two lanters from a wedding down the beach. Again the camera is moving jet speed fast while the objects are moving wind speed.
Brazil was just a drunk kid in the alley wit his body all twisted, there was never an alien
Lol yeah, the radar operators scrambled several fighter jets because they observed a paper bag floating, paper bags that went up and down 10,000 feets within seconds, and paper bags that the fighter jets couldn't follow to the end since the wind lift them up so quick.
And then (tic-tac), paper bag that went in and out of water without loss of speed or splash.
Thanks Sherlock.
Do you know of other western countries that send cops to your house because you posted memes on X ?
Saying that illegal migrants should be sent back home can literally land you at the police station. A hotel worker was arrested for testifying to what he saw in his hotels, ie. migrants being hosted, given a phone, meals, and NHS visit once every two weeks.
The application of that law has nothing to do with online safety. Soviet-style politics are very good at taking a law ("we need to protect children from suicide websites") to turn it into something completely different ("... so we need to censor footage of protesters outside of the Britannia hotel").
Yeah, like the APT that compromised O365 accounts from US gov entities a year or so ago, using residential proxies to go around Conditional Access Policies..., is now logging in straight from the Kremlin. :D
The alleged "Russian login attempts" were blocked by CAPs.
Russian state-sponsored actors have showned in the past that they use residential relay boxes to get around that.
If you read between the lines of the whistleblower claims, a lot of stuff doesn't add up. I especially like the conclusion that a deathnote was left on his door BEFORE he blew the whistle, and that a drone was hovering over his house.
* He could’ve gotten a death note because they suspected he might become a whistleblower, or simply because of what he knew.
* This death note could have been the final straw.
* Drones fly over my house all the time. If I witnessed what he did and received a death note, I may assign additional significance to it.
I see a lot more 'Reddit/Hackernews people think' generalization than the reverse. The folks you're describing mostly just share their opinions—they're not usually claiming to speak for or define everyone else, like you un-ironically seem to be doing here.
> They are free to support Hamas, just not in the US as students.
They absolutely are free to support Hamas (with words and assembly, not with financing). The 1st Amendment has no exemption for "except if it's pro-bad-guy" nor for "except if you're a student" nor for "except if you're not a US citizen."
> When you are welcomed at someone's house, you don't start going around by lecturing them on how to run their house.
We're not talking about a guest in a house. We're talking about a person in the US's jurisdiction. Our Constitution explicitly protects their right to do this.
The 1st Amendment's Free Speech protection is not limited to citizens, nor is the 5th Amendment's Due Process protection. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause makes that totally unambiguous: if you are within US jurisdiction, you have Constitutional rights.
But ok, then let's say they said or wrote wrong words. How do we know that actually happened? Trust ICE? How do we know they were on Visas? How do we know ICE didn't abduct the wrong people?
You haven't gotten around the problem of no due process.
They can try, but they shouldn't be surprised if the people welcoming them then change their mind and become upset. Sounds like basic stuff to me.
Again, you are free to speak your mind. Just, that, if I invited you to dinner at my home and you start criticizing everything I'll gently ask you to leave and go have dinner elsewhere.
How do you guys interpret the fact that the UK hasn't requested such backdoors for Android-based stuff ? Ie. is this an indication that they already have such thing ?
The UK "laws" are extremely evil when it comes to violating basic rights, they can essentially force companies to shut up, "gagging orders", etc...
> Yes, because any "basic user of Entra ID with basic knowledge of it" has found undocumented types of tokens, and stringed them with another Graph API vulnerability, to impersonate users...
Basic Entra ID users don't even know what an Entra ID token is exactly.
reply