One of the first things mentioned on that page is:
> To protect our intellectual property, certain features – such as fan impeller geometries – have been slightly modified while remaining visually very close to the actual product.
So you do have to 3d scan them yourself if you're trying to print a copy.
My guess, the article itself is clearly AI authored and there are a fair number of us who don't particularly like the writing style. Further, it implies something about the original human's own valuation of this work - if they decided to let the machine handle it, why should I spend my own time reading what they didn't bother to write?
I don't like AI slop either, but we're both non-natives, so we did a run of AI after initial draft for the reader's comfort. We'll try to improve on the style
I think it's more prosaic, OSS is great for building a userbase but not great at generating revenue. So just wave the OSS flag while you build a userbase, then pull out whichever flimsy excuse seems workable at the time when you want to start step two of your enshittification plan.
The site has been on life support for a decade, ownership has changed hands a few times, basic features promised 10 years ago never shipped, API is half implemented (eg. you can download an order but you cannot mark it shipped), and they still have no mechanism to collect state sales tax nor will they submit a 1090 as required by US tax law. I jumped ship 5 years ago when this became too much of a problem and not a single thing has changed in those 5 years.
Tindie was a great place for a hacker to sell a few widgets back in the day, but legal requirements have changed since then but Tindie has not changed a line of code in at least 10 years.
The key difference is that "swarms of inexpensive drones" can be made in "swarms of normal looking residential garages". The entire enterprise can be decentralized making it much tougher to target with strategic weapons.
I can't seem to find any system files replaced, and the .exe was never executed. I'm running this in a test VM, but from what I can see, Defender signatures have been updated to block this prior to execution.
The exploit, from my reading, needs to be executed in order to do it's thing, but Defender isn't allowing it to be written to the filesystem on download.
What is Defender marking it as? I also wonder if they are just special casing this program and it would work again if the code was shuffled a bit or if it used the AMSI sig [0] instead of EICAR or if they actually fixed the problem.
reply