6 ms·

> Berulis found that on March 3 one of the DOGE accounts created an opaque, virtual environment known as a “container,” which can be used to build and run progr

> Berulis found that on March 3 one of the DOGE accounts created an opaque, virtual environment known as a “container,” which can be used to build and run programs or scripts without revealing its activities to the rest of the world. Berulis said the container caught his attention because he polled his colleagues and found none of them had ever used containers within the NLRB network. This feels funny to read, for some reasons.

honeybadger1 1y ago
it's written in a way to sound nefarious but is more an admission of technical ignorance
- qwertox 1y ago
  Not at all: it says DOGE appears to have created a container in a place where containers were never created by NLRB. Tell THAT to someone who doesn't know what Docker is, and it is less informative. Where's the technical ignorance?
  - Ukv 1y ago
    I think it sounds a bit off in the same way as "Linux, a computer program commonly used by hackers, was found on the suspect's machine" does, though not to that extent. It's not saying anything technically untrue, and emphasising the aspects it does arguably makes sense within the context of what the concept is being brought up for, but it comes across as an odd framing for people familiar with the concept in general (using containers for standardization/scaling/etc.)
    - idiotsecant 1y ago
      That's because the explanation isn't for you. It's for people who don't understand why a mysterious new container is an issue in a secure system.
    - delusional 1y ago
      It's only odd for people in the middle segment of "just smart enough to understand why you want containers, not experienced enough to understand how they work" We use them for standardization and scaling exactly because they are opaque. I personally believe the explanation shows a deep understanding of the technology, but also a good grasp of what matters politically.
    - John23832 1y ago
      If you installed linux in a network that didn't typically have linux machines, and then had no accountability to what was running on said machine... yes, that would be suspicious and of note.
      - Ukv 1y ago
        My point isn't that it couldn't be of note, but rather that - even when relevant - the phrasing makes for a strange-sounding definition to people already familiar with containers/Linux in a general context (and people who weren't familiar with containers/Linux might come away with that lopsided impression of them, even while having an accurate impression of how they were relevant to the article). I think it could potentially be improved with a more general/typical definition first ("Containers are self-contained environments that bundle all dependencies a piece of software needs to run and are commonly used to streamline deployment across different machines, but can also ...")
      - dzhiurgis 1y ago
        And this guys how you get $200 per hour consultant say "I'm on my 15th sprint, still trying to figure out how to transform a CSV using powershell. Maybe next week it will be done."
- lima 1y ago
  Editorialized by the reporter, not the original report.
- Maxious 1y ago
  From the email shown in the photo, it seems like DOGE was trying to build and run a docker container using Integuru (YC W24) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983409 to scrape the system
  - DrillShopper 1y ago
    I was wondering when Y Combinator affiliated companies were going to show up to help DOGE dismantle democracy, and it looks like we've found the first instance.
    - sumanthratna 1y ago
      DOGE cloned the Integuru repository (which is FOSS); there is no evidence to suggest that Integuru has intentionally and actively cooperated with DOGE
- footlose_3815 1y ago
  No it’s malicious They intentionally turned off logging. Only attackers and criminals do that.
  - nonrandomstring 1y ago
    This is a smoking gun. I'm a little shocked at how little MSM coverage this is getting and the moral gymnastics some commentators are performing to lend a veneer of innocence to this. It's an incident on par with 1950s Cambridge ring [0] and I cannot understand why an investigation team from the Pentagon are not all over this kicking-in doors and taking names? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
    - raverbashing 1y ago
      It's hilarious how the bastions of the free press were all over her emails but suddenly become almost mum at this Then of course they are surprised nobody takes them seriously anymore
      - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
        At this point I wonder if it's fear. They were able to cover the Clinton story because they knew no harm would come to them - the government wouldn't prosecute the press. But these stories, under this government, is the sort of thing where it could end up on the wrong side of an unchecked tyrant who is increasingly vocal about their desire to ignore due process. The media companies ate so well and grew so fat covering the rise of fascism they didn't think what would happen when it finally gained power.
        lazide 1y ago
        Of course it is. They’re all wondering who the first reporter is that is going to get disappeared to El Salvador.
        thedailymail 1y ago
- zo1 1y ago
  It's just docker containers. As a technical person I was confused reading that at least 3 times until I made the mental connection that it's docker containers. So yes you are right it's made to sound more opaque and nefarious than one would normally assume in our field. If they have a policy that says we can't run docker containers in network A or zone B then just say so but don't lie to make it sound like Russia Hackers. That's the kind of shit that makes fence sitters and reasonable people across the isle not trust your motives. Anywho, this whole "opaque" or "untrusted" code running in a VM is the same lingo that big corporates use to gatekeep newer technologies that bypass traditional processes. E.g. "oh sorry you can't test locally because you need to use our officially licensed and expensive Oracle DB instance. Oh and BTW, you can't use the free container image that Oracle provides free of charge. It's running 'untrusted' code in our network." and endless variations of that.
- computerthings 1y ago
  [dead]

honeybadger1 1y ago

it's written in a way to sound nefarious but is more an admission of technical ignorance

qwertox 1y ago
Not at all: it says DOGE appears to have created a container in a place where containers were never created by NLRB. Tell THAT to someone who doesn't know what Docker is, and it is less informative. Where's the technical ignorance?
- Ukv 1y ago
  I think it sounds a bit off in the same way as "Linux, a computer program commonly used by hackers, was found on the suspect's machine" does, though not to that extent. It's not saying anything technically untrue, and emphasising the aspects it does arguably makes sense within the context of what the concept is being brought up for, but it comes across as an odd framing for people familiar with the concept in general (using containers for standardization/scaling/etc.)
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    That's because the explanation isn't for you. It's for people who don't understand why a mysterious new container is an issue in a secure system.
  - delusional 1y ago
    It's only odd for people in the middle segment of "just smart enough to understand why you want containers, not experienced enough to understand how they work" We use them for standardization and scaling exactly because they are opaque. I personally believe the explanation shows a deep understanding of the technology, but also a good grasp of what matters politically.
  - John23832 1y ago
    If you installed linux in a network that didn't typically have linux machines, and then had no accountability to what was running on said machine... yes, that would be suspicious and of note.
    - Ukv 1y ago
      My point isn't that it couldn't be of note, but rather that - even when relevant - the phrasing makes for a strange-sounding definition to people already familiar with containers/Linux in a general context (and people who weren't familiar with containers/Linux might come away with that lopsided impression of them, even while having an accurate impression of how they were relevant to the article). I think it could potentially be improved with a more general/typical definition first ("Containers are self-contained environments that bundle all dependencies a piece of software needs to run and are commonly used to streamline deployment across different machines, but can also ...")
    - dzhiurgis 1y ago
      And this guys how you get $200 per hour consultant say "I'm on my 15th sprint, still trying to figure out how to transform a CSV using powershell. Maybe next week it will be done."
lima 1y ago
Editorialized by the reporter, not the original report.
Maxious 1y ago
From the email shown in the photo, it seems like DOGE was trying to build and run a docker container using Integuru (YC W24) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983409 to scrape the system
- DrillShopper 1y ago
  I was wondering when Y Combinator affiliated companies were going to show up to help DOGE dismantle democracy, and it looks like we've found the first instance.
  - sumanthratna 1y ago
    DOGE cloned the Integuru repository (which is FOSS); there is no evidence to suggest that Integuru has intentionally and actively cooperated with DOGE
footlose_3815 1y ago
No it’s malicious They intentionally turned off logging. Only attackers and criminals do that.
- nonrandomstring 1y ago
  This is a smoking gun. I'm a little shocked at how little MSM coverage this is getting and the moral gymnastics some commentators are performing to lend a veneer of innocence to this. It's an incident on par with 1950s Cambridge ring [0] and I cannot understand why an investigation team from the Pentagon are not all over this kicking-in doors and taking names? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
  - raverbashing 1y ago
    It's hilarious how the bastions of the free press were all over her emails but suddenly become almost mum at this Then of course they are surprised nobody takes them seriously anymore
    - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
      At this point I wonder if it's fear. They were able to cover the Clinton story because they knew no harm would come to them - the government wouldn't prosecute the press. But these stories, under this government, is the sort of thing where it could end up on the wrong side of an unchecked tyrant who is increasingly vocal about their desire to ignore due process. The media companies ate so well and grew so fat covering the rise of fascism they didn't think what would happen when it finally gained power.
      - lazide 1y ago
        Of course it is. They’re all wondering who the first reporter is that is going to get disappeared to El Salvador.
      - thedailymail 1y ago
zo1 1y ago
It's just docker containers. As a technical person I was confused reading that at least 3 times until I made the mental connection that it's docker containers. So yes you are right it's made to sound more opaque and nefarious than one would normally assume in our field. If they have a policy that says we can't run docker containers in network A or zone B then just say so but don't lie to make it sound like Russia Hackers. That's the kind of shit that makes fence sitters and reasonable people across the isle not trust your motives. Anywho, this whole "opaque" or "untrusted" code running in a VM is the same lingo that big corporates use to gatekeep newer technologies that bypass traditional processes. E.g. "oh sorry you can't test locally because you need to use our officially licensed and expensive Oracle DB instance. Oh and BTW, you can't use the free container image that Oracle provides free of charge. It's running 'untrusted' code in our network." and endless variations of that.
computerthings 1y ago
[dead]