Hacker News
I Inspected My Take-Home Interview Project. It Was a Whole Operation
wxw
|next
[-]
Seems like this is becoming a recurring theme, similar story was on the front page last month.
guessmyname
|root
|parent
[-]
Silently only because @OP is not running Little Snitch (or the equivalent on Windows/Linux).
I’m in the habit of running `tree -a` or the more modern `erd --hidden` but in this case I wouldn’t have needed to, and I wouldn’t have had to audit the scripts either. Little Snitch would have popped up an alert the moment cURL tried to reach that remote server, which is obviously suspicious, and I would have ended the “interview” right there.
drnick1
|next
|previous
[-]
lantry
|next
|previous
[-]
Maybe they don't want to give any identifying info to the domain registrar? Or just minimizing their online presence?
darth_avocado
|next
|previous
[-]
CITIZENDOT
|root
|parent
[-]
they added this back in 2023 (https://news.linkedin.com/2023/april/linkedin-s-new-verifica...), but very less people actually bother to verify with their email, so not having it doesn't always mean it's illegitimate.
nphardon
|next
|previous
[-]
ge96
|next
|previous
[-]
Unrelated to this git pre commit hook attack but yeah
ChrisMarshallNY
|next
|previous
[-]
Looks like these folks really did their homework.
It's nasty, but I have to respect their skills. I'll bet it works, quite often.
CITIZENDOT
|root
|parent
|next
[-]
gtowey
|next
|previous
[-]
technion
|root
|parent
|next
[-]
paxys
|root
|parent
|next
|previous
[-]
yieldcrv
|root
|parent
|previous
[-]
gtowey
|root
|parent
[-]
I'm not talking about switching to cold contacting companies as a job hunting strategy. I'm saying if you get a suspicious outreach from a rando on linked in on behalf of a company THEN you only continue if you can reach out to the same person via official company channels.
sailfast
|next
|previous
[-]
Give defenders a better shot…
rdksu
|previous
[-]
CITIZENDOT
|root
|parent
|previous
[-]
should i remove it?