正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

I downloaded the release and tested it. I didn't observe any alerts or blocking during execution. The interesting part is that it's leveraging native Windows QoS policy functionality rather than exploiting a vulnerability. From what I observed, the tool simply creates QoS rules that throttle traffic for selected processes....

16,829 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

9 条评论

Br*an 的头像
Br*an3 个月前

Poor tom

Dodo on Security 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 的头像
Dodo on Security 🇵🇸 🇺🇦3 个月前

@UK_Daniel_Card Lmao I can't believe the CS simp is still going to this day

Donald Morgan Jr. 的头像
Donald Morgan Jr.3 个月前

You should have ended this post with “next”

tom square 的头像
tom square3 个月前

your prevention policy is probably low. this aint working against crowdstrike on full aggression mode

The Haag™ 的头像
The Haag™3 个月前

Extra Aggressive or regular aggressive? I think regular aggro was the default on this.

Austin 的头像
Austin3 个月前

@_josehelps I saw that Samir tested this and mentioned that it create WMI persistence, afaik

dreadnaught 的头像
dreadnaught3 个月前

that's pretty neat. another reason for layered defenses like app whitelisting so your bypass attempts likely trip it

OSINT Shepherd 的头像
OSINT Shepherd3 个月前

Tom Square is a known troll don’t engage lol

Researchbob 的头像
Researchbob3 个月前

Did you try execute malware on the throttled Version?

相关视频

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Trung Phan

1,652,308 次观看 • 2 年前

"I have nothing that would suggest that it is of out-of-this-world origin, except that we can't explain at that point the physics that appear to be employed." ~Rounds (Except? That's a pretty big except that points towards anomalous tech. And it doesn't have to be from out of this world in order to belong to a non-human intelligence. Maybe it's human but not part of our society as we know it? Maybe future humans, or another form of human? Maybe something based here? No matter what Ross Coulthart threw at Senator Mike Rounds, it was deflected without a second thought. Keep reading. I went beyond the video clip.) Rounds: "I try to talk to anybody that has firsthand knowledge of actually working on projects. In fact, I told my team that I don't have an interest in talking to people that have second hand knowledge or that will relay information to me without evidence that they have firsthand knowledge of any particular type of materials or projects. I've talked to individuals that have told me their firsthand knowledge of things that they can't explain, but I have never gotten to the point where I could determine what it was as an item or a project or a platform, that what it really is." (So, has he had any firsthand witnesses tell him that why worked hands-on a non-human craft? If so, what did Rounds do to confirm or refute that? Did he get access to the program and see a craft up close? Did he ever find a program that had that type of evidence? I thought Ross did great but I would have loved if he asked Rounds this: Were you ever denied access to a program/location? "I've given [members of Congress and the executive branch] not only the existence of non-human intelligence but the address to go look to see it. And they were denied access." ~Jay Stratton - Jay Stratton ~ Rounds: "And so, are there things that I can't explain, based upon direct information from individuals that have observed information or materials? The answer to that is yes. But I have nothing that would suggest that it is of out of this world origin, except that we can't explain at that point the physics that appear to be employed. So, whether it's from one of our adversaries or whether it's from a unique project here within the United States, I simply don't know and I won't draw conclusions." (He admits that they can't explain the physics and then reverts to it possibly being from an adversary or one of our own USG projects. And doesn't suggest that it may very well be something truly anomalous.) Ross: The WSJ says, in the 1960s, live, thermonuclear weapons were tested against EMPs. Do you find that plausible? I couldn't believe the USAF would do that. Rounds: I know we've done a great deal of research with regard to EMPs. We've had to study EMPs as a weapon system and our adversaries have looked at them as a weapon system. EMPs would do damage to electronic equipment but not to humans or structures. (Welp. He obviously finds it plausible.) Ross: How about enhancing the whistleblower protections? Rounds: "I don't know that the existing protections fail us." Ross: What about AARO? Rounds: I met with AARO leaders and found them to be frank and open, "I don't have any evidence that says that there's in any way a desire to limit their ability to do research or to hide the information that they're doing. " (Bring in Kosloski and ask him if he told James Fox that he had to get approval from the DOD even if he just wanted to part his hair.) Ross: Rubio said we've had repeated instances of something operating over restricted nuclear facilities, and it's not ours. And we don't know whose it is. Any kind of craft over sensitive national security sites is a national security threat. Rounds: I don't disagree. But I don't know if it's ours or if it belongs to one of our adversaries. And if it's neither, then I don't know whose it is. I'm not gonna jump to conclusions and I'm gonna keep my options open. I wanna make sure that if it's something one of our organizations in the US actually is testing or working with that we not disclose it. If it belongs to one of our adversaries, we wanna make sure that we have all of the information we can gather on it and be prepared to defend against it. "And if there's something that is neither ours nor theirs, it belongs some place else, then my curiousity really starts to grow at that state of the game and I wanna be open to those possibilities as well."

Joe Murgia

20,511 次观看 • 1 年前