• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Uh, no. Evidence that the site is easily hacked comes in the form of a specific JavaScript file and the line of code that is insecure. Can you provide that or are you satisfied regurgitating something you read on WND?

False dilemna fallacy there, and strawman in the rest of the post. Looks like you're learning a lot about fallacies today!

Feel free to enter your personal info at healthcare.gov. You can also enter your credit card and SSN on a few random wares sites on TOR. After all, by your fallacious reasoning, they're just as secure as the major banking sites because...uh, JavaScript or something.
 
Last edited:
Uh, no. Evidence that the site is easily hacked comes in the form of a specific JavaScript file and the line of code that is insecure. Can you provide that or are you satisfied regurgitating something you read on WND?

Come on. Go for it. JavaScript is open and easily readable for any website on the internet. And any back end communication is invisible to you, so you couldn't possibly know if it was secure or not. So you're left with JS code to peruse. So go ahead and back up your assertion that the site is easily hacked. Let's hear it.

Bonus points for finding commented out code.

Is it an unreasonable caution to be concerned in light of the fact so many other facets of the website were not functioning properly that security might not be up to par.
 
Is it an unreasonable caution to be concerned in light of the fact so many other facets of the website were not functioning properly that security might not be up to par.

He made a specific claim and can't back it up. He either made it up or he read it somewhere and passed it off as his own idea.
 
He made a specific claim and can't back it up. He either made it up or he read it somewhere and passed it off as his own idea.

He cited the poor design of the rest of the site as evidence that the security design is similarly poor. The specific claim that you quoted includes in that quote its own backup.

Based on the overall quality of the parts of the website we have seen, I think it's reasonable to assume that the parts we haven't seen are of similar quality. In particular, it's reasonable to assume that the security is subpar.

I say this based on my experience of over ten years in production operations for enterprise ecommerce websites. In my experience, it's highly implausible that a team that fails to deliver basic functionality on-schedule has delivered reliable security on-schedule--or at all. Therefore, I agree both with sdal's assessment and with the evidence he's already supplied to back it up: The poor showing of the site so far bodes ill for the quality of its security.
 
Last edited:
Latest update from Obamacaresignups.net is that (so far) an additional 230,000+ people have signed up for private coverage just in November. That is estimating an additional 100,000 people via Healthcare.gov - that's a four-fold increase over October through the federal site. Note this doesn't include updates for the last couple of weeks from many of the states which run their own exchanges, so the enrollment number will undoubtedly be a lot higher once those estimates come in.
 
Latest update from Obamacaresignups.net is that (so far) an additional 230,000+ people have signed up for private coverage just in November. That is estimating an additional 100,000 people via Healthcare.gov - that's a four-fold increase over October through the federal site. Note this doesn't include updates for the last couple of weeks from many of the states which run their own exchanges, so the enrollment number will undoubtedly be a lot higher once those estimates come in.


How many of those are under 30 .AND. without a pre-existing medical condition?
 
He cited the poor design of the rest of the site as evidence that the security design is similarly poor. The specific claim that you quoted includes in that quote its own backup.

Based on the overall quality of the parts of the website we have seen, I think it's reasonable to assume that the parts we haven't seen are of similar quality. In particular, it's reasonable to assume that the security is subpar.

I say this based on my experience of over ten years in production operations for enterprise ecommerce websites. In my experience, it's highly implausible that a team that fails to deliver basic functionality on-schedule has delivered reliable security on-schedule--or at all. Therefore, I agree both with sdal's assessment and with the evidence he's already supplied to back it up: The poor showing of the site so far bodes ill for the quality of its security.

So you don't have any proof either. In your ten years of productions operations, you haven't seemed to learn that bugs != design flaws or security holes. I hope if your team finds bugs, you don't order them to rewrite the entire application because SECURITY. So I'll give your expert opinion the value its worth.
 
Really funny write-up by Matt Labash where he follows around some sycophants promoting Obamacare door-to-door.

...if Obamacare threatens to bankrupt any industry, it’s the liberal-media-bias-watchdog industry. Since now, news outlets across the spectrum are falling over each other to tell Obamacare stories, mostly about how lousy Obamacare is.

They tell stories of how the cancellation-to-enrollment ratio is 50-to-1. Or how 34 times more people are interested in buying guns than Obamacare. Or how only five people enrolled in D.C., one enrolled in North Carolina, and none in Oregon. Or how cancer patients are losing their doctors. Or how premiums will increase by an average of 41 percent. Or how 40 percent of HealthCare.gov’s “back office functions” haven’t been built yet. Or the story of the Brooklyn couple who are considering divorce just so they can get better rates on their newly hiked insurance. Or the rare Obamacare feel-good story: In Colorado, a dog was (mistakenly) enrolled.

Then drops in to a navigator enrollment session that has a 100% failure rate.

To give the CliffsNotes version of the three-hour session, it went a little like this: The woman beside me, named Jenny, a naturalized citizen from Ecuador, spent two and a half hours trying to crunch through the system before it finally returned her to the first page, then locked her out. She never even saw the prices. When Blade had her call the phone support hotline, they told her she’d need to wait three weeks to find out the status of her application. The same happened to her colleague, Sue, sitting next to her. They both need insurance now, because the endocrinologist they work for had to cancel theirs because it didn’t meet Obamacare requirements. They’re hoping not only that they can get insurance, but also that they can keep their jobs, since Jenny, who does billing for the doctor, says Obamacare is completely convoluting how, if at all, they’ll be able to collect money from patients.

Two men sitting behind me get to a price list, though one wigs out because of the high premiums and leaves. The other finds a relatively cheap plan, but the deductible is so high, for his family of four, that he says, “I can’t touch this.” And he leaves, too. The two people on the other side of Jenny and Sue, whom I never even meet, leave after about 30 minutes. Blade suggests it’s probably because of “sticker shock,” if they even got that far. A recurring problem, he says, in his line of work.
 
So you don't have any proof either. In your ten years of productions operations, you haven't seemed to learn that bugs != design flaws or security holes. I hope if your team finds bugs, you don't order them to rewrite the entire application because SECURITY. So I'll give your expert opinion the value its worth.

LOL at your bugs != design flaws comment, but by all means please continue...
 
Last edited:
..said the young earth creationist to the evolutionary biologist.

You're welcome to back up your claim. Many of us are technically oriented, and although I'm not a security expert, I'm always eager to learn something new, so be as technical as you like. Please explain, in detail and in your own words, what the security flaw is and how it could be exploited. List the type of information stored and in which page this information is transmitted. List the general location of the code involved.

Of course you'll do none of this since you're just parroting "SECURITY FLAWS" because that's the latest GOP talking point, but I thought I'd at least give you a fighting chance to save some dignity.
 
You're welcome to back up your claim. Many of us are technically oriented, and although I'm not a security expert, I'm always eager to learn something new, so be as technical as you like. Please explain, in detail and in your own words, what the security flaw is and how it could be exploited. List the type of information stored and in which page this information is transmitted. List the general location of the code involved.

Of course you'll do none of this since you're just parroting "SECURITY FLAWS" because that's the latest GOP talking point, but I thought I'd at least give you a fighting chance to save some dignity.

LOL, yer killin' me.

My claim was that it is likely that there are security issues with the site. I know quite a bit about Internet security and web development. The one thing we can be sure of with the healthcare.gov rollout is that the development team was incompetent. Not a bit off, but amazingly, astoundingly, incredibly, almost unbelievably incompetent. Can you name any major web rollout in the last 20 years that has fared so badly on basic functionality? In any case, the rollout has been embarrassingly bad. This fact suggests that it's pretty darn likely that they haven't really crossed their T's or dotted their I's as far as security. This is what we call evidence.

Only an ideologue (you), would require the assembly code and register contents to justify such an innocuous and obvious claim.
 
LOL, yer killin' me.

My claim was that it is likely that there are security issues with the site. I know quite a bit about Internet security and web development. The one thing we can be sure of with the healthcare.gov rollout is that the development team was incompetent. Not a bit off, but amazingly, astoundingly, incredibly, almost unbelievably incompetent. Can you name any major web rollout in the last 20 years that has fared so badly on basic functionality? In any case, the rollout has been embarrassingly bad. This fact suggests that it's pretty darn likely that they haven't really crossed their T's or dotted their I's as far as security. This is what we call evidence.

Only an ideologue (you), would require the assembly code and register contents to justify such an innocuous and obvious claim.

You've got nothing. But that was obvious long before this awkward attempt at evasion. Feel free to do some research, since you know so much about security. Come back with some actual facts, based on actual code. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong and if you can demonstrate your expertise, we'd all appreciate it an awful, awful lot. My guess is you'll just continue to demonstrate that you've got absolutely nothing to back up your claims.
 
You've got nothing. But that was obvious long before this awkward attempt at evasion. Feel free to do some research, since you know so much about security. Come back with some actual facts, based on actual code. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong and if you can demonstrate your expertise, we'd all appreciate it an awful, awful lot. My guess is you'll just continue to demonstrate that you've got absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

Er, uh, yeah, I'll get back to you with the CPU cache register contents asap, mmmkay?

Man, this Obama guy's got you all crazy. You may want to take a break from the forums.
 
Er, uh, yeah, I'll get back to you with the CPU cache register contents asap, mmmkay?

Man, this Obama guy's got you all crazy. You may want to take a break from the forums.

"CPU cache register"? Did you hit submit accidentally? It's obvious that you don't know anything about the subject, so in the future just read more, assert less.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom