Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Maxious's commentslogin

You can't buy more DDoS if the storefront is down right?

They built their own circuit board but the core module that does the 802.11p is just a ESP32-C5

Yes, I understand that. The translation makes it sound like they have published the software and design, or are somehow making boards available.

>To improve coverage, we need your support! We have built a board with *ESP32-C5* and *PoE* that allows you to capture *C-ITS* packages yourself, and provide us for our face-up card, or process it yourself.

Edit: found it, https://codeberg.org/opentrafficmap


I know of a large company that does not like to be named https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Caff%C3%A8_Macs

Confirmed, 2% of users don't see Claude code included https://x.com/i/status/2046724659039932830


As if we could just blindly trust what he said :/ Could be 2, could 30, who knows (well, they do, but not us)


> at least one Vercel employee signed up for the AI Office Suite using their Vercel enterprise account and granted “Allow All” permissions. Vercel’s internal OAuth configurations appear to have allowed this action to grant these broad permissions in Vercel’s enterprise Google Workspace.

https://context.ai/security-update


So it's not so much a problem with OAuth itself, but with the way it was implemented here?


And that they engaged Crowdstrike for incident response... who missed OAuth tokens in the clear?


lol, yeah that Crowdstrike part was a funny CYA name drop


“[w]hen a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States (1919)


"In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of speech that the government may ban to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)." - Wikipedia


Thank you. It really is disturbing how many people want to take us back to the Wilson era. Civil liberties are a good thing, folks!




> When your Prepay credit balance on the billing account hits $0, all API keys in all projects linked to that billing account will stop working simultaneously. Prepay credits apply only to Gemini API usage costs; you can't use them to pay for other Google Cloud services.

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/billing#prepay


> The Gemini API supports monthly spend caps at both the billing account tier and project levels. These controls are designed to protect your account from unexpected overages, and the ecosystem to ensure service availability

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/billing#project-spend-...


The problem is it's specific to that API and defaults to uncapped so people who aren't using it and haven't heard about the issues with the Firebase API keys probably won't have set them.


Spend caps exist for Gemini (Maxious linked them) - they just default to OFF. For an API that can bill four figures per hour, opt-in safety by default isn't a UX choice, it's a billing strategy


Except that Google's own statements are extremely clear that "leaked" (i.e. public) API keys should not be able to access the Gemini API in the first place: "We have identified a vulnerability where some API keys may have been publicly exposed. To protect your data and prevent unauthorized access, we have proactively blocked these known leaked keys from accessing the Gemini API. ... We are defaulting to blocking API keys that are leaked and used with the Gemini API, helping prevent abuse of cost and your application data." https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/troubleshooting#google...

For extra clarity on the exact so-called "vulnerability" that Google identified, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47156925 This describes the very issue where some API keys were public by design (used for client-side web access), so the term "leaked" should be read in that unusually broad sense. Firebase keys are obviously covered, since they're also public by design.

(As for "Firebase AI Logic", it is explicitly very different: it's supposed to be implemented via a proxy service so the Gemini API key is never seen by the client: https://firebase.google.com/docs/ai-logic Clearly, just casually "enabling" something - which is what OP says they did! - should never result in abuse of cost on the scale OP describes.)


There are other vectors, e.g. a compromised GCP key leading to $13k in Gemini charges (posted 3 days ago) https://www.reddit.com/r/googlecloud/comments/1sjzat3/api_ke...


Why is the default uncapped then other than the hopes of billing people who screw up or get exploited.


We have a bunch of different protections in place, every account has a billing account cap by default (see: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/billing#tier-spend-cap...), in the addition to the ability to set more granular developer spend caps.


See also: Why is the default cap so low? I lost €78bojillion because my API stopped working.


Demand on-call phone numbers, autodial the entire company when it looks like they’re about to lose their first bojillion.

No, you don't really have to give Google a bunch of phone numbers. The input box will also accept entry of the following text:

“I'm a big stupid idiot, and when my API stops working, which it will, it will be all my fault and not Google's.”


Monitoring could pick this up in minutes rather than how long this took to discover


Monitoring could have detected overspend as well.

My point is either choice, caps or no caps, has its cons.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: