Even if US/CIA did push a coup in Ukraine, Russia should have foreseen it and counter acted it. Intelligence operations is a thing and you can't start genociding just because you sucked at basic intelligence work in neighbouring countries.
FYI, the account that you are replying to has a very long track record of pushing this talking point (and other crank opinions), so do not think that you are engaging in a good faith discussion with someone who can be convinced (1) - if they could be, it would have happened long ago. They're here to push that opinion into the public sphere.
That account was even banned from posting for a while (2), thankfully. Why it was allowed back, I do not know.
The word coup, which user "yucky" hasn't introduced in this conversation, is used informally and not in a literal sense. It does not mean that the U.S. installed a military junta.
It means that U.S. officials interfered in the Maidan revolution and picked favorites. How much influence they had is questionable, but they were there.
If you think that is a crank opinion, the BBC is a crank outlet.
> The word coup, which user "yucky" hasn't introduced in this conversation
That account has in fact introduced the word "coup" with reference to Ukraine, many times over in conversations. And you're right, it does carry with it the ugly, false and deceptive connotations of "installed a military junta against the wishes of the people".
Not to imply that they always "introduce" it. In fact, if you say it, they probably pop up like Beetlejuice for the opportunity to launch into the shpiel again. You are again correct that this conversation appears to be one of those times.
Assuming that you're asking this in good faith and would like to read more from reliable sources, here are a handful of them from across the political spectrum:
Rather than stalking my comments which is against the rules of this site, you could instead just reply to the content of the sources I provided. They are legitimate and credible. If you dispute any of the actual content, please cite and provide sources and reasons.
There is no point in giving good faith rebuttals in reply to rhetoric that wasn't good faith and seeking understanding in the first place. A different user summed that up earlier, I think in three words.
I respect you for doing the work, and you should definitely keep a copy for next time, but it is pretty much what I expected: the "balanced start" from "across the political spectrum" is expected to impress us into nodding along, and never to hold up to close inspection. Which of course it does not. It's the bullshit asymmetry principle at work: even if you do refute, you have been bogged down wasting time defending on that.
It is a confidence trick, as the idea that a popular uprising against an unpopular government "must be the US's fault" is inherently laughable, even before we saw how hard the Ukrainian people have since fought to keep what they won then.
> "sugar words" to entice you to believe them. George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Q, Pax Americana, deep forces, dark forces 2
Ah. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that it's that basic.
Will you convince the parent poster? Of course not. Here they are 7-8 months ago, banging the same drum:
The acceleration pushes your back into the seat, and you brace yourself by pushing your foot harder against the floor (gas pedal). It's an instinct thing, not a physics one.
As a child I drove a lawnmower where the acceleration caused you to lean back, moving the levers back causing you to go in reverse, shoving you forward, causing you to drive forward, ...
It was actually the acceleration causing the back and forth (threw me off the seat before I let go causing it to stop).
From Reolink (all they do here is use a TLS connection):
"Your Privacy Is Our Top Priority
Security at the expense of privacy is not what we're committed to. Reolink Cloud collaborates with Amazon Web Services for secure data storage. Also, we use standard AES algorithm for data transmission encryption, use RSA/ECDHE algorithm for secure key exchange, and follow the TLS standards. When you save footage to Cloud or play clips back, your personal information is always kept confidential from beginning to end."
Adding a crypto hash allows to check that the hashed value was not changed, because finding another value with the same hash is hard, by definition of a crypto hash.
But here the problem is not forging an ID, it's guessing an ID, and hashing does not widen the search space, does not increase randomness.
I think the poster you replied to was meaning using the hash output as the token, not that you would maintain the original token and a salted hash for verification.
If they are thinking SHA(GenerateUUID()) would have better entropy then they are incorrect even though all SHA variants output more than the 128-bits in the source UUID. I assume such misunderstanding comes from the fact that some PRNGs are based upon repeated application of cryptographically assured hash functions against the seed data.
Using some unreversible transform would solve the issue of potentially leaking information in the UUIDs, but if that is an issue then instead use a UUID variant based on purely random data (v4?) as that would be more efficient and not result in value that is longer but contains no extra entropy.
It seems uuids are 128 bit, while sha is 160 bit. There is also sha256 and sha512 for longer hashed. So there shouldnt be any worries about the hash being shorter.
Rereading I am guessing you're merely pointing out that the comment regarding shortening the length is untrue. If you already understand the entropy issue here, please treat my "you"s as royal you's.
You have a 128 bit value. That's 128 binary digits. Each digit can be zero or one. That means you have 2^128 possible distinct values. (Ignoring the fixed bits in UUIDs since it's not important for sake of this argument.)
Now you use a one-way cryptographic hash on top, like sha256. This will return a specific hash for any given input. It is always the same for a specific given input, and it is nearly always distinct. The output that a hash has may have more bits, but the number of distinct values can't increase; it can only ever decrease. That's because you could only ever give it 2^128 different values. How could it ever return more outputs if each input corresponds to one output?
To make it more clear, let's say you have a database where you want to store a customer's zip code so you can use it as some kind of validation later on to ensure it matches, but you don't want to store it in plaintext, so you hash it. The hash is 160 bits. Secure, right? Wrong. There are less than 50,000 zip codes. It would be trivial to calculate the hash of every single one and use it as a simple hashmaps from hashed value to plaintext.
You may be thinking this is impractical for an input domain as large as 2^128, but realistically it only adds a slight roadblock. Knowing the only valid values will be hashed UUIDs, instead of picking 160 random bits, you'd be much better off picking a random UUID, hashing it, and trying that for each attempt.
