Zoom has a signed binary that runs any unsigned script

https://twitter.com/DanAmodio/status/1245329512889487361

by kccqzy • 6 years ago

562 208 6 years ago

kccqzy• 6 years ago

To clarify, this zoomAutenticationTool† is part of the preflight "script" that gets run inside the Zoom installer. It is a signed binary that happily runs anything, including unsigned scripts. This generic-looking tool can be used to bypass code signing requirements. (It does prompt the user for administrator privileges.)

†: I didn't misspell the name of the executable. It's missing an h.

zeepzeep• 6 years ago

†: I didn't misspell the name of the executable. It's missing an h.

Ty for making me laugh.

SwiftyBug• 6 years ago

* laug

j4yav• 6 years ago

Is this like when you have to spell cheese as something like "cheez" for legal reasons?

NullPrefix3• 6 years ago

Meat flavored sausage. "flavored" is in extra small letters.

dvfjsdhgfv• 6 years ago

†: I didn't misspell the name of the executable. It's missing an h.

I've seen a lot of posts defending Zoom wrt other offences. But at this point it should be clear what their practices are.

aorth• 6 years ago

In other misspelling news, the preflight script also has a typo that apparently causes Retina images to not get installed. The typo is "reitna". ;)

See: https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1244788931427622912

skykooler• 6 years ago

What is with Zoom misspelling everything? Their shady installer pops up "System request administrator privileges", and the code it runs misspells "retina" as "reitna".

icedchai• 6 years ago

Probably because they don't employ native English speakers for this sort of work. Also, no QA. You'd expect these errors in a 3 person startup, not a public company worth almost 40 billion USD.

abiogenesis2• 6 years ago

Lack of code reviews and quality assurance.

It is also reported that their engineering team are not native English speakers but I don't think that's the main issue. I've seen codebases full of spelling errors where all developers were native speakers.

OldTechSucks• 6 years ago

I don't see anything wrongs here, you investigate the script and it just an installer. Did you even look at nvidia-installer? Why no one talks on that crap? So much hate on Zoom... I hate that too, I was at meeting yesterday and my interentet got disconnected and couldn't get back but even after reconnecting there was an audio issue.

t0mas88• 6 years ago

What's wrong here is that Zoom hacked together an installer against all normal structure that Apple recommends. And that installed includes a very stupidly designed component that will try to run whatever you ask it with admin privileges.

This is yet another indication that nobody at Zoom has a single clue on how to build a secure and stable application. Another example of that mindset released today: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/31/21201956/zoom-leak-user-i... They are proving to completely not understand how to design security/privacy features. Frankly, their technology team sounds like total amateurs that hack things together.

oefrha5• 6 years ago

“Total amateurs hacking things together” somehow managed to ship something functionally better than products from mature shops like MSFT that mean serious business. The irony there.

shadowtree2• 6 years ago

Market Cap of 38bn USD, based on a single product that entered a settled and crowded market.

Public, profitable, founder was Head Engineer for Cisco WebEx. Runs global videoconferencing under massive new load during Covid-19, on their own servers.

HN comment: "total amateurs".

Love this place.

CJefferson• 6 years ago

Did you look at the tweet? The installer lets anyone run any script as root. That seems fairly bad.

opencl• 6 years ago

It lets anyone with an admin account run any scripts as root. No privilege escalation here, it's basically a gatekeeper bypass.

viraptor• 6 years ago

Did you even look at nvidia-installer?

You're free to analyse it and publish your findings. That's not making zoom any better.

rvz• 6 years ago

That my friends is the text book definition of high quality malware.

fouc• 6 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised if some other MacOS apps pull similar tricks.

Interesting that we didn't know Zoom did this until everyone started using it, and someone finally audited it.

evolveyourmind• 6 years ago

Meanwhile, apple doesn't accept my app because they claim the UI sucks

galad872• 6 years ago

Apple didn't review or accept Zoom. It's not on the App Store.

diggan2• 6 years ago

Yeah, as much as I don't like the locked down nature of Apple devices/OS/software, this case with Zoom being able to do this stuff, is an argument for the locked down garden.

blhack• 6 years ago

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/zoom-cloud-meetings/id54650530...

Yes it is.

sidkshatriya• 6 years ago

Zoom cloud meetings does seem to be on the App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/zoom-cloud-meetings/id54650530...

Are you talking about something else or am I misunderstanding here?

pvg3• 6 years ago

I'm not super familiar with Apple's policies but is this really such a grave sin on OS X? The purpose of the signature, as I understand it, is mostly to assure the user of the provenance of the code and, in a pinch, let Apple disable it. It's not intended as some bulletproof runtime security mechanism and it's easy to think of lots of apps that would be signed but could legitimately execute some form of unsigned code.

oefrha5• 6 years ago

It’s not per se, otherwise Terminal.app and iTerm2.app would be among the most sinister signed apps ever. Signatures only protect the app bundle itself, not user-supplied code or code fetched to locations outside the bundle.

However, it’s bafflingly weird to include such a thing just to skip a button press or two in the installer.

pvg3• 6 years ago

I can see how skipping the installer flow might skeeve people out but this particular bit about some signed doodad in the installer being able to launch scripts seems like something between a nothingburger and mildly curious. Just wondering if I'm missing something here.

foobarian• 6 years ago

I wonder if it's just a case of an opinionated junior developer. I've been there. I've written a Windows NT console app once upon a time and there was something about the console that bugged me to no end, so I ended up rewriting it as a graphical app using my own fonts and terminal emulation. Probably wasted days doing this for some minor artifact of the UI, but it felt like a huge accomplishment at the time. Similarly here, guy or gal get it in their head that the extra click just won't do, and then find a hack around it.

thu21114• 6 years ago

However, it’s bafflingly weird to include such a thing just to skip a button press or two in the installer.

Not at all. Generally every mouse click required to get an app running will slash your userbase in size by some staggering amount, like 20-50%. I can't quite recall the exact number or where I've seen this, but I've definitely heard this fact from multiple sources, including at Google. Try counting how many clicks are required to get Chrome on your system and you'll be surprised how optimised it is.

Companies measure this, they're very sensitive to it of course. They want as many conversions as possible, but they can see that the more complex the install process gets, the fewer users make it through the other end. It's entirely normal for Zoom to want to simplify as much as possible.

aequitas• 6 years ago

It is, from an Apple developer guidelines point of view. They have detailed docs on what situations to avoid[0] in order to elevate privaleges as safe as possible (ie: to not leave gaping holes). Granted, the best solutions they propose are not trivial to implement. Like installing a signed minimal attack surface helper that communicates over secure RPC to execute privileged functions (also don't forget to sanitise your inputs). Or having your App audited and signed so your App can access privileged Frameworks and API's (which means you have to shell out at least $100/y for a developer license for your open-source project).

All in all Apple does their best to provide the mechanisms but they are not necessary easy or trivial (w're dealing with the topic of security so what's to expect). Also with every step Apple takes to bind things down there is a public outcry that they are restricting peoples freedom in installing custom applications and pushing everyone into the Appstore ecosystem.

This of course doesn't excuse bad developer practices, but often it's the choice of doing things right or not being able to do them at all (never meeting your deadlines).

I had the pleasure of implementing one of the suggested privilege escallation systems in a pet project[1] and it was a fun puzzle for me. But I can tell you it will be a PITA if you solve this problem under pressure as (even though Apple provides some tooling to verify everything [2]) it's really hard to figure out if all moving components are setup right for everything to work and to debug any issues.

[0] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Se...

[1] https://github.com/aequitas/macos-menubar-wireguard/

[2] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/samplecode/SMJob... https://github.com/brenwell/SMJobBless-Demo

pvg3• 6 years ago

The tweet is not about privilege escalation, though, just the fact that signed code can invoke unsigned code.

ajconway• 6 years ago

Meanwhile most of us curl stuff directly into our shells sometimes: https://brew.sh

DarkWiiPlayer4• 6 years ago

At least in those cases we know it's happening and we can have a look at the script if we want.

gregoriol3• 6 years ago

Yes! I second that feeling: knowing we are executing something and that thing being open source, it's up to us to check (plus running shell scripts is for power users). Here the user, average joe doesn't know what's happening, and can't check anything as it is hidden.

tpxl• 6 years ago

Daily reminder: You can detect whether the script is being piped to shell or not, so inspecting the script, then curl | shell might not get you the same script. curl > file, inspect file, ./file is (probably) safe.

stuff4ben• 6 years ago

Oh I hate that! For apps I want that do that, I first search if there's alternative installation methods available and use those, even if it's more work. Barring that, I will usually take a look at the script for anything it tries to download or any permissions its trying to set. But if I'm in a hurry...sometimes I just run it...

saagarjha4• 6 years ago

…that’s just one of the security issues with Homebrew.

dchest• 6 years ago

How would you bypass Gatekeeper with that? Something needs to run it. If you can, why can't you just do the same with osascript instead of running zoomAuthenticator?

   /usr/bin/osascript -e 'do shell script "touch /tmp/ran_successfully " with administrator privileges'

Thomaschaaf• 6 years ago

In a couple weeks the public will have done a complete audit of all of zooms tools.

iainmerrick2• 6 years ago

With zero impact on Zoom’s practices or their popularity, probably.

Edit to add: I mean, I hope they’ll lose a substantial number of paying customers over this? But I doubt it.

api3• 6 years ago

History has shown that ease of use is more important than privacy or security in nearly every case.

The reason is that we are living in an age of cognitive overload and time poverty. Time and cognitive space are far more expensive than the long tail risks associated with bad security and privacy.

kockic• 6 years ago

I actually hope they will just fix all of their security/privacy issues, and that we will end up with a decent video conferencing app that actually values users privacy.

I don't get why people are so negative. I mean zoom is not unique in this sense, many of the everyday apps we use share at least some of these issues.

How many of us use Intel CPUs that had (still have) infinite number of vulnerabilities? Or MacOS that at some point allowed root to login without passwords? How many security issues we (software engineers) create on a daily bases simply because the management needs something for yesterday?

erulabs• 6 years ago

It does make me feel a bit better though - sometimes I go overboard with security and spend hours making certificate validation work everywhere etc - the people actually making money skip all that and just ignore it. They typically get away with bad practices until they really get massive, as long as the software works well otherwise.

Sometimes when coding I think there is technically an obscure race condition security flaw and, from time to time, leave a TODO instead of spending those grueling hours. This weirdly makes me sleep better at night.

At any rate, "sunlight is the best disinfectant"!

mikorym• 6 years ago

IMHO those you mention who make money are, in this case, qualified further to a category of products that in essence are not complicated. Video conferencing is not complicated until you have scaling problems. Similarly, Facebook was not complicated until it got millions of users at which point most of their interesting code had to do with scaling.

My point is that Zoom is replaceable and in fact, IMO should be replaced. Their tactics of using these dodgy techniques is because they want to have an edge over competition along the lines of "it just works".

I would contrast this to pure research services that add value that would otherwise not be there. Examples of this would be at the time that they were startups: Google (search algorithms) or Spotify (music categorisation algorithms). I'm not saying that today either of Google or Spotify are paragons of morality. At the hardware level I would include Tesla (battery tech) and Intel (processors).

My point is that the shady practises are at this point Zoom's product offering. If their video scaling algorithms are superior (and not just lifted from some open source libraries) then that should be their product offering. Not "it just works" via security exploits.

Edit: Typos.

jchrisa• 6 years ago

Dropbox won early on for having the same user-friendly affordances. I can't say if I was making Zoom, that I wouldn't err on the side of usability at first, also.

larrik• 6 years ago

If video conferencing wasn't complicated, there'd actually be a product everyone likes. So far, everyone seems to hate all of them.

logicallee2• 6 years ago

When I was first asked to install Zoom I hadn't heard of it, so I googled "Zoom malware" (to see if it's malware, as I assumed someone would have written that up if it was.) I didn't find a clear "zoom is malware" blog post at the time. So I said that's good enough for me and installed it.

Later when I heard that Zoom installs and leaves a web server open on your machine, even if you uninstall it, I felt duped, since I did my due dilligence by Googling if it's malware. If it leaves a webserver running after uninstall, it's obviously malware, same as if it launched a Windows search for "passwords.txt". There's no real room for interpretation here.

But I didn't find that at the time.

Whereas if I did that Google search today I would find that it:

monitors activity on your computer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22657384

is not encrypting end to end despite claims - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22735746

allows any web site to access your camera at any time without requesting any kind of permission or making the user aware - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20387298

reinstalls itself silently after uninstall (if you click a zoom link, after uninstall) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20390755

If I were considering installing it today, I would install it only in a virtual machine after Googling what kind of protections to use when trying malware in a VM. (Since it can be expected to play shenanigans with your network and with the host's USB devices etc.) Just basic stuff, as Zoom isn't very sophisticated.

After I read all this I was angry. Not because all of this makes it obviously malware but because it's sloppy malware, and I specifically Googled whether it was sloppy, obvious malware and didn't get a clear "yes, Zoom is malware."

By the way sending data to Facebook doesn't make my list of links, as that is par for the course and anyone might do that. I have a pretty high tolerance for crap and to be honest Zoom is the only mainstream software that failed it so far.

Though I guess technically I still use Zoom every day (until I buy a new computer), you know, since I did install it that one time, before I uninstalled it...

deskamess• 6 years ago

How do I uninstall the web server - or better, can you please point me to guides to remove the bits left after the uninstall. I don't mind uninstalling/reinstalling this till I get a VM setup.

JoeAltmaier• 6 years ago

Ha, for sure. E.g. SnapChat didn't actually delete the pictures in the first versions. Apparently, they didn't know how. So they renamed them with a different extension so the photo app didn't find them. But tether your phone, and voila! they were all still there on the phone.

Didn't stop them from becoming very successful.

matheusmoreira• 6 years ago

They typically get away with bad practices until they really get massive

They get away with it because they aren't liable for any damage caused by exploitation of vulnerabilities caused by their bad practices. If they had to indemnify the victims of their negligence, I guarantee they'd care a lot more about doing things right.

gregoriol3• 6 years ago

Now that it's clear that Zoom developers do their best to do the worst, Apple should ban it entirely from their platforms

gtirloni• 6 years ago

If I buy an Apple device, it's mine, not Apple's to decide what I run on it.

Nextgrid• 6 years ago

Part of Apple's value proposition (to me at least) is that they are (supposed) to keep the bad guys away from the platform and have a huge influence on app developers to force them to comply with their rules.

ookdatnog4• 6 years ago

But Apple does, in fact, decide what you can run on your device, at least on iPhones. That's _the_ primary reason why I never even considered buying one.

In fact I never understood why the HN crowd finds this policy so inoffensive. I've always considered it a massive intrusion on computing freedom.

HumblyTossed• 6 years ago

They can't. Not now at least. For better or worse, people all over are using Zoom to stay in contact. If Apple banned it, it would be extremely difficult for them to not take a PR hit right now.

ratww2• 6 years ago

Instead of banning, Apple should be working together with them to understand why they're resorting to such ugly hacks just to improve the installation UX, and use that feedback to improve macOS instead.

aledthemathguy• 6 years ago

1. Built an app that violates every security concern. 2. Gain massive traction because of its easy-of-use ("it just works"). 3. Become ubiquitous. 4. Fix the security bugs. 5. You won.

ajphdiv2• 6 years ago

This software isn't available thru the mac app store. Hopefully, we never get to the point where Apple can decide what I can/can't run on my mac.

gregoriol3• 6 years ago

When it's a known malware/security hole/misleading with intent, you'll be happy someone prevents it from running on your mac.

d4n• 6 years ago

Hey! I posted this. Just want to be clear it still pops up and asks the user to authenticate as seen in the original post. Tried to clarify this in the thread I don’t want people to get confused and think this is worse than it is. Still really weird and follows malware patterns. Most likely not a gatekeeper bypass or anything because delivery would be difficult but seemed like a sketchy decision to basically write their own sudo tool into the pre install scripts.

ajphdiv2• 6 years ago

Why did you delete the tweet?

circa• 6 years ago

Its been re-posted - https://twitter.com/DanAmodio/status/1245329512889487361

dang4• 6 years ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22747727.

Puts• 6 years ago

Some more shadiness from this company. The Zoom.us-website is explicitly allowing the browser with its content security policy-headers to load scripts from these domains:

https://*.50million.club

https://apiurl.org

https://secure.myshopcouponmac.com

https://serve2.cheqzone.com

https://ad.lkqd.net

Doing a fast google for these domains shows they are mostly known for being associated with malware...

TechBro8615• 6 years ago

Wow you're right. Here I was about to comment that you've probably got some browser extension installed doing that.

To see for yourself, simply `curl -I https://zoom.us`

gbea42d4• 6 years ago

At least it's shady enough :D cX

badrabbit3• 6 years ago

Yeah...about that: ad sites are contacted by malware a lot so google results will show as such. Adware is technically malware.

cricalix• 6 years ago

I saw somewhere on Twitter, possibly as a reply to Scott Helme, that they possibly added these URLs to their CSP because they were getting errors in their CSP logs from machines that had adware/malware loaded. Can't find the tweet though, so maybe it wasn't him (but I'm reasonably sure it was a discussion of CSP, ReportURI, and the fact the CSP changes depending on logged in/out of zoom's site).

Pretty bad solution if that was indeed the case.

sebazzz• 6 years ago

Ah, the classic "fix it just to shut the error up" without actually looking at the cause. Lowest bidder contractor probably.

Shorel• 6 years ago

I am testing these URLs with the 1.1.1.2 DNS from Cloudflare launched today, and it seems it works fine blocking them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22748141

macspoofing3• 6 years ago

Curious why the focus on Zoom specifically given that there are 10,000 different conferencing products out there.

Are they the biggest?

shrew• 6 years ago

Since all the lockdowns and social distancing rules have come into play for COVID-19, Zoom has seen a huge increase in consumer usage. That in turn has lead to increased scrutiny as more people use it.

Besides that, this certainly isn't the first time Zoom's shady practices have been exposed, where many other conferencing products haven't had such a track record.

macspoofing3• 6 years ago

Zoom has seen a huge increase in consumer usage.

Moreso than others? I deal with customers/partners all the time, and I count the following desktop clients installed on my laptop:

- Zoom - GoToMeeting - BlueJeans - Skype for Business - WebEx - Join.me

Also:

- Teams - Slack - Hangout Meet

And I'm probably missing a bunch. Is Zoom that much bigger?

maest• 6 years ago

What about using one of the many conferencing services that run from your browser?

Zoom has been repeatedly breaking the trust of their users - it's a clear pattern that won't change.

tiborsaas• 6 years ago

Tweet got deleted :/

Just based on the title, consider that web browsers are signed binaries that run any unsigned script :)

mnw21cam• 6 years ago

In a sandbox, yeah.

_curious_• 6 years ago

Could someone kindly ELI5?

zelivans• 6 years ago

Any context as to why the tweet was deleted?

api3• 6 years ago

Last straw. Goodbye Zoom. I'll use it in a VM if I must.

ktm5j• 6 years ago

Google cache has a copy of the deleted tweet: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a7E7do...

badrabbit3• 6 years ago

Not a problem if everyone used Linux. (Sarcasm intended: no workable binary signing)

e12e3• 6 years ago

You're right, but there is signing of kernel and modules now, via secure boot, eg: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterp...

I'm not sure about binaries in general - having secure boot as an anchor at least makes the exercise less futile - but there an interesting point brought up here:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732927/signed-executabl...

Dynamic linker, dynamic libraries and dlopen.

I see solaris has elfsign - and it appears to be in OpenSolaris too: https://github.com/joyent/illumos-joyent/blob/master/usr/src...

Not sure if it would work on Linux - and you'd might want to prevent running unsigned binaries. Not sure if that's a thing on OpenSolaris. Still, being able to verify a binary might help with handling random downloads, I suppose.

badrabbit3• 6 years ago

Yeah, module signing but not turned on by any distro. I can't even imagine not having driver signing on windows in 2020. There is IMA in Linux too. Even package signing barely started catching up in the last few years on most non-mainstream distros. It's practically unthinkable to have script signing too.

crazygringo• 6 years ago

Legitimate question: what is bad about this? I've read all the comments and still don't see a convincing explanation.

Code signing just says you can trust that the software you clicked on came from the actual developer.

It doesn't say anything at all about what the software does. Of course signed software can do whatever it wants. It's not like there's supposed to be some chain of trust that it's only allowed to run further signed code. It's free to run a Python script or shell command or whatever it wants. And installers certainly run scripts.

And as other comments here state, to do anything that requires root privileges, it pops up to ask for your admin password, so it's not getting around that.

I see references to this being a "malware pattern" but no explanation of why or what that means specifically. Zoom is commercial software (not malware) and I don't see how this is a vulnerability (something malware could take advantage of) so I'm not getting it.

Can someone explain what the problem is here? Or is there no problem?

criddell• 6 years ago

If a script is signed, then there's a high probability that the script is going to do what it's supposed to do.

If the binary runs an unsigned script, then that script could be modified to do something malicious.

Signing isn't difficult or expensive so why not insist on it?

INTPenis• 6 years ago

But isn't this an issue in the OS security system? Zoom is only using a loophole, just like any malware would.

Same with the recent story on UNC links in Zoom chat. That's an issue in Windows. Why is windows sending your password out on the internet willy nilly? In this climate, 2020, Microsoft should know better.

UncleMeat4• 6 years ago

But how could it be modified? What is the threat model? An evil network? TLS solves that. Evil code on the local machine? You are boned anyway and probably lose to TOCTOU problems when validating the signature on the script.

thu21114• 6 years ago

You're right.

Consider that any Mac app that:

* Supports plugins that aren't signed by Apple

* Executes scripts or macros from a file

would technically have the same "problem". That's a heck of a lot of apps.

On iOS Apple do insist on a full chain of security, which is why only Apple's own browser app can JIT code. It's an extremely perverse and serious limitation that has no real security justification: consider that Android manages just fine without it.

As far as I can tell, Zoom is currently the target of a witchhunt. People are digging for dirt and blowing stuff well out of proportion.

lukeschlather2• 6 years ago

There are a lot of people blowing things out of proportion who don't know what they're talking about. However these things are newsworthy and probably worth Zoom fixing. (I think to a certain extent if I say something like "It's dumb that Zoom doesn't have real e2e encryption and they should fix it." That sounds harsh and I mean it. That said I'm still going to use Zoom unless something with equivalent UX and e2e encryption comes along.

(Someday there will be a solid cross-platform native p2p video client with e2e encryption.)

kryogen1c2• 6 years ago

i was about to write the same comment. id bet the percentage of HN readers running 100% signed code is damn close to 0.

the zoom witchhunt is really something. zoom may or may not be a witch (im no China apologist, i yell at all my friends for using tiktok), but if we get the answer right it will be based on luck and emotion, not logic and reason.

Angostura• 6 years ago

I'd bet the number of Mac users running 100% signed code is well over 50%

rootusrootus• 6 years ago

the zoom witchhunt is really something

I'm beginning to think the same thing. Someone seems to be orchestrating a full out attack on Zoom. I'd say it's working.

KaoruAoiShiho• 6 years ago

Yeah something like 80% of my code is unsigned since I almost never pay for store apps.

jdm22124• 6 years ago

zoom may or may not be a witch (im no China apologist

Zoom is an American company, headquartered in the US, employing mostly Americans, subject to US law, etc. Its CEO is an immigrant, but that's true of half the American tech companies out there, including Google and Microsoft.

EDIT: I'm white, but my wife is Asian-American and has told me more than once how white people often treat Asian-Americans as if they're not real Americans. I'd never witnessed that myself, but I guess the above comment is the kind of sentiment she's talking about. Zoom may or may not be a scummy company, but its founder's birthplace is immaterial. He's a US citizen, and deserves the same treatment we give to maybe-scummy white American CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg.

paulintrognon• 6 years ago

Reposted tweet: https://twitter.com/DanAmodio/status/1245329512889487361

gnachman• 6 years ago

What’s the right way to sign a script? I’ve spent some time researching this and never found a satisfactory answer.

saagarjha4• 6 years ago

Put it inside an app bundle?

LockAndLol• 6 years ago

Get your friends and family off of Zoom. Use Jitsi Meet https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/

It's opensource, free and doesn't require user accounts. Plus you can host it yourself.

peterwwillis• 6 years ago

The tweet has already been deleted. You don't get substantive content from a tweet, you don't get detail, they're hard to follow when threaded, and usually they aren't well thought out or researched. Please don't submit (or upvote) tweets. It would actually be better if you created a blog post with a screenshot of it and posted that.

Chlorus2• 6 years ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted - I expect more meat from a submission than 'here's a context-free few sentences on a tweet!'

ptlu2• 6 years ago

Link to the cached version of the tweet: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a7E7do...

emmelaich• 6 years ago

Tweet removed and re-posted as https://twitter.com/DanAmodio/status/1245329512889487361

frandroid• 6 years ago

dang , you probably want to change to this URL

dang4• 6 years ago

Changed to that from https://twitter.com/danamodio/status/1245032929635586053. Thanks!

dang4• 6 years ago

A thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22736608

sethgoodluck• 6 years ago

How to completely remove zoom from a unix system...

https://www.fosslinux.com/3534/how-to-completely-uninstall-a...

Zoom has a signed binary that runs any unsigned script

Related Stories