4 ms·

Repo claims > A single archive of public exploit PoCs and vulnerability research writeups. At the time I post these, none have been reported. Feel free to repo

Repo claims > A single archive of public exploit PoCs and vulnerability research writeups. At the time I post these, none have been reported. Feel free to report them yourself and take credit for the CVE if handed out lulz. Please do not abuse these. I do this so to allure people into the field, and I've always found this is the most efficient way. Which is roughly the definition of zero day. Whether the contents of the repo reflect the above claim is something else entirely.

tyre 3mo ago
> Please do not abuse these. Reminds me of Jamie Wolf's joke about bestiality laws. Who are those for? What stops most people from bestiality is… not wanting to have sex with animals! For people who do want to, what, they won't because of… the law?? Who will this comment stop??
- utopiah 3mo ago
  If it stops even just 1 person once, isn't it already worth it?
  - Valodim 3mo ago
    We slaughter animals millions by the day in an industrialized fashion. I'm sure they'll feel much better that even singular instances of sexual harassment are officially not ok on paper.
    - jodrellblank 3mo ago
      “Millions a day” is quite a low estimate; “””here are the best estimates of how many animals are killed every day on a per-species basis. Chickens: 206 million/day Farmed Fish: Between 211 million and 339 million Wild Fish: Between 3 billion and 6 billion Ducks: 9 million Pigs: 4 million Geese: 2 million Sheep: 1.7 million Rabbits: 1.5 million Turkeys: 1.4 million Goats: 1.4 million Cows: 846,000 Pigeons & other birds: 134,000 Buffalo: 77,000 Horses: 13,000 Other animals: 13,000 In total, this means that every 24 hours, between 3.4 and 6.5 billion animals are killed for food””” - https://sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-food-every-day/ https://sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-fo...
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    As a very general statement, there's a cost to having laws exist. A law that stops one human-scale action ever is very unlikely to be worth the overhead.
- jldl805 3mo ago
  The laws are to punish the act once discovered. Not to inhibit it, primarily. Which I suppose cuts down on the incidence of the act in the long run,
  - ElFitz 3mo ago
    That’s one school of thought. Law as a tool to punish those who have committed a prohibited act, mostly reactive. Others consider law a way of encoding the group’s existing rules and norms. In that view, making something illegal or mandatory is not a prerequisite for punishment: it’s the actual main point. The threat of punishment is meant for those not deterred from an act by the simple fact it is illegal (and the threat only works if enforced). Others put it the other way around, and see law as social engineering, a way to shape the group, either through the encoding itself of the desired behaviours in law, or through deterrence. Or both. If what one is after is either power or legitimacy, they need compliance more than punishment (can’t rule once you’ve chopped everyone’s heads off, or once the mob has put yours on a spike). It’s also sometimes used as coordination (which side of the road we drive on). And there’s also law as dispute resolution (if your neighbour’s hen lays an egg in your garden, who does it belong to? Yes, it’s ridiculous. Yes, some places have one or more laws for that). Which, incidentally, both requires and provides legitimacy. Funny, that. And probably many other kinds / points of view, with many different purposes, intents, and mechanisms. Anyway, all that to say law is vast, fascinating, and utterly tedious. And apologies for the tangent.
    - amiga386 3mo ago
      > Law as a tool to punish those who have committed a prohibited act You're thinking of criminal law. And it's not just some group's rules and norms - there already exists familial or social group punishment for that. Criminal law is prosecuted by the State. It's the code of conduct of the society you exist in. If you want a thought experiment for what life would be like without organised society, read Leviathan Hence why we accept State governance and law (to a greater or lesser extent, obviously people protest specific laws and injustices and what's on the statute books changes on a regular basis), because the alternative to law is "nature", aka bigger-army diplomacy. Anarchy doesn't free people, it only gives freedom to those with existing power to disempower others. Those with superior power will simply rob, rape, kill or enslave everyone else. States exist to secure their territory from those sort of external threats, and incubate an economy inside their borders, which aspires to bring wealth and happiness. The criminal law is put in place by those with the monopoly on legitimate violence, often encoding the views of the population, to keep their society running.
- PKop 3mo ago
  Either the fear of the consequences of breaking the law, or that the most effective way to reduce crime is to remove criminals from the population so over time these people being in jail or worse decreases the crime rate. They don't have to care about breaking laws in the abstract for the law, properly enforced, to reduce crime.
- BoxFour 3mo ago
  Those seem like two different scenarios though, right? The point of beastiality laws are to give society some recourse to punish people who abuse animals. There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals.
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    Animal abuse is illegal in general. A specific law like this steps in in cases where the animals aren't harmed.
    - BoxFour 3mo ago
      > in cases where the animals aren’t harmed What an odd thing to say about the sexual abuse of an animal. I don’t think the semantics are very important here, I think it was clear I'm talking about sexual abuse specifically without this odd clarification.
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        You cited a specific case. It's not odd at all in the context of that case. The professionals in charge of enforcing the law decided the animals weren't harmed.
        BoxFour 3mo ago
        > There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals. What I said, verbatim, about that case. What part of that is incorrect or warrants clarification, exactly?
        3mo ago
- GTP 3mo ago
  Well, it's a joke because the problem becomes apparent after you think a bit about it. The exact same reasonig can be applied to anything illegal, criminals are criminals because they don't respect the law, so you could try to say that laws are useless. Reality is, if something is illegal not only someone can be punished after the fact, but in some cases also preventive measures can be taken. Regarding the comment, it isn't going to stop anyone. Most people will not do cybercrime because they're honest. Of the remaining, the risk of being sentenced to jail time will instead stop some people, even if not all of them.
  - tim-tday 3mo ago
    I mean I do actually think laws are basically useless. Good people don’t need em, bad people don’t listen to em. I guess “bad” is excessive. I regularly observe traffic laws with less rigor the your average police officer would prefer.
    - GTP 3mo ago
      As you're basically saying, the world isn't black or white. There's also a category of people that needs an incentive to behave. Also, without any laws, it would be problematic to punish "the bad guys". At that point, what you can or cannot do would be only a matter of relative power: who is stronger can do whatever they want to weaker people.
      - c22 3mo ago
        This is how it's always been. The law just produces another axis of strength that is easier to gatekeep.
        GTP 3mo ago
        Nope, it reduces the issue even if it isn't solving it entirely. Without laws and law enforcement, anyone with bigger muscles than you could break your nose just because they feel you looked at them the wrong way.
- nostrademons 3mo ago
  The jury, maybe.
- seanclayton 3mo ago
  > Who are those for? The people who want to see the people doing bestiality punished
  - chaboud 3mo ago
    I don't want to "see" any of it...
    - necovek 3mo ago
      In "see (something) punished" you are seeing (making sure it happens) the "punishing", not "something".
  - d-cc 3mo ago
    As well as those who don't wish to be blessed with Herpes-B from somebody who thought it was a good idea to engage in unsafe sexual activity with other non-human primates
- d-cc 3mo ago
  >What stops most people from bestiality is… not wanting to have sex with animals! The main issues are that it's potentially really harmful towards the animals, depending on act, and a vector for zoonotic disease transfer. If you're going to do it, do it right, and accept that you're probably going to end up with some system transfer you didn't necessarily anticipate.

tyre 3mo ago

> Please do not abuse these. Reminds me of Jamie Wolf's joke about bestiality laws. Who are those for? What stops most people from bestiality is… not wanting to have sex with animals! For people who do want to, what, they won't because of… the law?? Who will this comment stop??

utopiah 3mo ago
If it stops even just 1 person once, isn't it already worth it?
- Valodim 3mo ago
  We slaughter animals millions by the day in an industrialized fashion. I'm sure they'll feel much better that even singular instances of sexual harassment are officially not ok on paper.
  - jodrellblank 3mo ago
    “Millions a day” is quite a low estimate; “””here are the best estimates of how many animals are killed every day on a per-species basis. Chickens: 206 million/day Farmed Fish: Between 211 million and 339 million Wild Fish: Between 3 billion and 6 billion Ducks: 9 million Pigs: 4 million Geese: 2 million Sheep: 1.7 million Rabbits: 1.5 million Turkeys: 1.4 million Goats: 1.4 million Cows: 846,000 Pigeons & other birds: 134,000 Buffalo: 77,000 Horses: 13,000 Other animals: 13,000 In total, this means that every 24 hours, between 3.4 and 6.5 billion animals are killed for food””” - https://sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-food-every-day/ https://sentientmedia.org/how-many-animals-are-killed-for-fo...
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  As a very general statement, there's a cost to having laws exist. A law that stops one human-scale action ever is very unlikely to be worth the overhead.
jldl805 3mo ago
The laws are to punish the act once discovered. Not to inhibit it, primarily. Which I suppose cuts down on the incidence of the act in the long run,
- ElFitz 3mo ago
  That’s one school of thought. Law as a tool to punish those who have committed a prohibited act, mostly reactive. Others consider law a way of encoding the group’s existing rules and norms. In that view, making something illegal or mandatory is not a prerequisite for punishment: it’s the actual main point. The threat of punishment is meant for those not deterred from an act by the simple fact it is illegal (and the threat only works if enforced). Others put it the other way around, and see law as social engineering, a way to shape the group, either through the encoding itself of the desired behaviours in law, or through deterrence. Or both. If what one is after is either power or legitimacy, they need compliance more than punishment (can’t rule once you’ve chopped everyone’s heads off, or once the mob has put yours on a spike). It’s also sometimes used as coordination (which side of the road we drive on). And there’s also law as dispute resolution (if your neighbour’s hen lays an egg in your garden, who does it belong to? Yes, it’s ridiculous. Yes, some places have one or more laws for that). Which, incidentally, both requires and provides legitimacy. Funny, that. And probably many other kinds / points of view, with many different purposes, intents, and mechanisms. Anyway, all that to say law is vast, fascinating, and utterly tedious. And apologies for the tangent.
  - amiga386 3mo ago
    > Law as a tool to punish those who have committed a prohibited act You're thinking of criminal law. And it's not just some group's rules and norms - there already exists familial or social group punishment for that. Criminal law is prosecuted by the State. It's the code of conduct of the society you exist in. If you want a thought experiment for what life would be like without organised society, read Leviathan Hence why we accept State governance and law (to a greater or lesser extent, obviously people protest specific laws and injustices and what's on the statute books changes on a regular basis), because the alternative to law is "nature", aka bigger-army diplomacy. Anarchy doesn't free people, it only gives freedom to those with existing power to disempower others. Those with superior power will simply rob, rape, kill or enslave everyone else. States exist to secure their territory from those sort of external threats, and incubate an economy inside their borders, which aspires to bring wealth and happiness. The criminal law is put in place by those with the monopoly on legitimate violence, often encoding the views of the population, to keep their society running.
PKop 3mo ago
Either the fear of the consequences of breaking the law, or that the most effective way to reduce crime is to remove criminals from the population so over time these people being in jail or worse decreases the crime rate. They don't have to care about breaking laws in the abstract for the law, properly enforced, to reduce crime.
BoxFour 3mo ago
Those seem like two different scenarios though, right? The point of beastiality laws are to give society some recourse to punish people who abuse animals. There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals.
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  Animal abuse is illegal in general. A specific law like this steps in in cases where the animals aren't harmed.
  - BoxFour 3mo ago
    > in cases where the animals aren’t harmed What an odd thing to say about the sexual abuse of an animal. I don’t think the semantics are very important here, I think it was clear I'm talking about sexual abuse specifically without this odd clarification.
    - Dylan16807 3mo ago
      You cited a specific case. It's not odd at all in the context of that case. The professionals in charge of enforcing the law decided the animals weren't harmed.
      - BoxFour 3mo ago
        > There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals. What I said, verbatim, about that case. What part of that is incorrect or warrants clarification, exactly?
        3mo ago
GTP 3mo ago
Well, it's a joke because the problem becomes apparent after you think a bit about it. The exact same reasonig can be applied to anything illegal, criminals are criminals because they don't respect the law, so you could try to say that laws are useless. Reality is, if something is illegal not only someone can be punished after the fact, but in some cases also preventive measures can be taken. Regarding the comment, it isn't going to stop anyone. Most people will not do cybercrime because they're honest. Of the remaining, the risk of being sentenced to jail time will instead stop some people, even if not all of them.
- tim-tday 3mo ago
  I mean I do actually think laws are basically useless. Good people don’t need em, bad people don’t listen to em. I guess “bad” is excessive. I regularly observe traffic laws with less rigor the your average police officer would prefer.
  - GTP 3mo ago
    As you're basically saying, the world isn't black or white. There's also a category of people that needs an incentive to behave. Also, without any laws, it would be problematic to punish "the bad guys". At that point, what you can or cannot do would be only a matter of relative power: who is stronger can do whatever they want to weaker people.
    - c22 3mo ago
      This is how it's always been. The law just produces another axis of strength that is easier to gatekeep.
      - GTP 3mo ago
        Nope, it reduces the issue even if it isn't solving it entirely. Without laws and law enforcement, anyone with bigger muscles than you could break your nose just because they feel you looked at them the wrong way.
nostrademons 3mo ago
The jury, maybe.
seanclayton 3mo ago
> Who are those for? The people who want to see the people doing bestiality punished
- chaboud 3mo ago
  I don't want to "see" any of it...
  - necovek 3mo ago
    In "see (something) punished" you are seeing (making sure it happens) the "punishing", not "something".
- d-cc 3mo ago
  As well as those who don't wish to be blessed with Herpes-B from somebody who thought it was a good idea to engage in unsafe sexual activity with other non-human primates
d-cc 3mo ago
>What stops most people from bestiality is… not wanting to have sex with animals! The main issues are that it's potentially really harmful towards the animals, depending on act, and a vector for zoonotic disease transfer. If you're going to do it, do it right, and accept that you're probably going to end up with some system transfer you didn't necessarily anticipate.