AshamedCaptain

6 ms·

61.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
And? I really do not think anyone is complaining here about the water disappearing into thin air or its atomic components or whether it goes in a pipe or into the moon. The definition of using water is quite clear (you can no longer drink i
62.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
No, the report is already not counting whatever can be reused. It's the point of it.
63.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
Where is the source for that? I am only familiar with one site, the STMicro one in the Alps, which already used 4000 acre-feet / 5 million m³ per year in 2023 [1], and it's been at least doubled since then. This is a huge chunk
64.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
Plus semiconductor manufacturing et al which are also heavy users of water.
65.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
I get the point, but note that (custom) datatypes and function prototypes are for readability. They are not required for working nor functionally-equivalent code.
66.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
It is weird to limit to "the same attack". Why does it even have to be the same attack? From the moment sshd loads your modified lib, you're literally running code with root privileges on the victim machine. You can literally
67.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
> Most programs make zero effort to sandbox themselves, and as soon as one of those links with the malicious library, it could do anything. Like indirectly targeting sshd by patching its binary on disk (optionally hiding it with a rootki
68.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
But the fact that it was done indirectly from systemd has nothing to do with IFUNC.
69.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
I do not understand what is it so hard to "generate working code". Even the free version of Hexrays was doing it 15 years ago, and I have written one in my company that I have used for over 30 years. It's actually ... trivia
70.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
The entire argumentation here is ridiculous. There's a big jump from "IFUNC slightly undermines RELRO" to "IFUNC is the real culprit". You could have gotten all but the same effect spawning a thread from a plain ini
71.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
The entire argumentation here is ridiculous. There's a big jump from "IFUNC undermines RELRO" to "IFUNC is the issue". You could have gotten all but the same effect spawning a thread from a plain init or C++ constru
72.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
My point is that we have been past the "working compilation" way before LLMs, and I do not think anything in LLMs help with it, at best agents use these tools with the same efficiency. I disagree that they're good at writing
73.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
> Only in a very rudimentary sense and definitely not in a working compilation (much less binary equivalent) sense. Working is the easy part; the hard part is getting something that classifies as readable C. LLMs do not really help reach
74.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
Decompilation to C (and even C++!) has been done automatically for 2-3 decades at least. I am not sure what has changed in recent years other than people playing fast and loose with copyright (and GitHub allowing it, likely because their L
75.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
Pidgin predates keychains, but if I remember correctly you had the option to set up a master password or to simply disable storing passwords, which were the only options that were truly incrementing security. But most users would not do tha
76.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
The problem with this argument is that you can justify an infinite amount of crap with it, the security equivalent of cockroach papers; which inevitably people ends up treating as real security. One example I remember is Pidgin storing its
77.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
But NAT is _not_ a firewall. It's entire purpose is to allow traffic through. There's a million dozen tricks attackers can play, e.g. tricking a PC into sending traffic to some address will usually allow all traffic from that addr
78.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
So, wishful thinking it is. There is a bazillion of jurisprudence about decompilation in the EU . Just search for your favorite case. I'm based in the EU (France). But FYI, despite what you may think, in practice the US is more lax abo
79.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
Decompilation produces a derivative work. This is not up for debate, or disagreement. The exception for interoperability only applies to _the minimum required_ for interoperability. You can use this exception to distribute e.g. game authori
80.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
There is little to no creative work whatsoever if you end up with exactly the same game; and often they end up with exactly the same binary as well. Source translations are derivative works almost by definition. It doesn't matter what
81.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
This is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation. There is no interoperability here at all, you are literally just copying the work in question. It is like claiming that compiling Samba to run in $NEW_PLATFORM suddenly strips Samba of the GP
82.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
No, because there always are "better encryption systems", whether for good reasons or not that's another story.
83.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
And in the process immediately convert huge numbers of devices into ewaste. Then check the excuse calendar again for tomorrow's reason to deprecate yet another batch of "legacy" ciphers from openSSL.
84.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
You do not need the pointer at all. f() not specifying the arguments has been the case since forever. "Prototypes" (90s) are newer than C.
85.
by AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
no, even though I'm not sure they cannot.
86.
by AshamedCaptain 6mo ago
There are realtek multigig/2.5GBASE-T switches that idle at 1W, or 2W for 8 port. Even the 4 port version here does 5W, and is just gigabit.
87.
by AshamedCaptain 6mo ago
The biggest problem with fiber is that you cannot do cable work without equipment, which partially neglects the advantages of the thiner wires since you have to always account for the plug. But it is true that, otherwise, and in a surprisin
88.
by AshamedCaptain 6mo ago
> given the price point of these switches when buying new I would highly recommend that you instead look for a used managed Gigabit switch. Power, power, power .... one of these older gigabit switches is going to use 10x power at idle,
89.
by AshamedCaptain 6mo ago
The problem with all these arguments is that DOS extenders of the day used to do the same, or more. Do you call DOS extenders "operating systems not shells" too ? On one hand you have that the technical answer to the above questio
90.
by AshamedCaptain 6mo ago
I guess easier than https://github.com/haileys/doslinux

More ›