c0pium

36 ms·

421.
by c0pium 3y ago
In a word, yes. The code execution CVEs, especially for iOS which is the subject here, all start with <=2014. There has been a huge amount of work since then (accelerated by the research device program). It’s a favorite boogeyman of the
422.
by c0pium 3y ago
Stop repeating unsubstantiated rumors as facts. PoC||GTFO
423.
by c0pium 3y ago
You should google the word “intentionally”, you’re using it incorrectly. The unfounded assumption that I was challenging was the existence of trolley problem solvers being deliberately written. Nobody is doing that.
424.
by c0pium 3y ago
You should re-read those definitions. They both mean intentionally.
425.
by c0pium 3y ago
Of course there are, they’re sold as “privacy” or sometimes “security” cables. To be clear, “juice jacking” is not a thing anymore, but people are still foolishly worried about it so there’s a market. https://www.amazon.com/
426.
by c0pium 3y ago
They have for several years.
427.
by c0pium 3y ago
ABMS is sensor fusion, relax. You’re not that important. Don’t worry, the pentagon is totally incapable of breakneck speed.
428.
by c0pium 3y ago
No it can’t. Every definition of ignore you will find has intention in it, words mean things. You don’t think it’s important to draw a distinction between whether a robot was deliberately programmed to do something malicious as opposed to a
429.
by c0pium 3y ago
(As of now) You’re being downvoted by people who don’t leave enough following room on the highway. This is however the correct answer. Collisions need to be avoided by assuming others will do stupid things. Because they will.
430.
by c0pium 3y ago
> already programmers have intentionally written code to react when facing this dilemma Citation needed. > was derided on this venue for unreasonably introducing the 'trolley car' philosophical Appropriately.
431.
by c0pium 3y ago
Sounds like I struck a nerve. Next time you’re telling someone a detailed story about what route you took to dinner, stop and ask yourself if it’s actually that interesting. Seriously though, technology has nothing to do with this. People h
432.
by c0pium 3y ago
Ah, you’re talking about main character syndrome. Showing pictures to someone is one of the cruelest things you can do; you’re probably boring and a terrible storyteller (most people are) but they’re going to feel obligated to not tell you
433.
by c0pium 3y ago
Sure have, it’s hellacious. I don’t give a fuck about who that baby was, why would I? Relations who my parents only vaguely remember going somewhere boring that I would never go, or someone’s 12th trip to the same lake, is a great use for F
434.
by c0pium 3y ago
If misery goes up as you age you’re doing it wrong.
435.
by c0pium 3y ago
I’ve seen no models that are the same across the US and EU market, do you have any evidence for this?
436.
by c0pium 3y ago
> The best I can do here is "trust me bro", and a bit of social validation. You seem to have totally missed the point of this thread. That’s not the best you can do, it’s merely the best you’re willing to do. You’re so convince
437.
by c0pium 3y ago
Yes.
438.
by c0pium 3y ago
If you do anything wrong then it can cause problems, sure. Is that what we should base our decisions on?
439.
by c0pium 3y ago
Httpd was an absolute disaster from a security standpoint in the 90s, as was everything. Modsecurity didn’t even come out until 2002. Comparing nginx (released in 2004) is apples and oranges to say the least. OpenSSL or log4j would like a w
440.
by c0pium 3y ago
If it makes you feel better the click was actually unnecessary theater.
441.
by c0pium 3y ago
I don’t see how what code it is matters, the principle doesn’t change based on the people involved. The people who wrote OpenSSL thought they knew what they were doing. As did the people who approved Dual_EC_DRBG. “Professional grade librar
442.
by c0pium 3y ago
I’ve heard this before, but I don’t understand why people think this. Having an SBOM for a lovecraftian horror won’t make it less of a horror, and it will give people something to point at and say “it must be safe, it’s got this cryptograph
443.
by c0pium 3y ago
Contributing critical code for free is a non-goal, and having critical software that the creator has no liability for is an antipattern. You’re crowding out safer software with a free option and everyone is worse off for it.
444.
by c0pium 3y ago
You’re ignoring the safer futures that were choked off by allowing developers to totally ignore safety and security. People are smart, they would have figured out really solid mechanisms that gave you great software that’s actually safe. Lo
445.
by c0pium 3y ago
One useful side benefit of using a private package repo is telemetry. If every dev and CI/CD machine comes with your private pypi, and you want to know where some bad version was used, you can just check the logs as opposed to playing
446.
by c0pium 3y ago
I’m very aware of cellulose in food production, this comment is not responsive to my point. Edit: while we’re playing food trivia though, ponder the no-sawdust rule that doesn’t forbid cinnamon.
447.
by c0pium 3y ago
It’s really easy to develop (especially backend) code that doesn’t have this horrible problem. Just use literally any other language. This is neither modern nor a reality. Regulation can’t come to this snake oil industry fast enough.
448.
by c0pium 3y ago
As long as it’s food safe saw dust then the FDA is doing it’s job. We should be perfectly happy to trade in higher quality but dangerous products for lower quality but safe ones. The airline industry kills many fewer people than it used to,
449.
by c0pium 3y ago
Huh? Logs are how you run the service. Cost is what keeps you from retaining more of them. Since you seem not to be familiar with the subject, retention policy is something of a misnomer; it would be more accurate to call it a deletion&#x2F
450.
by c0pium 3y ago
Retention policies at cloud providers are 100% about storage space (and accompanying cost). At companies like Microsoft saying “reduced cogs” is a very reliable way to get bonuses.

More ›