teacup50

92 ms·

901.
by teacup50 13y ago
Code execution requires active compromise of target hosts. MITM'ing on the NSA scale can be done without risking any noticeable intrusion on the target hosts. So what's "greater"?
902.
by teacup50 13y ago
This affects every single application using TLS, even when sandboxed. Is that more, or less, exploitable? How many angels fit on a head of a pin?
903.
by teacup50 13y ago
You have an odd definition of "less exploitable". On what planet is compromise of all trusted communications "less exploitable" just because it doesn't immediately lead to code execution? Once you are MITM'ing,
904.
by teacup50 13y ago
So -- your original point is moot, because the MS monopoly means we all need to buy Microsoft Office anyway. Got it.
905.
Trivially Unit Testing Apple's SSL Bug(github.com)
2 points by teacup50 13y ago|0 comments
906.
by teacup50 13y ago
5 lines of a unit test also verify this: https://github.com/landonf/Testability-CVE-2014-1266/blob/ma...
907.
by teacup50 13y ago
Yes, you used LaTeX in school. Best argument ever. That is absolutely weak man. If you live out in the real world, there aren't plenty of alternatives. I kid you not, I keep buying MS Word, despite hating it passionately, because it&#x
908.
by teacup50 13y ago
> What more can you really ask them to do? Nothing, of course. But it would certainly be wise for anyone to relying on their code to reconsider: if you try to participate in the community, you may simply be wasting your time.
909.
by teacup50 13y ago
> You took a file that could be visible on my 13" and made it huge and bloated. You're angry about this? https://github.com/amplitude/Amplitude-iOS/blob/master/Ampli... Selector naming isn
910.
by teacup50 13y ago
Wouldn't it have made more sense to contribute the changes first, rather than creating a fork of your own project ? This is just wasteful behavior. Why would anyone try to work with you to build community around this code? Why should
911.
by teacup50 13y ago
It's no more shit for mobile than the HTTP+JSON "protocols" people ship every day.
912.
by teacup50 13y ago
> It's not like the companies in 1998/99 which had no revenue, no users, but spent millions on Super Bowl ads. It's not? They had users back then, too.
913.
by teacup50 13y ago
Scale matters. $400M vs $16B. How much of that $400M price was set based on $-per-user? On top of that, this was back in the first bubble, and we saw how that went.
914.
by teacup50 13y ago
> This is bullshit rhetorical sophistry, and I'm pretty sure you know it. No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims. > Imag
915.
by teacup50 13y ago
> Business doesn't work that way. You make hay when the sun shines. The idea of a "fair deal" IS part of business, if customers decide it's part of business. Once you factor in our basic sense of ethics and fair dea
916.
by teacup50 13y ago
> No, by technicality of the licenses ... This teacup tempest is entirely of GNU's own making. It's nobody else's fault that their licenses are so onerous that they can't even keep them compatible with later revisio
917.
by teacup50 13y ago
Just use Twitter's own API keys.
918.
by teacup50 13y ago
1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) No. This is what makes a desktop computer useful. If you don't trust code, don't run untrusted code. I also recommend not aiming loaded weapons at your own foot.
919.
by teacup50 13y ago
> - Add a trusted CA: will prompt for credentials IIRC this isn't protected by the actual keychain file, and can be done by simply editing the file manually. Regardless, peer commentator already noted that password prompts are hardl
920.
by teacup50 13y ago
There are a million ways to proxy a store transaction. Guess what else the user can do: - Add trusted CA certificates. - Configure proxy settings. - Launch arbitrary applications. - Delete all the users files. What you're talking about
921.
by teacup50 13y ago
> That depends. If the software is fully understood by its creators, and if it has been thoroughly tested, there's no reason to doubt its reliability. How did you arrive at that conclusion? How, exactly, is it "fully understo
922.
by teacup50 13y ago
If there was a list of a use cases for typed, "safer" languages, crypto-currency would be near the top of the list. I can't think of any technical, risk-related, or financial justification for implementing a core piece of cry
923.
by teacup50 13y ago
Perhaps you should look into how Mac OS X handles these things while still maintaining separation of concerns. Systemd is a joke of a software design by comparison.
924.
by teacup50 13y ago
Moot? Putting dbus in the kernel is demented. Creating a hard dependency between it and a monolithic set of interdependent systemd code is even more demented. It's like the Linux folks looked at Mac OS X and learned nothing . Hint: Ma
925.
by teacup50 13y ago
In FreeBSD land, nobody wastes eons of time hacking out bad code experiments like systemd and then arguing between themselves on whether to distribute them. It's a stable system you can rely on, year by year. That's not a small up
926.
by teacup50 13y ago
There's Apache UserGrid, too: http://usergrid.incubator.apache.org/
927.
by teacup50 13y ago
Or, you could learn from this, and not use Parse.
928.
by teacup50 13y ago
You know, it is possible to run your own centralized git repository ...
929.
by teacup50 13y ago
I can't be the only one that A) Programs in multiple languages and B) Would gladly pay for language add-one to one IDE. I'd be happy to use IntelliJ for everything!
930.
by teacup50 13y ago
Layering violations don't only happen within the process level.

More ›