just_curioussss

7 ms·

1.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
A new study of chickens overturns the popular assumption that evolution is only visible over long time scales. And yet the popular assumption remains the same, because it is the ignorance of the general public that perpetuates it and not
2.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
Your comparison is not analogous. It should be; a car owner that left the car unlocked with a bunch of private information inside.
3.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
Imagine what would happen if serious hackers decided to go after this company. Maybe they will implement https this time. The kid exposed a major security problem and overall helped everyone, even the company in the long term.
4.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
Because doctors don't wear masks to protect themselves. Of course they do, because they are also humans vulnerable to diseases. Even more so because they are exposed daily and are usually not the ones introducing diseases into the en
5.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
Never though about it that way. There are many other jobs that expose their workers to airborne chemicals. One that comes to mind immediately is anything near urban traffic. Could society adapt for those workers to start wearing masks or si
6.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
How fact does it start to repeat itself?
7.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
A couple of greatest hits: [–]LouisDeFeo 2 points 16 hours ago* Since a new drug came out that's almost the same as your company's for such a cheap price, how do expect to turn a profit now? [–]martinshkreli[S] 0 points 16
8.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
No one will ever read this, but I just wanted to point out that the whole allocation is simply incorrect. Even with just namelen+1 you can still get undefined behavior. This is because if namelen is shorter than the padding of the object
9.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
Note, this refers to: https://opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-1044.40.1/gen/...
10.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
And who is calling their internet service, Internet? Oh, right, the same person. What's next, Facebook? Oh.....
11.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
Depending on the value of namelen , and the padding at the end of the struct FTSENT, struct p->fts_statp will occupy one byte out of bounds of the allocated memory. The comment made in the code is incorrect: Since the fts_name field
12.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
There is a defined method for comparing such pointers. Take unsigned char pointers to them and inspect their bytes. Then write your code, using that information, that does the comparison, assuming you know your architecture. It is defined b
13.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
That is called unspecified behavior not undefined behavior. Major difference.
14.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
If lock calls include a memory barrier, which they should, then they cannot be reordered. Edit: Your code has undefined behavior, unless the two pointers point to the same object, which is unlikely in a realistic example.
15.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
By rejecting a certain pattern you weakening the whole password scheme. It is no longer random, it is human chosen. An attacker can under certain circumstances exploit this behavior. For example, if they notice you are picking shorter words
16.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
I found a couple different definitions: https://opensource.apple.com/source/OpenSSH/OpenSSH-95/opens... https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-792.13.8/bsd/ppc... ht
17.
by just_curioussss 11y ago
This part is also suspicious: p->fts_statp = (struct stat )ALIGN(p->fts_name + namelen + 2);* Unless ALIGN aligns the pointer towards the lower address( which would be weird ), that +2 might get out of bounds depending on how many b