Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
It seems OP wanted to pass the file name to -k
, but this parameter takes the password itself and not a filename:
-k password
The password to derive the key from. This is for compatibility with previous versions of OpenSSL. Superseded by the -pass argument.
So, as I understand, the password would be not the first line of /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
, but the string /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
itself. It seems that -kfile /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
or -pass file:/etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
is what OP wanted to use.
I like btdu which is essentially ncdu, but works in a way that is useful even if advanced btrfs features (CoW, compression etc.) are used.
I am afraid you are still a bit misled; WireGuard is exactly what they use for the demo video. In general the underlying protocol does not matter, since the vulnerability is about telling the system to direct the packages to the attacker, completely bypassing the VPN.
I really need to try out Mercury one day. When we did a project in Prolog at uni, it felt cool, but also incredibly dynamic in a bad way. There were a few times when we misspelled some clause, which normally would be an error, but in our case it just meant falsehood. We then spent waaay to much time searching for these. I can’t help but think that Mercury would be as fun as Prolog, but less annoying.
I actually use from time to time the Bower email client, which is written in Mercury.
My understanding is that all issues are patched in the mentioned releases, the config flag is not needed for that.
The config flag has been added because supporting clients with different endianness is undertested and most people will never use it. So if it is going to generate vulnerabilities, it makes sense to be able to disable it easily, and to disable it by default on next major release. Indeed XWayland had it disabled by default already, so only the fourth issue (ProcRenderAddGlyphs
) is relevant there if that default is not changed.
I got curious and decided to check this out. This value was set to the current one in 2009: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/341c87bf346f57748230628c5ad6ee69219250e8 The reasoning makes sense, but I guess is not really relevant to our situation, and according to the newest version of the comment 2^16 is not a hard limit anymore.
No idea then :( AFAIK the logind mechanism I mentioned originally is based only on permissions, but I had never really needed to look into it further.
Interesting. For me, it’s only the /dev/dri/render*
device that is owned by the render
group, but this device is world-RW anyway. Still, I guess you can add the user to the render
group too? I did find some info that Debian uses that group this way, though I have never used Debian myself, so can’t verify that.
Actually there probably is one. I thought that the classic way of managing permission by the video
group is gone, but in all my installs (Arch and NixOS) the GPU devices ( EDIT: /dev/video*
/dev/dri/card*
, the previous one is your webcam) are still owned by root:video
. Maybe just adding your user to video
group will work? Arch Wiki even suggests this in this case:
There are some notable exceptions which require adding a user to some of these groups: for example if you want to allow users to access the device even when they are not logged in.
Random guess: your GPU is managed by logind and bound to your session. When your session ends, logind takes away the permissions. This kind of makes sense, if somebody else were to physically login on your PC, they should get (probably exclusive) access to the GPU.
Not sure if this is even a good idea since I have never researched this, but maybe you can just write some udev rules to ensure that your user always has permissions to access the device?
The bootloader is stored unencrypted on your disk. Therefore it is trivial to modify, the other person just needs to power down your PC, take the hard drive out, mount it on their own PC and modify stuff. This is the Evil Maid attack the other person talked about.
Edit: Actually, I thought about it, and I don’t think clang’s behavior is wrong in the examples he cites. Basically, you’re using an uninitialized variable, and choosing to use compiler settings which make that legal, and the compiler is saying “Okay, you didn’t give me a value for this variable, so I’m just going to pick one that’s convenient for me and do my optimizations according to the value I picked.” Is that the best thing for it to do? Maybe not; it certainly violates the principle of least surprise. But, it’s hard for me to say it’s the compiler’s fault that you constructed a program that does something surprising when uninitialized variables you’re using happen to have certain values.
You got it correct in this edit. But the important part is that gcc will also do this, and they both are kinda expected to do so. The article cites some standard committee discussions: somebody suggested ensuring that signed integer overflow in C++20 will not UB, and the committee decided against it. Also, somebody suggested not allowing to optimize out the infinite loops like 13 years ago, and then the committee decided that it should be allowed. Therefore, these optimisations are clearly seen as features.
And these are not theoretical issues by any means, there has been this vulnerability in the kernel for instance: https://lwn.net/Articles/342330/ which happened because the compiler just removed a null pointer check.
You could make an argument that not using banking apps decreases your security, since most banks use either SMS or those apps as the second factor while confirming the operations. It is true that the apps are of varying quality, but SMS is not really a serious alternative. Some banks do have apps that are limited to confirming operations, and one bank where I live did recently start accepting U2F, which is amazing news.
Isn’t this the point though? Like, if you spot that (let’s concretize) the trash is starting to overflow, you can either take it out right now which will take you 2 minutes and (hopefully) barely interrupt your day, or you can add it to your list of things to do. And so you get that list of 59 things by ignoring the 2-minute rule, not by applying it.
That’s because all the audio drama focused on PulseAudio.
Same for Polish. One funny thing I’ve noticed is that in one of the examples, the person tries to stay at a hotel, and the price is clearly in the old currency, which has not been used since 1997.
IANAL nor intelligent, but after skimming the text of the directive I felt like the definition of damage is very limited. In particular, if I understand correctly:
would not be covered by this directive, this directive is only about a human being hurt in some way,
would be covered in case of “your game installs a kernel-level anticheat and the anticheat breaks PCs”, but not in the case of “you uploaded an upgrade to a firmware of the washing machine you produced and it bricked the machines”; the directive is not about a product breaking, but about the product breaking your health, other property or data,
is basically the exact case this directive covers.