If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.
bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw
For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
31–40 of 124 posts
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#32If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.
bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw
edit: Reading the linked article, they describe one of their validation method: > The Host header contains the domain the HTTP client resolved to connect to the bitsquat server. If the Host header matches the original domain, the corruption occurred on the red path (DNS path). If the Host header matches a bitsquat domain, the corruption occurred on the blue path (content path).
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#33I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"
Unless you know what you are doing, you might want to delete that. Probably goes against the NDA you've signed, no?
http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI%206_2...
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#34If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw
I think the article gives good reasons to believe they are not typos, why do you think otherwise?
[1] "These requests were not typos or other manually entered URLs"
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#36Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#37I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#38If you don't believe in bit flips, try this! http://dinaburg.org/bitsquatting.html I did that for a bit on cloudfront.net and got dozens of them in a short amount of time.
bitflips are also single char typos in ascii. I'm guessing that is what you saw
I don't think that sounds right.
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#39A pedantic point (good thing I'm on HN), but I wonder if they didn't actually mean muons and not gamma rays?
I doubt think the programmer knew one way or the other, just doing what they were told by the manufacturer, and gamma ray is probably easier to explain to anyone after the 1950s/60s than muon. I mean after all, did any superhero get their powers from muons?
Re: For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays
#40I found this code as an intern at Microsoft, while the manufacturer is hidden in the post, I'll give you a clue - the company starts with "I" and ends with "ntel"
Unless you know what you are doing, you might want to delete that. Probably goes against the NDA you've signed, no?
Not as true anymore now that they support arm but... Still kinda true.