Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next time you see a shortened word, you can just assume it's useful. Because they are.
4 sr i dt ths T (for some reason I doubt that's true)
I read this as "for sure I do this too"
Serious Chrome zero-day
71–80 of 377 posts
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, I have seen a lot of unneeded abbreviations. Thankfully we are (almost) out of the age of 140c messages and 40c editor lines. But more to the point, 'vulns' seems like a very unnatural abbreviation. I would go with v11n (similar to i18n).
v11n meaning vulnerabilitn presumably ;)
I was picturing villain with an implied evil laughter.
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#73Honest question - why do people use Chrome? It’s from an arguably as-evil company as Facebook. Alternatives exist. What’s the draw?
Easily embeddable.
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next time you see a shortened word, you can just assume it's useful. Because they are.
Not really, I have seen a lot of unneeded abbreviations. Thankfully we are (almost) out of the age of 140c messages and 40c editor lines. But more to the point, 'vulns' seems like a very unnatural abbreviation. I would go with v11n (similar to i18n).
Oh please _please_ don't. i18n is a terribly obscure term with no implicit link to the actual word. This is a place where "naming things is hard" but for big concept chose short concise terminology while letting the details get lost in the verbose verbiage. Whenever I see i18n I just weep over the fact they didn't use the term "lang", internationalization is complicated and hard to shorten due to other meaningful jargon around it but there are better options than the dumpster fire which is i18n.
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#75Honest question - why do people use Chrome? It’s from an arguably as-evil company as Facebook. Alternatives exist. What’s the draw?
Since its inception I am aware of a single (this situation) case of an ITW exploit. So, that's why.
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, chat makes sense. Thank you for actually stating a use-case.
Next time you see a shortened word, you can just assume it's useful. Because they are.
> Next time u c a shrt'd wrd u cn just ass. it's useful. B/c they r.
They aren't always useful but I've rewritten your sentence in what I would consider a minimally legible format for me... but that's the problem it's for me. Don't introduce jargon in an effort to reduce comprehension time, it almost never works if you consider the time to familiarize yourself with the jargon. So when you're writing a blog post about PHP feel free to sprinkle in some comments about var vars, when you're communicating with your team use all your internal jargon... but when publishing an article for wide consumption just write everything out clearly.
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#77I'll be that guy.
Chrome has probably invested > 1 billion dollars into their codebase at this point. Certainly >100million into security.
They sandbox their code aggressively. They build this project with security in mind from day 1 - it's been architected for it.
The Chrome security team(s) has a lot of power for a product security org.
They fuzz. They invent new fuzzers. They cluster their fuzzers.
They have a world class bounty program.
They have a world class research team for finding vulns.
They invent or otherwise aggressively adopt mitigation techniques.
But someone out there did it.
Their track record for security is something to really be proud of - this is the first public ITW exploit of its type that I am aware of. But users are getting owned because of, at the very least, a Use After Free vulnerability.
Let's just collectively admit it, finally - you can't write safe C++ in a codebase this complex.
edit: (From a post below)
To be clear, I'm not saying "Chrome should be rewritten in a memory safe language", I'm saying that Chrome is an excellent project to point to, say "Wow, no one does as much to secure a codebase as them", and to follow that up with "and they still got owned by UAF".
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#78This blog post is so watered down and manages to digress at every possible point that it is almost impossible to read. The only useful part of the text are the URLs. Also, this: > A vulnerability, or vuln for short, is a bug that makes software go wrong in a way that reduces computer security. Does anyone actually use this abbreviation?
Vuln is a common abbreviation in the security space - although, I dont appreciate parts of the sentence structure and how things are written in the article in general. Its difficult to read.
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#79TLDR: 72.0.3626.121 is the version you are looking for
Re: Serious Chrome zero-day
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does anyone actually use this abbreviation? More common in plural (vulns). However, it sounds oddly vulgar in my ears.
It's weird because when you read vulnerability (or at least when I say it) the first phoneme effectively becomes 'vun' - but in the abbreviated form one feels the need to mentally enunciate the 'l'.
I think the dropped l might just be your locale. I certainly pronounce it in the full word.