151–160 of 301 posts
I don't know if I should be surprised about what's described in this article, given the current state of the world. Certainly I didn't know about it before, and I agree with the article's conclusion. Personally, I think the "network sharing" software bundled with apps should fall into the category of potentially unwanted applications along with adware and spyware. All of the above "tag along" with something the user…
The broken thing about the web is that in order for data to remain readable, a unique sysadmin somewhere has to keep a server running in the face of an increasingly hostile environment. If instead we had a content addressed model, we could drop the uniqueness constraint. Then these AI scrapers could be gossiping the data to one another (and incidentally serving it to the rest of us) without placing any burden on the…
We need a list of apps that include these libraries and any malware scanner - including Windows Defender, Play Protect and whatever Apple calls theirs - need to put infected applications into quarantine immediately. Just because it's not directly causing damage to the device running the malware is running on, that doesn't mean it's not malware.
> So if you as an app developer include such a 3rd party SDK in your app to make some money — you are part of the problem and I think you should be held responsible for delivering malware to your users, making them botnet members. I suspect that this goes for many different SDKs. Personally, I am really, really sick of hearing "That's a solved problem!", whenever I mention that I tend to "roll my own," as opposed to…
> So there is a (IMHO) shady market out there that gives app developers on iOS, Android, MacOS and Windows money for including a library into their apps that sells users network bandwidth AKA "why do Cloudflare and Google make me fill out these CAPTCHAs all day" I don't know why Play Protect/MS Defender/whatever Apple has for antivirus don't classify apps that embed such malware as such. It's ridiculous that this is…
"Infatica is partnered with Bitdefender, a global leader in cybersecurity, to protect our SDK users from malicious web traffic and content, including infected URLs, untrusted web pages, fraudulent and phishing links, and more." That's not good.
AI scrapers and "sneaker bots" are just the tip of the iceberg. Why are all these entities concentrated and metastasizing from just a few superhubs? Why do they look, smell and behave like state-level machinery? If you've researched you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Unless complicit, tech leaders (Apple Google Microsoft) have a duty to respond swiftly and decisively. This has been going on far too long.
We need a list of apps that include these libraries and any malware scanner - including Windows Defender, Play Protect and whatever Apple calls theirs - need to put infected applications into quarantine immediately. Just because it's not directly causing damage to the device running the malware is running on, that doesn't mean it's not malware.
Apps should be required to ask for permission to access specific domains. Similar to the tracking protection, Apple introduced a while ago. Not sure how this could work for browsers, but the other 99% of apps I have on my phone should work fine with just a single permitted domain.
> So if you as an app developer include such a 3rd party SDK in your app to make some money — you are part of the problem and I think you should be held responsible for delivering malware to your users, making them botnet members. I suspect that this goes for many different SDKs. Personally, I am really, really sick of hearing "That's a solved problem!", whenever I mention that I tend to "roll my own," as opposed to…
Malware, botnets… it is very similar. And people including developers are - in 80 per cent - eagier to make money, because… Is greed good? No, it isn’t. It is a plague.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pattern you are describing is what I know as the Strategy pattern [0]. See the example there with the Car class that takes a BrakeBehavior as a constructor parameter [1]. I have no issue with that and use it regularly. The Strategy pattern precedes the notion of dependency injection by around ten years. The term Dependency Injection was coined by Martin Fowler with this article: https://martinfowler.com/articles/…
They're not really exclusive ideas. The Constructor Injection section in Fowler's article is exactly the same as the Strategy pattern. But no one talks about the Strategy pattern anymore, it's all wrapped into the idea of DI and that's what caught on.