251–260 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to be an em-dash user, but now my opinion is that I’d rather be perceived as someone who does not want to be confused with an LLM. So I’ve changed my writing style.
I don’t give a flying fuck what people think. Most colleges copied or adopted my (for a few semesters) school’s style guide, so LLMs are essentially copying me , and I won’t change my punctuation usage because they suck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a whole lot of “we” to not mention which company you’re at that supposedly plays well with security researchers/has a proper bug bounty.
I say we, intentionally not naming the company, because 1) doing so tends to turn off people's brains and they default assume everything $company does is the correct way, but if I say something stupid I'd rather someone tell me, instead of assume someone at $company must know or couldn't possibly know. 2) I say we, because I'm speaking for myself, (and maybe a tiny bit) for my 2 friends still running the BB program a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those seem like two different scenarios though, right? The point of beastiality laws are to give society some recourse to punish people who abuse animals. There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to…
Animal abuse is illegal in general. A specific law like this steps in in cases where the animals aren't harmed.
What an odd thing to say about the sexual abuse of an animal.
I don’t think the semantics are very important here, I think it was clear I'm talking about sexual abuse specifically without this odd clarification.
Pretty unimpressive as security vulnerabilities. It would be better to just say these are simple bugs for the most part.
I disagree. That FFmpeg code execution is absolutely nasty
Like yes there is a heap OOB issue in an incredibly old file format, but without already having arguably compromised access to a machine, exploiting it for RCE seems impossible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say we, intentionally not naming the company, because 1) doing so tends to turn off people's brains and they default assume everything $company does is the correct way, but if I say something stupid I'd rather someone tell me, instead of assume someone at $company must know or couldn't possibly know. 2) I say we, because I'm speaking for myself, (and maybe a tiny bit) for my 2 friends still running the BB program a…
Then say “When I was at my old school” - not “we”.
I meant it when I said it intentionally. I still run BB programs the same way, and expect others to behave similarly. Funny enough I was just talking to that friend this week, about the BB program. Nothing has changed so given my friends still follow the same pattern at that company... We is more accurate. Sorry it bothers you, but not everyone is you.
Looks like a bunch of re worded copies of existing CVE and a few new lower severity things. I only call them low sev because they seem to require the user to do things that are already inherently dangerous. Just my 2 cents from a quick scan. Edit: To be clear still interesting finds. I think with some chaining some of them might be more severe. Like the ovpn one and windows potentially registering vpn app as default…
Yea, that's what's confusing. some of these are like lower level slop but some are like genuine criticals. Floci, libssh2, c-ares, FFmpeg, and the PHP one are all LEGIT./ The Ghidra one for example, not so much. I cant help but wonder if this was halfway completed research folder and they just published it as is
Most of the exploits are for opensource/free software. I don't know what methods where used to find these exploits but I am starting to think security through obscurity might not be a bad thing in this day and age, where someone can just let bots loose on your codebase.
llms are fantastic disassembly partners, they're quite good at labeling functions from various dissassemblers -- the net losses from losing the benefits of open source , imo , outweigh the protection afforded by hiding your source code in yet another layer that is more and more easily unrolled through automated procedures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animal abuse is illegal in general. A specific law like this steps in in cases where the animals aren't harmed.
> in cases where the animals aren’t harmed What an odd thing to say about the sexual abuse of an animal. I don’t think the semantics are very important here, I think it was clear I'm talking about sexual abuse specifically without this odd clarification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in cases where the animals aren’t harmed What an odd thing to say about the sexual abuse of an animal. I don’t think the semantics are very important here, I think it was clear I'm talking about sexual abuse specifically without this odd clarification.
You cited a specific case. It's not odd at all in the context of that case. The professionals in charge of enforcing the law decided the animals weren't harmed.
What I said, verbatim, about that case.
What part of that is incorrect or warrants clarification, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cited a specific case. It's not odd at all in the context of that case. The professionals in charge of enforcing the law decided the animals weren't harmed.
> There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals. What I said, verbatim, about that case. What part of that is incorrect or warrants clarification, exactly?
I appreciate your definition of abuse here but it's confusing in a discussion about legality.