You don't always need a shebang if it is marked as executable,is this a cosmetic conformity thing?
αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
281–290 of 309 posts
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#282> the x86_64 patents should expire this year. Apple could have probably made their own x86 chip without paying royalties. The free/open architecture that we've always dreamed of, might turn out to be the one we're already using. I've never seen anyone mention this before. Is this really in the cards? Or are all the extensions patented as well, so that a hypothetical Apple (or whoever else takes it on) x86 wouldn't be…
> Or are all the extensions patented as well
Yes. So, if you want to reimplement a CPU from 1999, you will probably be fine without any kind of license. If you want to add features or use new methods, however, you may run into infringement issues.
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#283I believe that scripts without a shebang line cannot be executed by execve. They will only run if the shell sees them before the kernel does. It's an annoying limitation of this approach and it wasn't clear to me whether this technique includes a workaround for this. Also the push for code signing everywhere is going to make this harder in the future as well. (I heard a rumor that the workaround to run unsigned execu…
Author here. I considered doing that. Then I learned about things like how MSVC 2017 would wrap the main() function of C programs with telemetry. The push for code signing, retpoline, aslr, etc. worries me too, from a software freedom standpoint, and the same goes for how difficult it's become to build native software from scratch, thanks to the shift from autotools to a whole new set of competitors like bazel, cmake…
Then I learned about things like how MSVC 2017 would wrap the main() function of C programs with telemetry.
Could you provide a link to learn more? This seems bad.
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#284> the x86_64 patents should expire this year. Apple could have probably made their own x86 chip without paying royalties. The free/open architecture that we've always dreamed of, might turn out to be the one we're already using. I've never seen anyone mention this before. Is this really in the cards? Or are all the extensions patented as well, so that a hypothetical Apple (or whoever else takes it on) x86 wouldn't be…
So ISAs are patentable? Even if you reimplement them from scratch, it's covered? Can anyone ELI5 that in the light of the Oracle vs Google "APIs are not copyrightable" battle? Seems like an ISA (sans implementation) is comparable to an API, so is the difference patents versus copyright? Are APIs patentable?
I haven't investigated it in detail personally, but my understanding is that Intel has or had troll patents on the obvious (and therefore not legitimately patentable) way to go about implementing various x86 features. So if you reimplement it from scratch, the way you naturally go about implementing it will just happen to match 'Intel's' supposed 'inventions' which they have patents on. (Eg, I think they had a patent on register renaming at one point.)
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this is perverse in the worst way possible. It's incompatible with modern debuggers. It's incompatible with shared libraries. It's limited to a feature-poor "unified" API (that might as well be seen as a crippled VM). It's complex in both interface and implementation. The bad aspects of Unix made even worse. The justifications make no sense whatsoever. It wants to do future-proofing but invents an adhoc "VM" with…
> It's incompatible with modern debuggers. Any debugger that can't debug this binary is broken and should be treated as such.
That's true, but I think they meant that it fails to actively support debugging the way a not-broken-by-design modern executable file format should.
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#286You don't always need a shebang if it is marked as executable,is this a cosmetic conformity thing?
You need a shebang if you're going to execute it directly.
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#287Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#288[deleted]
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#289lol sick ️
Re: αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
On Windows, though, there's C# compiler out of the box on every OS since Vista. And C# has a bunch of rarely-used syntax for things like raw pointers, that can work on more or less the same level as C, and even look pretty similar. It might be possible to do something with that.
Huh, I never knew this. For anyone else who didn't know, it's in the C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\ folders, it's the CSC.exe file included with each version of the .NET framework. Edit: Good grief, there's even vbc.exe, which is a command line Visual Basic 2012 compiler. Also JSC.exe for Jscript, aspnet_compiler.exe for ASP and MSBuild. Kinda embarrassed that I didn't know this.
It’s been my go to toolset for ages. It’s the #1 reason to learn c# as it’s everywhere.
Also if we are talking exploit vectors, uuencode is great for people that let you have a clipboard. Get uudecode in c#, and paste in your arbitrary binaries and you’ll be in business In no time!