We don't even use that. We order CDs full of pictures. I dunno where they come from, I don't care. We own the photos outright and they are good for generalized photos (i.e. some support person with a headset smiling, ready to take your order)
Ummmmm.... you might wanna be careful there. Especially the "dunno where they come from, I don't care." You should.
If some scammer from FooVille fills up a CD with images pulled from the internet, images he/she has no right to re-distribute (copyright assignment), you are exposed as well. Even if you can point to the CD, point to the scammer and say, "Here's the order, this person told me he owned all the rights, blah blah blah", I can assure you that the tenet "ignorance is no excuse" still holds. This would be considered mitigating factors, but you would still be on the hook. Particularly if the original source is Getty Images or the like, they'll go after you on principle alone.
Don't get me wrong, you're trying to do the right thing, and the whole flipping copyright law is buggered. I'm just telling you, you are still seriously exposed. Tread carefully!
The classic example of a compiler interfering with intention, opening security holes, is failure to wipe memory.
On a typical embedded system - if there is such a thing (no virtual memory, no paging, no L3 cache, no "secure memory" or vault or whatnot) - you might declare some local (stack-based) storage for plaintext, keys, etc. Then you do your business in the routine, and you return.
The problem is that even though the stack frame has been "destroyed" upon return, the contents of the stack frame are still in memory, they're just not easily accessible. But any college freshman studying computer architecture knows how to get to this memory.
So the routine is modified to wipe the local variables (e.g. array of uint8_t holding a key or whatever...) The problem is that the compiler is smart, and sees that no one reads back from the array after the wiping, so it decides that the observable behavior won't be affected if the wiping operation is elided.
My making these local variables volatile, the compiler will not optimize away the wiping operations.
The point is simply that there are plenty of ways code can be completely "correct" from a functional perspective, but nonetheless terribly insecure. And often the same source code, compiled with different optimization options, has different vulnerabilities.
Matt Green, the cryptographer leading the TC audit effort, had established contact with one or more developers (somehow) over the last year or so.
So, to most of us, the TC developers are still anonymous, but not to everyone...
Ouch... really???
Of course it can't turn at full speed in just 240m. 240m is the distance across the circle (diameter) for the vehicle to "Turn Around" (turning radius 120m.)
I think maybe this is the article (blog post by Miro Samek) that youre referring to?
Yes, but "oscilloscope" != "logic analyzer". And the Logic 16 (I have one) is 5x the OP's stated price range.
I kinda feel like the OP asked where he could find a cheap, sporty little car, and you're telling him he should consider buying a fire truck.
Wow. Just went over to download the Windows version of the Uploader tool - the installer isn't digitally signed. WTF?!?!?
I'm still shocked that so much software from legitimate companies isn't digitally signed. I do a lot of firmware development, and very few companies' installers are digitally signed (IAR, I'm looking at you). Sheesh. Even a tiny company like Saleae and the main developer of TortoiseSVN
Happiness is twin floppies.