That is simply false. There are an infinite number of algorithms that might contain the (sub)expression X/X for which zero is a valid value of X. To assume it's a programming error is sheer unmitigated stupidity that I might expect from a mathematician that has never written a real program in his life.
As someone with a degree in mathematics and a degree in computer science (with special academic honors, I might add), I strongly disagree. Fix your damn program to check for a dividend of zero, or at least trap the exception and handle it then. If NaN or any of the infinities are useful in your computation, do it outside the normal math libraries or choose a language that explicitly permits them.
To assert that it's not a programming error is sheer unmitigated arrogance that I might expect from a code monkey who barely scraped by his high-school math courses, assuming you even attended any.
And yes, I've made my living writing programs, many of which benefitted from my knowledge of higher mathematics.
... OpenSSL and SSSL protocol flaws
South Shore Soccer League has a protocol of their own?
... password reuse is a larger danger to users than is having a weak password.
The best of both worlds: use a six-to-eight word diceware password for your password manager, and generate a long, random password for everything else.
...but buggars can't be choosers I guess...
Fixed that for ya...
I'd be surprised if the drive even spins though. Most of the time when I go to try ancient hardware, the drives don't spin, or spin enough, even though the owner remembers that it was working when they shut it off.
I've heard the fix for that is to spin the entire drive while applying power; kind of nudge it along the platter's axis to get the bearings unstuck. It involves "open-case surgery," where you have the drive out of the case and free to move while you first apply power. Once it starts spinning, you'll want to power down and reinstall into the case so you don't knock it around while it's operating and damage it further.
OK, this is clearly a bad thing, but I don't think it means that your private LAN is immediately accessible to people all over the world does it? Multiple routers using the same keys means you could be tricked into logging in to someone else's router without knowing, but that would still require some way of directing your traffic to the impostor's device to begin with, such as DNS hijacking.
Finally, a breath of sanity... Thank you, nuckfuts! A shame this is the bottom thread in the post.. at least when I got here.
There is a huge difference between a host key and a user key. These consumer devices all share the same host key, which is only used by the client to verify that the host you're connecting to is the host you think you're connecting to. This is the key in
The host key is only ever used for authentication, never for authorization, which is to say it identifies the server you're connecting to, but in no way grants any privilege to access it. The only risk here that I can think of is a MITM attack. Since the host key is well known, someone could fiddle with your DNS or local ARP tables and make a victim connect to their evil server without the scary "MAY HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED!!!" warning you get when the destination host key doesn't match what's in the known_hosts file.
If someone can paint a more frightening scenario (based on known host keys, not user keys), I'd like to hear it. If you don't understand the difference, don't bother trying.
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.