Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why not? (Score 1) 382

by jandrese (#47473079) Attached to: White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales
Also the ones where he appointed people to positions without Congressional approval, because without people in the positions the government agency could not operate and Republicans didn't like those agencies and was withholding nominations to effectively cripple them.

But really, the ones that go "too far" are simply the orders that Obama has signed. The fact that he signed them makes them automatically disastrous power grabs by an out of control executive bent on total domination. They need a return to the careful and thoughtful exercise of executive power we saw under George W.

Comment: Re:This is not how you inspire confidence (Score 1) 151

by jandrese (#47473015) Attached to: LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched
Only if the master process quit after forking twice. This is not typical, since most of the time people will leave the master process around to clean up after the children to avoid zombies. It's such a strange case I think you would be hard pressed to find a real world application that behaved in a way that made it vulnerable to this exploit. I'm glad the OpenBSD guys got a patch for this, but even if they didn't I woudln't be losing much sleep over it.

Comment: Re:Shocked I am! Shocked! (Score 5, Informative) 151

by jandrese (#47470707) Attached to: LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched
That's not exactly the case, but it's close. The issue is that the SSL library has no way of knowing if the process forks other than checking the PID. If the SSL library detects a PID change, it has to reseed the RNG to avoid getting the same random values in both the parent and the child. Due to the way Unix PIDs work, you have a guarantee that the Parent and the Child will have different pids (fork() fails otherwise). However, if a grandparent forks a parent and then exits, and the parent then forks a child, there is nothing in Unix that outright prevents the child from getting the pid of the now deceased grandparent and foiling this detection so the SSL library doesn't know that a fork happened.

So it's a potential problem, but not one that likely exists in any production code. You could write test code that exploits it fairly easily by forkbombing the machine until the pid wraps before spawning the child, but in real production code it is unlikely to be an issue. Plus it was fixed.

Comment: Re:This is not how you inspire confidence (Score 5, Interesting) 151

by jandrese (#47470217) Attached to: LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched
To exploit this, you needed a program that was written like so:
1. Grandparent initializes SSL state, sends some data, then exits.
2. Parent forks a child
3. Child happens to get the same pid as the grandparent, and then uses the SSL connection.

It's a program structure that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the real world. Maybe it has happened somewhere.

The big issue is that the original discoverer found an easily filled molehill and somehow it got reported as a world destroying volcano across the the various tech sites. A minor flaw in the first public release of the test version of a library with no production users is not "catastrophic".

Comment: Idiots ruin safety records (Score 1, Insightful) 443

by jandrese (#47434205) Attached to: The First Person Ever To Die In a Tesla Is a Guy Who Stole One
I think the real message here is that Tesla's stellar safety record is due at least in part to its exclusivity and high price tag. The kind of people who can afford it are generally safer drivers. It's not a used Dodge Charger that some 16 year old asshole with a shiny new drivers license and Dad's credit card can buy off of the lot for a few thousand bucks.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (1) Gee, I wish we hadn't backed down on 'noalias'.

Working...