Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

A popular social news site has been infected by ja-> 1

Submitted by
violent.ed
violent.ed writes "Someone has figured out a way to exploit a mouseover javascript event within the popular social-news site http://reddit.com./ The javascript attacks the comments section which is designed to make one's web browser (Firefox 3.5.3 Confirmed) resubmit the exploit code as a reply to every existing comment in the existing thread, causing not only severe server load but locking up the browser of the affected client."
Link to Original Source

Comment: As long as they keep the native WM frame (Score 1) 556

by pen (#29286739) Attached to: Firefox 4.0 Goes Chrome, New UI In Q4 2010
Chrome's UI is kind of annoying but tolerable overall. One reason I really hate it, though, is that they replace the native window manager's UI with their own home-brewed crap. Not only is it kind of buggy, since it hasn't had nearly as much user testing, but it breaks all kinds of standard WM functionality. Chrome windows don't respond to "Minimize All" or "Move to Other Monitor" or any other kind of functionality that's handled by the WM that doesn't know what to do with this window that doesn't have a frame. Please, Mozilla, don't repeat this mistake!

Comment: Re:Train wreck phenomenon (Score 4, Insightful) 543

by pen (#29005283) Attached to: The Outing of Pranknet
What are you talking about? There is a lot more of a difference between these pranks and movies; For example, the actors' and crews' voluntary participation, and not causing uncompensated damage to someone's property and psyche. I'm sure there are some examples, but they're generally frowned upon. Causing millions of dollars in damages to someone's property and not compensating them for it is not the same as paying a crew millions of dollars to film a movie. Give me a break!
United States

Forensics Expert says Al-Qaeda Images Altered

Submitted by WerewolfOfVulcan
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "Wired reports that researcher Neal Krawetz revealed some veeeeeery interesting things about the Al-Qaeda images that our government loves to show off.

From the article: "Krawetz was also able to determine that the writing on the banner behind al-Zawahiri's head was added to the image afterward. In the second picture above showing the results of the error level analysis, the light clusters on the image indicate areas of the image that were added or changed. The subtitles and logos in the upper right and lower left corners (IntelCenter is an organization that monitors terrorist activity and As-Sahab is the video production branch of al Qaeda) were all added at the same time, while the banner writing was added at a different time, likely around the same time that al-Zawahiri was added, Krawetz says." Why would Al-Qaeda add an IntelCenter logo to their video? Why would IntelCenter add an Al-Qaeda logo? Methinks we have bigger fish to fry than Gonzo and his fired attorneys... }:-) The article contains links to Krawetz's presentation and the source code he used to analyze the photos."

Peace be to this house, and all that dwell in it.

Working...