Wait - did I read that correctly? "without any boilerplate code, overhead, or worries about limitations, no need for tedious checks for array out of bounds, numeric overflow, or out of memory, or invalid input" = improved textbook?
Aren't these the attack vectors used by malware and viruses today?
I think I'm lost. We use a newer shiny shiny that shows us to do something without showing it done safely and it's better because people will magically include the necessary safety checks and our new algorithms are better because they are clearly implemented without the safety checks.
That's the premise of this statement and the assessment?
Just making sure I'm on the same page.
How is dropping to initrd "root" access?
1. If you already have physical access to the console, all bets are off anyway. Security 101.
2. If you have WDE enabled, dropping to root gets you initrd only - no passwords, no privileges, nada - all it lets you do is try to mount the file system which can't be because it's encrypted. Only
3. The only possible attack vector is to swap out the kernel image. But there are simpler ways to do that than run an exploit.
Did these guys watch too many episodes of the new MacGyver and consider themselves hackers instead of script kiddies?
Did they report the problem as only present if you encrypt specific volumes (which is stupid anyway because your passwords are visible now).
It takes a lot of effort to avoid WDE when installing linux these days. Only an idiot would misconfigure and render his system vulnerable like this. And only an idiot would give his keys to the castle to people he didn't trust.
Social Engineering wins every time and there is nothing you can do about it.
Just because you were never told and never bothered to learn does not pre-suppose a lack of design.Ignorance is no excuse for claiming to be knowledgeable. It's like saying you never read the bible because it was all in Greek.
Just because you were never told and never bothered to learn does not pre-suppose a lack of design.Ignorance is no excuse for claiming to be knowledgeable. It's like saying you never read the bible because it was all in Greek. But you got the gist by looking at it long enough.
If you cut your teeth on Dec UNIX, Solaris, AIX and HP-UX, it's very easy to understand because you learn the history through comparison. This "I don't get it so there must be no rhyme or reason" is just crazy.
It's like the other old timer said - the new folks don't want to learn about how we got here - they just want to repeat our mistakes. I cut my teeth on Linux and then UNIX proper and then VAX since 1990 (TSR 80s and the like on 8086 processors and then 80386 systems before getting to real machines ). It's a proven fact that we are all social learners by nature. Maybe it's time to exercise our social learning instead of our social media which is leading to our social ignorance..
Not cherry picking. There many more examples in the same book. Right down to predicting the non-mixing of water in orean currents at different layers. That was what convinced Jacques Cousteau. But anyway. It's just one example. There are lots of scientific FACTS in the same book. That we've only recenlty proven. Yes, if this was taken as proof a long time ago, I would agree - cherry picking. Too many other facts have borne out as true since then.
How does the conclusion that there may be life on other planets disprove the existence of God?
Just because we as humans hope that God made life only on one planet does not make it so.
Just because we don't have accurate records in every religious book on possible life on other planets does not dispreove God's abilty to create life elsewhere.
Even IF ONE religious book postulated possible life on other planets is possible is grounds for DISMISSING the "There is no God if there is life on other planets" theory.
However, IF ONE religous book that DID mention possible life on other planets or even other planets from an illiterate goat herd that wouldn't know the first thing about science, the universe or planets or even that the world was round would be sufficient grounds to prove the existence of God.
Occam's Razor: In the absence of all othre explanations, the simplest explanation holds.
Chapter 1, Verse 1 of "The Opening" from the Qur'an reads: Al hamdu lillaahi rabbil ‘alameen (Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds)
Sceince postulates NOW that there may be life on other planets. They did not have the technology to know that there were worlds back then. Therefore, God exists.
Ok - let the religous wars commence.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.