bennofs

On the other hand, it also seems implausible to me that the problem can be solved if everyone on the world would produce a few tones of carbon emissions each year by flying. So either flights need to become so expensive that they remain a privilege for the rich or they need to be limited in some other way.

I agree that flights are perhaps not the most urgent issue. But encouraging people to fly more is still wrong. When possible, we should avoid flights.

Well, the rest of the code is also correct on its own though. If I tell the function to allocate X bytes, it should either fail or return a buffer that has space for X bytes. If the function returns less than X bytes if X happens to be a large unsigned int (that is a negative value if interpreted signed) then that is a bug and is exploitable.

If you take (1 << 63) + 1 as size (which is a large negative int64), multiply that by 64 and you get 64. So it will call malloc(64) which will succeed. If other parts do the correct unsigned comparison then you have a heap overflow.

The negative number is multiplied by 64, so it can then underflow and become positive again.

I think the point is that most clients probably don't configure the ad-hoc network for you? Or do they?

What schema definition is there for JSON?

You can use Google maps navigation via a web browser

Then distribute it over more than one page.

Also, as I looked a little bit into Keybase I learned that they don't support any protocols that don't have public profile-like pages. So a pure messenger wouldn't be supported by Keybase.

I am not against CAs but even then, what tool do you use? Personal SSL certificates for signing? Except for s/mime I haven't seen this used anywhere

I understand that there are better tools for encryption, but is there anything that replaces the identity management of PGP? Having a standard format for sharing identities is necessary in my opinion. If I have a friend (with whom I already exchanged keys) refer me to some third friend, it would be nice if he can just send me the identity. Sending me the signal fingerprint isn't a solution for two reasons:

- I don't want to be manually comparing hashes in 2019

- it locks me into signal, I wont be able to verify a git commit from that person as an example

Is there a system that solves this? Keybase is trying but also builds on PGP, we can use S/MIME which relies on CAs but is not better than PGP. Anything else?

King - (Man + Woman) is the same as King - Man - Woman which is not the same as your second example at all.

That doesn't have to be a backdoor. Remember the wave of bugs caused by hardcoded secrets in Cisco hardware?

Might just be some leftover debugging account or for service.

But using FCM is enforced by apps. If they would roll their own, no app would work.

What does encrypted/authenticated DNS gain you? If the application protocol is encrypted and authenticated like https then faking DNS responses just results in a connection that is closed immediately because authentication fails. Encrypting is also useless unless you use a proxy/VPN because otherwise the connection target leaks via the IP header anyway when you open the connection.

I don't have a lot of experience with these, but I tested each of them a little bit and know mostly how they work.

I believe that for small sites, the main aspect that differs between them is how peer discovery/name resolution is done. For this, IPFS has the most distributed approach (using a DHT and IPNS) but is also the most fragile and highest latency one. DAT has plans to switch to a DHT in the future (hyperswarm) but relies on centralised DNS discovery servers + local network multicast right now. Secure Scuttlebutt takes a more social approach and organises its network in terms of pubs. There is no central discovery, you can only find users that you "meet" in a pub.

This means that DAT has the most website-like feel because their solution provides low latency (only DNS lookup) and is global. I also think that DAT is much more pragmatic compared to IPFS thus at the moment it is much more stable and its us ability is better (also because it has more focus on stable, core components compared to IPFS which is a bigger project trying to do lots of things at once). I like secure scuttlebutt's idea of focusing on communities but that is a different approach to how the web works right now.

But there is power to fuel, and I think the main problem with power-to-fuel is energy consumption of the process.

But solar can be much more decentralised than nuclear. So comparing single plants by power doesn't seem fair to me, at the very least you also need to compare costs.

The Argument is that it's bad for the market, as it makes it hard for competitors which aren't part of such a large company and hence need to make profit.

This just looks like it allows to bypass safety checks without marking the code as unsafe. But so do most of the bugs listed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/I-unsound%20%F0%9F%...? What makes this different that it's a security issue now?

I might not be your target user base, but that's exactly the opposite of what I would like as an user. I am already forced to update because the current version does not work correctly. Forcing UI/design/any major change (especially ones that are "quickly cobbled together" and thus might be buggy) on me in that situation is not nice. I am then left with the choice between a) non working software or b) a major update I might not like.

Perhaps it's good from the company POV because that's how you make sure your users migrate to the new version even if it is still inferior/buggier.

URL parsers also have bugs (or at least don't all agree on one parsing if you rely on more than one parser). Just take a look at https://i.blackhat.com/us-18/Wed-August-8/us-18-Orange-Tsai-... for some fun examples.

A big difference is that development of Android is done behind closed doors, whereas for Linux you can observe what is happening in public (discussions on the mailing lists for example). This means that it's essentially impossible to follow or contribute to Android development in a meaningful way. This is also reflected in the fact that there are open issues in Android with almost no reaction from any developer for years.

If packages are too small it can get hard to understand the code if your not familiar with the structure yet. Working from bottom to top level can work but might also be different because you are missing context for the low level packages to make sense.

In general I found larger packages tend to produce more direct / pragmatic code with less indirection which is usually easier to understand, even though it also feels wrong to me from a theoretical standpoint.

The halting problem only tells you that there can be no algorithm to prove this automatically for any given program.

It could still be the case that for all practically relevant programs there is a proof in each case that they are secure, even if there is no automatic way to find it.

> ... little more than a minor inconvenience of your time

This is not entirely correct. I have seen recaptchas that simply deny access without giving any option to solve them when browsing with Tor. The message says something like: automated systems detected unusual activity, try again later

Can audit be configured to only log file creation, not modification or access? Last time I didn't find a way to do that and I don't want to write a log file entry for every file access.

I've found secure scuttlebutt (www.scuttlebutt.nz) really impressive. By using public servers called pubs as meeting point they can ignore lots of issues like NAT punching and discovery. I don't like that it seems to be based on an immutable log but it showcases well how much is possible with offline first, sync when possible software (just like syncthing)

If your score is too low, you aren't allowed to do the audio challenge at all

If they check the domain, chain it with another open redirect in the same domain.