You can also mail them cash
499 karma · joined August 11, 2016
Does it then become not a full OS anymore? Mirage is what I linked to above.
When I clicked the link I was expecting something like a unikernel, eg https://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2016/01/01/a-unikernel-firewa...
You certainly can “prove” and “disprove” “security” by reverse engineering, to the same extent a source code review can (or even more, since you’re looking at what’s actually running on the device). It can often require a bigger time investment, but even that’s not always the case in my experience, especially if you’re working with a really bad code base.
They have indirect control over the user’s backup folder via the app, but meta would need to distribute a malicious update to everyone that causes the user’s apps to download the backup and send it to meta, at which point they could just skip trying to access the backup and directly upload the chats from the app.
It’s impressive how much misinfo you’re spreading.
Edit: Meta’s actions over the years clearly show that they don’t want to know the contents of your messages. Not knowing their contents means, for example, that they don’t have to run scanners to detect illegal content (but users can report messages). They benefit from making WhatsApp a secure platform, as it allows them to collect everyone’s metadata, which apparently has lots of value to them.
They probably do all kinds of horrible stuff with the metadata. I’m honestly too lazy to read the privacy policy. But I have yet to see critique of their e2ee that’s actually backed up by substance instead of people’s imaginations.
Could you please elaborate why (in detail)?
It turns your fear into a hypothetical that you’re more than welcome to discuss but imo it’s disingenuous to frame it as the incredibly big problem you’re framing it as.
Then you and the people you influence can continue to enjoy getting phished.
> What happens when the WebAuthn standard evolves and only the big-tech companies have solutions for storing passkeys because little software vendors or open-source vendors don't support the standard as well?
For a bunch of companies/gov entities syncable passkeys aren’t secure enough. So they still need to use hardware-bound passkeys on e.g. yubikeys.
Try to read up about a subject next time before you let your imagination go wild and scare equally ignorant people away from more secure alternatives.
Your conspiracy theories even seem to push you to be against using password managers in general. I guess googling around for an offline one like KeePass that’s heavily recommended all around the internet was too hard? KeePassXC even supports passkeys.
Which tools did you use? I’d argue a human probably also won’t review all your alt tags manually or you could just do it yourself, too. If you have lots of them it might make sense to extract them automatically and pipe them to some language model to generate a score for each of them. Then you can review the ones with the worst scores.
It seems to me that https://wave.webaim.org/ does a good job with ensuring contrast is good, etc., as once I followed all the recommendations things are also readable when using Dev Tools to simulate various vision deficiencies.
1. Affordability and Ease of Application: The article states that the radioisotopes are intended to be an affordable and easily applicable method for marking rhino horns. This means that the technology, once developed and refined, can be applied to rhinos without significant cost or complexity. The goal is to make it practical for widespread use.
2. Three Years of Research and Expert Collaboration: The three years of research and the involvement of a team of experts highlight the rigorous development and testing phase needed to ensure the method's safety and effectiveness. This initial investment of time and expertise is necessary to create a robust, scientifically validated solution.
3. No Contradiction: The extensive research and expert collaboration do not contradict the claims of affordability and ease of application. Rather, they ensure that the final product is safe, effective, and ready for widespread, practical use. The upfront investment in research is typical for developing innovative technologies and does not imply that the method itself will be costly or complex to implement once it is ready.
4. Scaling Up: The project's next phase involves closely monitoring the rhinos to demonstrate the method's efficacy and safety. If successful, this proof of concept will pave the way for scaling up the application to more rhinos and potentially other endangered species. The affordability and ease of application refer to the potential widespread deployment after the initial research phase, not the development phase.
In summary, your confusion arises from conflating the initial research and development effort with the final application's intended affordability and practicality. The article suggests that after this rigorous development phase, the method will be straightforward and cost-effective to implement on a larger scale.
Was wondering what ChatGPT's answer would be to this comment chain. (Also mostly checked that what it claims about the article‘s content is correct)
I don’t hate the language. Quite the opposite. I hope you can now go back and just see the argument for what it is and not for what you thought I was insinuating.
Especially for security critical things one should re-use the implementation to avoid issues like the above. Proving both the original and re-implemented parser to be equivalent would probably also work, but not sure how practical.
And in any case have competent people audit what you did.
In general, just use a good hash function.
Nextcloud also works on iOS, integrates with the Files app and was always able to sync photos right after I took them.
Note: not trying to start a discussion on how much one can trust facebook
Heartbleed wasn’t an RCE, it just leaked sensitive data. RCE often results in a total loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability, so it receiving a higher severity rating makes sense.