Everyone who calls themselves "wolf-something" or "something-wolf" almost inevitably turns out to be an irredeemable shitneck.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The flaw, according to researchers, causes most iOS and Mac applications to skip a crucial verification check that's supposed to happen when many transport layer security (TLS) and secure sockets layer (SSL) connections are being negotiated. Specifically, affected apps fail to check that the ephemeral public key presented by servers offering Diffie Hellman-supported encryption is actually signed by the site's private key. Attackers with the ability to monitor the connection between the end-user and the server can exploit this failure to completely decrypt and manipulate the traffic by presenting the app with a counterfeit key.
An attacker "can basically set up a connection and pretend to be Google.com," Matt Green, a Johns Hopkins University professor specializing in encryption, told Ars. The attacker "can basically say: 'Hey I'm Google, here's my signature. And since nobody is actually going to check the signature, [the attacker] just puts nonsense in there."
“Did you seriously just use one of your platforms to drop an SSL 0day on your other platform?” she writes, using the phrase “zero-day,” an industry term for a previously unknown security flaw. “As I sit here on my mac I’m vulnerable to this and there’s nothing I can do, because you couldn’t release a patch for both platforms at the same time? You do know there’s a bunch of live, working exploits for this out in the wild right now, right?”
Even do i just read now rather than posting, i will say some things because im outraged...
I know that its harder to discern the extremes and consequences of the drug war in a 1st World country that imports drugs rather than manufactures, and has an expensive infrastructure (AKA Police-State) so that the violence is only exersiced from State to citizens... because also, money laundering from Cartels actually benefits your county's elite - how many banks would not have died if it wasnt for the liquid assets the Cartels provided for you?
But people (specifically you RWHN), if you would pull your head out of your 'Murrican egocentrical perspective butt, you could perhaps consider the effects of prohibition ON OTHER COUNTRIES.
USA's drug black market funds Mexican and South American Cartels... the USA also forces their stupid prohibition agenda upon the Mexican government, and what is the result?
BETWEEN 60,000 TO 100,000 DEATHS IN 6 YEARS
So fuck off.
I brought this up earlier, but it was waved aside by RWHN.
Mexican kids aren't on the list to be protected when he says "the children".
I think i posted that from visceral outrage, and also a morbid curiosity on how he can rationalize an answer to that... also, offering up a larger context so that what is happening might become clearer, just in case anyone is sitting on the fence... prohibition isnt just about ruining individual marginal lives, but compromising the well-being of entire countries which might not be directly apparent.
As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.
Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1)that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three-ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.
Here, "even the most careless reader must have perceived" that Mr. Steyn's use of the term "fraudulent" did not accuse Dr. Mann of fraud in the criminal sense, but rather was used to call out his conclusions on climate science as intellectually suspect.