@VipulNair The entire blog sounds like a huge scam
The guy talks about "race hazard", and later uses the term "race condition", yet nothing in his entire "article" has anything to do with race conditions
In a recent press release issued by Treadwell Stanton DuPont, the claim is made that their research laboratories have successfully broken all 64 rounds of the SHA256 hashing algorithm. They further claim that they achieved this milestone a year ago (late 2018).
"While we have successfully bro...
To factorize N = p * q with p < q e (p-2) mod 9 = 0
It does so: N=209 solve:
[(h+1)^2]*[(2*h+2)^2/2-1] = X*(209-4-2*n+2*(p-2)),(h+1)/3=(k+1)/6 ,p^2+n*p=209,
h+1+k+1=(209-4-2*n+2*(p-2)),h,X,n,k
->
h = (2 (-209 + 99 p + 2 p^2))/(3 p)
solve:
[(h+1)^2]*[(2*h+2)^2/2...
@MechMK1 I know it can be sometimes very very hard not to troll, but we are supposed to be nice to newcomers. Even though I personally like your comments and answers to this "question".
@A.Hersean I interpreted the question as "How is RSA secure if I can simply ask MATLAB to calculate it for me?"
I'm not sure if it's actually MATLAB or what else. You can substitute it with "How is RSA secure if I could solve the necessary equations using a math solver?"
Can someone explain what the f**k is going on with the wave of moderator resignation over the wider network? I understand a moderator got demoted, but I don't get why? All the meta posts are very vague about what the core issue actually is. I am confused.
@MechMK1 I have to ask: what was the plain text you encrypted?
@MechMK1 The articles are very clickbate-y.
@VipulNair From what I have read previously (this is a bit of an old bug), I think it just boils down to the fact that instagram's brute force protection had some holes in it. They use a 6 digit passcode for resets, which is obviously a small search space. He used something like 1000 different IP addresses to bombard their unlock endpoint at high speed, and their brute force protection didn't block him.
As a result, he was able to iterate through all 1,000,000 possible codes very quickly, allowing him to reset the password on any account.
He says that it is a simple attack (and theoretically, it is), but it's definitely clickbate-y because if you told someone "Oh yeah, you can break into that Instagram account - you just have to orchestrate 1000 different processes simultaneously in a modern cloud-hosting environment to bruteforce the reset code at high speed" they would have no idea where to start
For an experienced Devops guy, it's very feasible. For anyone else, it would never happen.
On Friday, half an hour before Shabbat and two days before Rosh Hashana, Stack Overflow Inc. suddenly revoked my moderator status on all sites where I had it. I found this out while handling flags, when I suddenly got notifications for Marshal and Deputy badges (which moderators are ineligible t...
It sounds like the inevitable has happened: stackoverflow has always been "corporate", but it was easy to miss that fact before. Now "corporate" is effectively strong-arming the community into the standards they have decided are best for their profitability.
I'm really not familiar enough with the goings-ons to opine intelligently, but I'm obviously not letting that stop me. I think stackoverflow has made itself a central part of the programming world, and done it in a way that leaves programmers feeling like they are in control. As a result it has always felt like "our" community. Of course, like any other business, it's not really - it has been "our" community only because the people who own/run felt it was in their best interests
to let the community do its thing. That has changed. For whatever reasons, the owner(s) have decided it's time for change, presumably for their own benefit (indeed, companies like to optimize revenue). The hammer is dropping. People that don't like it will leave. Likely, stackoverflow will continue along for a long time anyway. Whether or not these changes will actually make things "better" for newer developers is debatable and will likely never be answered.
@ConorMancone to be fair... I think they have a different problem there. It is not the sudden discovery that they need $$$ to run that is alienating the userbase.
@Derpy My completely unfounded assumption is that they are increasing their attempts at monetization. I'm sure they have never had too much trouble being profitable, but there is a difference between being profitable and seeking to maximize profits. Over the past few years there have clearly been many attempts at creating new streams of revenue, and they have been much more vocal about the business itself and advertising for their new products.
Again, shooting from the hip here, but I suspect they are worried that stackoverflow gaining a reputation as being an "unfriendly" place will hamper their long-term business prospects, and they are trying to do something about it. Note that I don't say any of that to be negative: it makes perfect sense for a business to behave this way. I think they are just surprising many of their users. I'm interested to see how this all works out in the long run.
@ConorMancone I repeat what I said before. The community here was fine in carrying all the salt to the market to let SE survive. And they would have been fine with carrying a little more salt to let them actually grow too, I guess. But if now the donkey are beaten with a club while they try to carry the salt to the market... they will soon jump in the river, even if that will be their demise.
@ConorMancone That too I already said yep, we kinda agree there. The fear of damage because they could be marked as "unfriendly" by the evil Internet is something I see too in these action, to the point I sometime fear that the focus is more on the actions that on the results they want to obtain.
But I'm not a moderator, so I cannot see what's going on behind the curtains. And baseless speculation can only worsen the understanding of the situation.
Also, those actions seem a little odd, especially when no mater what angle you look at their action from, they still appear to use unfriendly ways to push friendliness. Yep, there is indeed a curtain somewhere, and I can't obviously see behind it.... but the output of this "black box" still feels pretty bad, despite the box content.
I mean, do I really need to know what the box content are if every time I look at it the box is on fire?
You do not only see the smoke coming out the box. The box is not isolated from the outside, it's in a feedback loop. I mostly see the fire spreading outside the box.
This does not mean nothing is going on in the box.
This whole situation is spreading FUD, and that might be far worse than the original issue.
spreading FUD? Naah, sorry if I gave that idea. I am just taking some time to appreciate the composure the dog manages to keep. Wonder if that works even here?
@MechMK1 It's all about the presentation. The question has migrated so I can't see the edit history, but from your link it seems his original question was "Checkmate to factorization". He also seems to have that, "This thing is stupid easy to solve, why is this considered okay?" attitude, compared to say, "I'm clearly missing something, what am I doing wrong?" which is a much more reasonable question for a self-proclaimed novice
So, yeah, mildly snarky responses seem perfectly reasonable to me
@Anders Seems moderators (and eventually all users?) are required to refer to a user using their preferred pronoun. And not talking to that user to avoid the issue isn't acceptable.
Which feels a lot like compelled speech, and sounds impossible to moderate.
Yeah, giving someone the boot without telling them first is never OK. And if it was just for asking questions about it or expressing some sceptisism, it's even worth.
And even though I don't really have an issue with it, I'm not sure I like it either. Depends how it ends up in practice. If someone can say I need to refer to them with a specific pronoun, whatever, but if I'd prefer to just stop talking to them telling me "No, you must talk to them and you must use that pronoun, anything else would be offensive" seems like it goes a bit far
In general, people should be free to talk or not to talk with anyone they want. But if you are doing volunteer work as the representative of a community? Systematically avoiding one group suddenly has a lot more consequences.
All users would be unrealistic! I mean sure, you could ban someone from saying "I'm not going to talkt to you because...", but you can't ban anyone for not replying to someones comment. How would that even work.
But I guess you could still write the rule down on paper...
In a recent press release issued by Treadwell Stanton DuPont, the claim is made that their research laboratories have successfully broken all 64 rounds of the SHA256 hashing algorithm. They further claim that they achieved this milestone a year ago (late 2018).
"While we have successfully bro...
To factorize N = p * q with p < q e (p-2) mod 9 = 0
It does so: N=209 solve:
[(h+1)^2]*[(2*h+2)^2/2-1] = X*(209-4-2*n+2*(p-2)),(h+1)/3=(k+1)/6 ,p^2+n*p=209,
h+1+k+1=(209-4-2*n+2*(p-2)),h,X,n,k
->
h = (2 (-209 + 99 p + 2 p^2))/(3 p)
solve:
[(h+1)^2]*[(2*h+2)^2/2...
