Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
It seems OP wanted to pass the file name to -k
, but this parameter takes the password itself and not a filename:
-k password
The password to derive the key from. This is for compatibility with previous versions of OpenSSL. Superseded by the -pass argument.
So, as I understand, the password would be not the first line of /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
, but the string /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
itself. It seems that -kfile /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
or -pass file:/etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
is what OP wanted to use.
Oracle trilateration refers to an attack on apps that have filters like “only show users closer than 5 km”. In case of the vulnerable apps, this was very accurate, so the attacker could change their position from the victim (which does not require physical movement, the application has to trust your device on this, so the position can be spoofed) until the victim disappeared from the list, and end up a point that is almost exactly 5 km from the victim.
Like if it said the user is 5km away, that is still going to give a pretty big area if someone were to trilateral it because the line of the circle would have to include 4.5-5.5km away.
This does not help, since the attacker can find a point where it switches between 4 km and 5 km, and then this point (in the simplest case) is exactly 4.5 km from the victim. The paper refers to this as rounded distance trilateration.
I like btdu which is essentially ncdu, but works in a way that is useful even if advanced btrfs features (CoW, compression etc.) are used.
IANAL nor intelligent, but after skimming the text of the directive I felt like the definition of damage is very limited. In particular, if I understand correctly:
would not be covered by this directive, this directive is only about a human being hurt in some way,
would be covered in case of “your game installs a kernel-level anticheat and the anticheat breaks PCs”, but not in the case of “you uploaded an upgrade to a firmware of the washing machine you produced and it bricked the machines”; the directive is not about a product breaking, but about the product breaking your health, other property or data,
is basically the exact case this directive covers.