Also by that measure we're never safe. Which is fine, I think we can agree there are almost always unknown exploits out there but that's not the discussion.
There is more nuance to this as well, it might work, but only in certain circumstances which seems to be where this is going at the moment.
It's not a case of 'unknown exploits' it's that a proof of concept attack is just to show that there is a problem, and not meant to show the lack of a problem. It's not meant to work in all cases that the vulnerability exists nor as a means to demonstrate that the vulnerability is fixed. It's very easy for small changes (whether a patch, config change, or exploit mitigation) to break a proof of concept in a way that would be possible for an attacker to work around (the effort ranging from 'trivially easy' to 'needing quite a lot of extra development'). This is especially true for binary exploits which can be quite sensitive to things like compiler versions and options (as well as explicit mitigation features), but where there are a range of techniques for adjusting them for a specific target.
The point is you that the criteria for "am I safe from this vulnerability" is "I have applied the patches and/or config changes recommended by the author of the software" and not "I tried to run the PoC against my system and it didn't work". (nor, as was common in this case, "I have applied some config changes that some random people online feel like should help")
> There is more nuance to this as well, it might work, but only in certain circumstances which seems to be where this is going at the moment.
It's memory corruption. That requires some guesswork or understanding of the underlying system (platform + ABI) and heap grooming to actually exploit but that's not a security boundary. Any vulnerable version is just going to get hammered with requests until it either crashes without an exploit or actually gets popped.
What an awful video, not only because of the content of many PHP-running sites being exploited, but also because of the awful glitching and vignette effect, an odd dancing anime girl at the bottom and the horrendous music.
Brake dust is at least mostly solved by EVs, because regenerative braking does the vast majority of the braking work, thus no dust. Tire dust is real, but is going to be there no matter what kind of powertrain a vehicle has. EVs have more wear, but it is marginal. A Tesla Model 3 weighs less than any new pickup truck for sale today.
> A Tesla Model 3 weighs less than any new pickup truck for sale today.
I'm an EV fan but this is apples to oranges comparison. EV vehicles are substantially heavier than their ICE counterparts. Their instant torque also wears tread quicker. That's just facts and there's nothing wrong with that. The world is not black and white.
> EV vehicles are substantially heavier than their ICE counterparts.
Tesla model 3 curb weight: "3,552 lbs to 4,072 lbs"
BMW 3 series curb weight: "3,536 lbs to 4,180 lbs"
> Their instant torque also wears tread quicker.
This works the opposite of how you imagine it does. Because electric motors have a flat torque curve, electric cars typically use a single-speed transmission, e.g. Model 3 has a fixed gear ratio of ~9:1.
Modern ICE cars typically have around 6 gears and the lowest one will have a higher total gear ratio than that, more like 15:1, causing wheel torque to be around two thirds higher in that gear proportional to engine torque than it would be at 9:1, and the engine's torque peak is commonly ~2400 RPM, which translates to as little as 10-15 MPH in first gear.
Electric cars like the Model 3 Performance accelerate quickly because they have >500 horsepower. So do ICE cars with equivalent power. Meanwhile something like a Nissan Leaf has similar power and correspondingly a similar 0-60 time to a Honda Civic.
To put it another way, there are very few modern cars where you can't hit the traction limit of the tires by putting your foot down in low gear, so the limit was never the powertrain to begin with.
Electric cars typically have a faster 60-100 time than similar ICE cars, because then the ICE car has to use a higher gear, but now we're back to the thing where this is hardly relevant unless you're accelerating the vehicle flat out to 100 MPH.
Brake dust is significantly less. Modern EV specific tyres paired with moderated torque curves significantly mitigates the tyre dust.
Fossil fueled vehicles are still significantly worse for the environment and health (before you even start considering the wars and bloodshed for the fossil fuels that we're currently witnessing in Ukraine and Iran). Don't accept the propaganda.
My 13 Chevy Volt has 225k miles and is still on its original brake pads and rotors. The rotors are basically good as new, and the pads are at about 40-50%.
I have nearly 125k on a M3P, on the original pads. Right foot tends to be heavy on both pedals. Regen takes a lot of the load, makes a huge difference in pad usage / life.
"brake dust"? On an EV? Do you have any idea how long brake pads last on a hybrid (hint: a long time)? Now, for the same reasons, imagine how long the pads last on a pure EV. I expect the pads on our Hyundai Ioniq 5 to outlast me. (Granted, I'm retirement age.)
I'm not even going to address tire dust. That's just people looking for an EV-related pearl to clutch.
> I'm not even going to address tire dust. That's just people looking for an EV-related pearl to clutch.
Pickup trucks are heavier than EVs so their tires should wear into dust even faster. No one says jack about that.
People that kvetch about how windmills kill birds and whales don't give a shit about birds or whales. It's a bad faith argument. EV tire dust is in the same category.
It’s not pointless when it allows an Apple developer to rapidly mimic the exact environment, in case it’s an extremely narrow bug involving a second-supplier controller chip.
reply