asveikau

> TCP Use-After-Free: CVE-2026-98432 / CVSS 9.8

I know it's customary for HN to edit titles to remove extraneous information, but removing "Linux" here really takes away something useful and relevant. This is a Linux vulnerability. If you're running *BSD or Mac or Windows, not affected.

I forgot entirely about superfish. That takes me back.

My recollection is part of what uncovered it was that the malware broke WebSockets on Lenovo laptops.

I think higher end Lenovo laptops with cleaner windows images were not affected. And a lot of knowledgeable users wipe the OS anyway.

It's not for national security. It's to protect Detroit.

Our domestic industry should be laser focused on being more competitive with Chinese vehicles, but if they could do relatively little R&D and keep the status quo going at high costs to the consumer, they'll do it.

One of the problems with cryptography implementations is that a bad one will be indistinguishable from a good one on the surface level. Totally broken crypto will superficially look and work as if it it works, and most people won't look deeply. This has been commented upon for years.

I think it's funny when people show poor knowledge of English grammar and confidently label their own exposure gap as a flaw.

Maybe it's a bit stuffy or formal, but yes, "the named sequence" is 100% something a real English speaking human would write. And if it's a sequence of frames forming an animation, it can absolutely be a named animation sequence.

It's pretty trivial to do this. Before the official patches were out on other platforms I did it on a few machines.

I think what you're finding is that people who don't care about low quality of LLM outputs also don't care about licensing. If you're in the faction that supports all of this, you don't see a lot of people around you still caring about licensing or quality.

But the more dominant the "legal because computer, and how dare you ask me?" attitude is, the less we'll see enforcement. People should demand action, rather than call it a clever business plan.

Folks who were on here praising Uber or Airbnb for skirting the law 10 years ago, this was part of the problem.

I think there is a rise of "this is legal because we used a computer to do it." A HN audience will not appreciate this sentiment, but honestly, a company should not provide tools to do this because they should have a filter. They should say "I won't provide tools to break constitutional rights".

Somewhere along the way, tech stopped asking questions like that, and now, people are hostile to the suggestion that the question should be asked.

The issue is when people flag neutral information as having a political bias.

Unpopular opinion for this site: Most true facts are not affected by the existence of AI. Most things in life do not need adjustment for "the age of AI".

For decades, eery tech boom cycle is filled with people who don't understand the mythical man month, or that LOC is not a productivity metric. The AI boom is no exception. AI has not invalidated this.

Yes, but in the case of prosecutors it can be very messed up. When someone is wrongfully convicted and there is very unambiguous exonerating evidence, prosecutors will fight overturning convictions.

It's bad enough to wrongfully send someone to prison, but to keep fighting for wrongful imprisonment when it's shown they made a mistake is downright evil.

This attitude is also very common for law enforcement or prosecutors.

I agree with what you said above, but not this. Jev was discussed "all over" by people chasing hype. I think that is actually a narrow set of people.

I'm sure that obs can export to something that can be used to stream to rumble.