besselheim

I've found Compiler Explorer to be very useful indeed, for two main use cases: gaining insight into how security mitigations are implemented in different compilers, and for quickly checking my working when reverse engineering tricky C++ compiled code.

Really interesting to see how the tool works behind the scenes.

Do you have any evidence of this?

It's the responsibility of the communicating parties to protect themselves against interception if they consider this to be an unacceptable risk. Using end to end encryption for message content secrecy, and obfuscating message routes using e.g. Tor to help mask source and destination pairs.

That's an argument for ensuring that such data is properly secured, not an argument against collecting it in the first place.

It makes sense to collect everything possible, then discard what you don't need later, because when conducting an investigation you don't know in advance which data are of interest.

If your communications are intercepted, stored, but then never looked at, and eventually deleted - this is functionally equivalent to having never been collected at all.

Assuming 32-bit unsigned integers (but similarly for other integer sizes), multiplying by 0x11111111 and shifting right 28 bits would give a function of period 15, at least for inputs between 1 and 0x1000000e inclusive. Faster than dividing by 15.

MOV RAX, 1 is seven bytes: 48 C7 C0 01 00 00 00