I work for a digital bank and the versioning is essentially exactly how we handle T&Cs.
The user accepts a certain version of some terms, and if we launch for example a new product that requires changed T&Cs then we ask the user to accept them if they want to use the new product.
If they don't, well, then they just keep using the existing offering without accepting any new terms.
Are you sure? The article makes the point that the nop is actually required for this to work in GDB because the instruction pointer might otherwise point at an entirely different scope.
I have to admit I didn't try it out though. Maybe this changed in the meantime and it is not needed anymore.
I think even if it was then it's likely better to have the attackers show their hands by attacking (comparatively) irrelevant targets.
I would assume that there are insights to be gained to even more effectively mitigate potential future attacks by this.
In my personal experience I find that zone files work quite well as universal format for that.
To pick up your Fastmail example: Fastmail could generate a matching zone file for your domain and let you download it. You could then upload it to any domain service provider that supports importing zone files.
It's obviously not as hassle-free than something like your oauth example, but it's using the infrastructure that is already there.
I know from experience that they might take some actions if you take too much of a DDoS on their free plan but I never heard of that on some usual traffic, especially not when it's as low as the blog suggests (sub 10 rpm).
The attacks my blog received were in the thousand requests per second area when it got suspended.
I'm not sure what exactly your are trying to say. As far as I can tell, there are indeed safe variants for arrays in the standard - both static and dynamic. People just choose to not use them for some arbitrary reasons.
I don't think it is.
(disclaimer: I do live in the EU)
The current US administration is already trying today to force close allies to conform to their will using economical pressure. I can imagine a future where this might escalate, so in my opinion forcing US companies to block certain origin countries if not that far fetched.
We're dealing with a deeper level problem here. Since a lot of the internet is relying on Cloudflare DNS at some part or another, even many backup solutions fail.
Since so much of DNS is centralised in so few services, such outages hit the core infrastructure of the internet.
You're right that power consumption is predictable. But looking at some great-parent posts I'd assume we're still talking about using nuclear as backup for renewable sources.
In this case, often the renewable power production is the bigger variable factor in my opinion, and it's less predictable than usage patterns.
In my opinion this doesn't fall under the "it's only on my LAN and a super small project" category.
If you LAN is a company then you should be able to deploy a custom CA to your clients and sign your certs. If it's only your small side project you personally work on, then just trusting the cert locally works out too.
If people don't want to use third party providers, they have to do some of the work on their own. That's nothing new (at least to me).
I think that is because not every IPv4 adress has the format x.x.x.x
There are short forms (i.e. 1.1 that gets expanded to 1.0.0.1, though not sure if that's in the original RFC) or decimal forms.
And then there's IPv6, which again has its rules.