I don't mind it, using an image for zero that is exclusive is of course preferable. But seeing how common the "slashed zero" is, I think the least we can do is avoid making it more confusing than it already is.
Exploits are already developed prior to the event. It's not a CTF where one can reasonably be expected to find and develop an exploit during the contest. Players get limited time to tweak what they've got in case it doesn't work, but that's it.
Well, my understanding is that there's a submission then various teams are apprised and given x hours to complete, where x would obviously be greater than twenty-four, and not necessarily handled in one setting, such that there'd be a 'reveal' disclosing successful contestants. So it looks like I wasn't mistaken there.
But that still does not address the matter of rigging and whether Pwn2Own has clear rules against it. I don't know, which is why I asked.
Prior to the "contest" beginning everyone participating has to disclose what they have 0day for. In cases where more than 1 person brings 0day for a particular target then they will attack it in turn. The order they get to go in is random. When it's someone's turn they get like 5 minutes to exploit the target. If they can't do it then it's the next person's turn. Whoever exploits it first wins. So if you have 2 people each with a reliable exploit for the same vuln in the same target then who wins is really decided by the coin toss. But let's not forget what this really is: vulnerability sales. So if there's 2 different vulns in the same target then probably the sponsor is going to want to buy them both anyway.
What is it that you mean by rigging? The main point of the event is that sellers feel safe exposing their warez. The rules are clear, they're going to get paid if they have what they say that have. The sponsors get to buy the 0day and know it's real and they're not getting ripped off. And it's all in the open and everyone gets good press.
Relatively undergeneralized as the entirety of the internet's traffic is collected by various agencies, and singling out the NSA seems rather hamfisted.
There are three points here: First, Tor was and continues to be funded by the NSA, among other government agencies. Second, the NSA created Tor for themselves to protect their own agents. Third, by operating Tor exit nodes, they are able to spy on other people's traffic, hence a honeypot.
That's my point. And I'm suggesting going a step further to non-domestic agencies.
Nowhere do I suggest the point in the article is false. I merely suggest it is closer to cherrypicking as others are obviously neglected. Does the FBI come to mind at all, for instance?
The thrust of this is not to name which agencies use Tor to spy on you, but to point out the fact that the entire Tor system was developed by the government and is probably a big honeypot. Who cares what TLA-named agency is using it this week? The point is that it's not the security panacea it's made out to be by tech libertarians.
Tor is in their demense so critcism is always relevant - dismissal on those grounds is whataboutism. It would be like dismissing DES S-box tampering or Elliptical Curve insecurity with "there are plenty of insecure algorithm mistakes no big deal!".
It brings to mind how answering strongly agree on "Everyone steals" on a company screening personality test is a quick ticket to get blacklisted.
Well they were responsible for Tor that makes it germane - that was what I met by being in their domain. It is always perfectly fair to throw shade on them for their project based on their past actions.
The NSA really shouldn't be bringing up their mandate given how they have persistently undermined their own nation's security for the sake of snooping. And it is one of the most economically dependent upon it no less and needs the advanced economy to power its supremacy. It is so stupid one needs to invent elaborate and absurd fantasies to remotely justify it.
It still stinks of whataboutism to complain of dishonesty - not refuting the truth or justifying it as right but deflecting it and crying foul. Everyone is doing it is a poor excuse for juvenile delinquency and a worse one for agencies of world powers.
Clearly not accurate. For one thing, there are many kinds of meditation, so the assessment that meditation (as a whole) is demotivating is overgeneralizing. Secondly, as further revealed by the study itself, motivation isn't a factor for successful task completion, so there may be something about self-attributed motivation that is superfluous to task completion (i.e., meditators become disabused of that and merely handle the task at hand).
Given that the etiology of Alzheimer's is tied to the very same proteins that must be cleared out during sleep, and that the requirements of sleep decrease with age, there seems to be a cyclical feedback loop at play here, insofar as healthy aging does not typically difficulties with R&R. (This example becomes more salient in the case of supergenarians who can rest and let little stress them a great deal.) Compound that with a likely immunodeficient response during sleep (where the brain is supposed to become more spongy) for these proteins to be cleared out and a poorly functioning blood-brain barrier, it would seem finding treatments that focus on these self-restorative responses would be most beneficial. Whereas treatments that temporarily boost processing capabilities will only somewhat delay the onset clearly shows that this is most likely the case.
I wonder what study on general EEG signatures may reveal with respect to the efficiency with which the cleanup process can be facilitated thereby. Perhaps meditative practices could be demonstrated as a form of protein-cache clearing even when in a waking, albeit altered, state of consciousness.
It sounds like production is the key here not clearance but I am also interested if meditation affects that. I did a quick search and didn't see anything.
Obviously not. And the exceptional cases like those where the SSD can be swapped out for larger-than-stock SSD's make the point of connectivity pretty moot. And how hard is it to get connectivity nowadays?
