I believe the recent cve-2026-55200 in libssh2 (client-side library) was allowing exactly this.
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/cve-2026-55200
("Remote attackers can send crafted SSH packets with excessively large packet_length values to corrupt heap memory and achieve remote code execution.")
Of course the other abouts that you whatted (such as random curl install scripts, binaries, etc.) are still more dangerous.
> The integer overflow provides uncontrolled access to the heap, which reliably crashes the client process but is unlikely to achieve remote code execution in practice. Weaponizing the overflow for code execution would require a separate information disclosure vulnerability to defeat ASLR, along with a specific heap layout to place exploitable structures adjacent to the undersized allocation.
---
> abouts that you whatted
"Whataboutism" is perhaps the most infuriating and wildly misused word in the English language. Pointing out that somebody is scaremongering about an action that is significantly less dangerous than other everyday actions people take on their computers is not a fallacy. It is directly relevant to evaluating risk. Yes, technically there could be some critical bug that allows the posited thing to happen, but in reality it just doesn't happen. If it did happen, nobody would blow their once-in-decades exploit on pranking some people on a forum.
I am familiar, yet used this comment to confirm my initial assumption.
Abbreviations carry unnecessary cost on the side of the readers. There is always the chance that there is another shorthand for something else that is important and so there is a need to double check interpretations.
So thanks for the comment and no, a 101 wouldn't even help with this problem.
Lol! Does it matter? Using an unclear acronym in the first reference to an object, besides adding energy waste (for the execution of unnecessary searches by users unfamiliar with the subject), may only give the author of the comment the thrill of "being well informed, an insider".
>Abbreviations carry unnecessary cost on the side of the readers.
They do, but the parent's question wasn't about the abbrebation (for which I'd cut them some slack) but extended to:
"Is that supposed to help? WTF is a HuggingFace?".
>So thanks for the comment and no, a 101 wouldn't even help with this problem.
Wasn't addressed to you though (don't even see any other comment of you in this subthread), but to @markdown, whose issue wasn't with the abbreviation alone.
Erm sorry when I said GP I meant of my comment - that is, phoghed's irrelevant comment about ISPs collecting data.
The information you mentioned is relevant. Unfortunately, it could be either Google/Chrome, or the LLM service you're using for development is misusing your data.
The article opens with a statement by Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov who claims that WhatsApp shared Messages with third parties while Telegram "never did and never will" do that.
Now, Telegram doesn't use End-to-End encryption by default at all, does it? What I mean is: The message is encrypted on the sender's device and can only be decrypted on that and the receiver's device.
Telegram uses transport layer encryption that leaves all messages exposed to the servers an their admins. Last I checked, there was a E2E feature but every room I opened would just stop working after a while and my contacts were very confused about that. Large rooms weren't possible.
I have no idea what Meta/WhatsApp may or may not be doing but this article opens with Telegram and doesn't pick that up anymore. Makes it feel like a telegram ad.
The rest of the article may be fine but it's very lengthy and goes somewhere to show that dispite using the Signal protocol, WhatsApp cloud backups can be decrypted, I think. The Telegram ad was too irritating to give the article a fair chance, to be honest.
depends, at least he didn't claim that telegram is encrypted. the problem is that whatsapp encryption gives you a false sense of security, which arguably is worse than knowing your messages are not encrypted.
> Now, Telegram doesn't use End-to-End encryption by default at all, does it?
Underrated fact.
Also, no one knows who exactly operates Telegram and IIRC they don't even have an office. But we know Russian authorities have intense interest in it so it's hard to imagine FSB wouldn't figure out who it is and knock on their (or their relatives still in Russia) door. We know that Russian authorities previously banned Telegram, demanded encryption keys and then a bit later unbanned it saying "Pavel Durov was prepared to cooperate in combating terrorism and extremism on the platform".
AFAIK, the FSB knocked on Durov’s previous company’s door, VKontakte, a Russian Facebook knock-off.
They asked for info on some of their users, were told “no” and… they told Durov that “it would be a good idea if you sold this thing to someone else”.
Which he did, for decent money but probably a lot less than it was worth. He then used that money to start Telegram, at first from Berlin and later on from Dubai, from 2017 I think.
VKontakte (VK) eventually created Max, a newish IM service that the tiger-fighting shortie at the Kremlin is pushing onto Russians, while trying to limit their use of Telegram, that is or at least was the standard in Russia.
This might as well be constructed story so people use Russian service (i doubt somebody would even consider it otherwise).
It would be very different if Telegram was all e2ee like Signal and with published client source code. But current state it's far more likely it's just a honeypot.
I found this page very helpful in understanding each step of the QR code creation process. I can't say I recall it all but it would be possible to turn this into a small booklet, I guess.
It is so sad to see both this and the title "It's ok to abandon your side project" on the front page while I have three flipdisc displays sitting in the basement without the time and equipment to get them up and running.
No, it's not ok to abandon those flipdisc displays! :(
Admittedly I read neither of the articles. But who doesn't sometimes get caught up in the conincidence of titles on here may vote me down :D
On mobile they’ve hidden that under “customize this article”, which I never would have even noticed if I hadn’t specifically known that there is some sort of dropdown somewhere, heh. But now we know :)
I couldn't finish "Idiocracy" because the underlying eugenics nonsense made me angry enough not to enjoy the comedy anymore.
It made me angry because makes the point that natural selection has become ineffective on humans and thus intelligence declines unironically. There is no joke in that - all jokes build upon the assumption of this being true.
If it were true, then decline wouldn't have begun in the 19th or 20th century but around the time that property and currencies emerged.
But there is no need to disproof this because there is no evidence that it has any truth to it.
That's like being angry at Star wars because the very first title text says "long time ago", and we know humans didn't go into space long time ago duh.
I think there's so much ill-founded assumptions in eugenics BS that it's hard to know where to start, but as a genealogist, I can personally verify that upper or middle class, wealthier people, presumably the sort eugenicists identify with, clearly had at least a 2-3 generations head start on the demographic transition where I come from.
There are other trends, there's always some groups of people who started having fewer kids earlier or later for reasons not obviously related to class - but class is the big one.
> It made me angry because makes the point that natural selection has become ineffective on humans and thus intelligence declines unironically. There is no joke in that - all jokes build upon the assumption of this being true.
you seem pretty convinced that intelligence plays an important role in natural selection. I'd argue that decisiveness, confidence, looks, social skills all play a more important role. (I'm not saying that's a good thing)
I'm interested in understanding your point of view, can you elaborate on what you mean by "There is no joke in that"?
Can't remember in details that part of the film. Was it explicitly eugenics? Otherwise it could be seen as not getting the same education, depending on parental situation.
It's in the opening scene, where poor, "low IQ" couple complains about getting another child again by accident while a suburban "high IQ" couple was hesitant to start making children until it was too late (the husband dies). "Low IQ" couple's son grows up into a stupid, sexy jock and it goes on from there for generations.
So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt.
> So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt.
Is that really how we use the word "eugenics", though? That scene you refer to explicitly explained that Natural Selection does not necessarily select for intelligence.
So while some people are calling it "Eugenics", it's what we more typically call Natural Selection, Evolutionary Pressure, etc.
Eugenics implies that the selection criteria was not natural. The scene you mention makes it clear that, in-universe anyway, the selection criteria was entirely natural and not a pressure imposed by humans.
I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.
I still like the movie, but like with any 20+ years old comedies, I can recognise issues with its premise which would be more-or-less unacceptable today. In 2006... not as much. The future is now, old man!
> does that scene imply that we should do something to tilt the scales in the opposite direction?
No, it did not.
> I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.
And, to you, "Do something about this" means only one thing - forcefully stopping classes of people from reproducing?
>It made me angry because makes the point that natural selection has become ineffective on humans
So it's a documentary?
Even the basic reproductive instinct has become "ineffective on humans".
>There is no joke in that - all jokes build upon the assumption of this being true
No, there are countless jokes in the movie that don't depend about how the world became stupid (be it cultural or genetics or combination) at all. Literally all of them are like that.
>If it were true, then decline wouldn't have begun in the 19th or 20th century but around the time that property and currencies emerged.
Why, did the movie say it's the result of "property and currencies"? And even if somebody said so, who said it's just about "property and currencies" merely being a thing that starts this decline, and not surpassing some level of development of property and currencies (e.g. late capitalism), which prevents mitigating factors from working?
