Bimbly retweeted
#Malfoid #HarryPotter #MalfoidArt
MALFOID: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MAGICAL INDISCRETIONS.
A story of love, ambition, dark magic, and absolutely catastrophic decision-making.
0xDEADBEEF?
A hex flag used in debugging you say?
🤔 🤔 🤔
In Windows, we had xBAADF00D and xDEADBEEF and a few others :-)
0xBAADF00D - Windows heap: newly allocated, uninitialized memory under heap debugging
0xFEEEFEEE - Windows heap: freed memory.
0xABABABAB - Windows heap: guard bytes after an allocation, used to detect overruns
0xCCCCCCCC - Visual C++ debug builds: uninitialized stack storage
0xCDCDCDCD - Debug CRT: newly allocated heap memory
0xDDDDDDDD - Debug CRT: freed memory retained when delayed freeing is enabled
0xFDFDFDFD - Debug CRT: “no man’s land” guards before and after an allocation.
Me completely surrounded by Python everything:
🚨 BREAKING: IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE. NOW PYTHON IS FACING A MASSIVE SECURITY EMERGENCY.
Python's security team has issued an URGENT warning after a certificate authority compromise put Python's HTTPS security at risk.
→ 8 CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY KEYS COMPROMISED. Some were so weak they could be cracked almost INSTANTLY.
→ FAKE TRUSTED WEBSITES: Attackers could potentially impersonate Python.org, PyPI and other websites during intercepted connections.
→ MALICIOUS DOWNLOADS: Vulnerable environments could be tricked into downloading software from attacker-controlled servers.
→ YOUR OS PATCH MAY NOT PROTECT YOU: Older versions of pip can STILL trust compromised certificates even after system updates.
→ EMERGENCY UPDATES: Python developers are being told to immediately update pip, certifi, uv and other affected tools.
→ DOCKER USERS AT RISK: Existing container images may retain vulnerable certificate stores and need rebuilding.
First PHP. Then Node.js. Then GitLab. Then LiteLLM.
NOW PYTHON.
The very systems developers rely on to establish TRUST online are becoming the attack surface.
If you use Python, PATCH NOW.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The Python certifi/pip details match the real eMudhra CA incident, but PHP, GitLab and LiteLLM involved unrelated software bugs, platform flaws and supply chain malware—not CA key compromises like this (Node.js patched concurrently for the same CA issue).
discuss.python.org/t/information-…
emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com
github.com/advisories/GHS…
docs.litellm.ai/blog/security-…
snyk.io/blog/php-patch…
NAPSTER BAD
MONEY GOOD 😆
In May 2000, Metallica's Lars Ulrich delivered 13 boxes to Napster's office. Inside were the screen names of 335,435 users who had shared the band's songs for free.
Napster agreed to block them. To many, it looked like Metallica against its own fans.
In the video below, Ulrich explains why he did it. "Napster hijacked our music without asking."
It started with a leak. Unfinished versions of "I Disappear," a song for Mission: Impossible 2, were already playing on US radio. The band traced them to Napster.
On April 13, 2000, Metallica sued. In 48 hours, Ulrich said, over 300,000 users made 1.4 million free downloads of its music.
Napster said it stored no songs and only connected users. Fans called it sharing.
Ulrich rejected the word. "If I share a sandwich with you, I'm left with half a sandwich."
That September, Napster's founder, Shawn Fanning, walked onstage at the MTV Video Music Awards in a Metallica T-shirt. He said he had borrowed it from a friend.
Metallica and Napster settled in July 2001. That same month, Napster's free service went dark.
In 2003, Apple opened the iTunes Store at 99 cents a song.
Thirteen years later, Ulrich put it this way: "It's not about money. It's about control." He knows how he will be remembered: "It'll be in the first five sentences of my obituary."
So was Metallica protecting its music, or turning on its own fans?
