mitchs

When I backtrace from my malloc wrapper, injected with LD_PRELOAD, I see malloc, std::new, then the call site that involved new. Unless std::new is doing some funky shit (Like detecting dlsym("malloc") isn't glibc's malloc, and changing implementations) I have my doubts about the claim that dynamic replacement is costly. It appears new is already dynamically linking malloc.

I'd argue with most enterprise's upgrade cycle for this gear it is better than a 0 day, it is a -5 to -3 year exploit.

I don't think it is that contrived. I've contributed to a project that had bots build every GitHub pull request and post build+test logs in the comments.

As far as I'm concerned this paper more or less describes HTTP(S) fairly well. The "3.5" address is the domain name that resolves to a meaningful IP address for the L3 domain you are in.

Folks are already using disjoint L3 address spaces with elements like load balancers providing the bridge between the public IP space and their own private IP space. I don't know if you could ever sell me on having more than one "main" IP space though, as I don't entirely understand what purpose that would serve, other than massively complicating the process of understanding what it is you are purchasing connectivity to.

See also RFC 1925, particularly sections 2.6a, and perhaps 2.11 :p

Amazon EIPs are free when attached to a running VM. (Unless you have more than one attached to the same VM.)

500? Those are rookie numbers.

There are traded offs in the decision. The TCAMs generically are rows of "key," "mask" and "result." A bank of TCAM can, at great power expense, answer "which is the result from the first row where my input anded with the row's mask equals the row's key." Some chips let you swap banks between different functions. Internet carriers tend to need a lot of l3 route lookups. Enterprise customers tend to want more access control list entries. From the outside this looks like the initial firmware aimed to be a middle ground, and carriers needed space shifted around. However, at every nice round power of two we are going to be having some hardware hit limits in what can be done even if the only priority is l3 routing. Often there are fixed function banks, and even if they were all flexible, at least some ACL features are needed on most (if not all) routers.

My thinking has always been that unsupervised biometrics are just a weird form of "something you know." Only when you put a human there to make sure there is no funny business during data entry doors it become "something you are."

Well, three quarters of the way through the article we got our answer.

> The April issue of the journal Antitrust Chronicle, edited by Mr. Medvedovsky, features a drawing of a bearded man on the cover right above the words “Hipster Antitrust.” In the middle of an ... there’s a photograph of a bearded man taking a selfie next to the chapter heading “Battle of the Beards.” It is perhaps relevant that only one of the 12 authors or experts in the issue is female. > The Hipster issue was sponsored by Facebook, another sign that Big Tech is striving to shape the monopoly-law debate. The company declined to comment.

Interesting. I'm annoyed that the article moved on well enough for me to come post a comment on the comment that stuck out like a sore thumb.

> She has her own critics now: Several leading scholars have found fault with Ms. Khan’s proposals to revive and expand antitrust, and some have tried to dismiss her paper with the mocking label “Hipster Antitrust.” Unwilling or perhaps unable to accept that a woman wrote a breakthrough legal text, they keep talking about bearded dudes.

So we are just presuming sexism? OK David Streitfeld, I immediately trust you and believe that all critics of her paper are evil dudes who just hate women. Oh look, we are moving on from that point immediately to dive into her back story and not backing it up with anything. Guess I'll just have to take your word for it that her critics disagreed with her instead of her work.

Interesting, thanks for the link. Note to self, customers don't keep consistent ttls... Yikes.

In practice the "split path" scenario is only a problem when topology changes. Routers typically use a hash of source and destination port, source and destination IP address, and sometimes ingress port id to pick which of N equal paths to take.

This is done not just to preserve end destination, but so every sequential packet in a flow follows the same path, thus must arrive in the same order. (Different paths have different latencies because of distance and buffer depth on the routers.) Many tcp implementations will back way off as soon as they see out of order packets, so network providers must do this.

I'd say not really. BGP based lies are hilariously easy to spot, and can be observed by any ISP in the world. When the US Intelligence community blames Russia for hacking they aren't just doing geo-ip lookups and believing what they see. Anyone with a credit card these days can rent a server in any country anyway, so origin of traffic is more or less useless.

I'd say look up BGP (Border Gateeway Protocol,) but the wiki page buries the important parts, since it describes the protocol state machine and packet format before even attempting to give a high level picture.

AS, standing for Autonomous System, is like an ISP's name. BGP spreads routing information by rumor. For example, I start the rumor that I can route to IP addresses in 1.2.3.0/24, and tell my peer ISPs. They tell their peers I told them... etc. To prevent rumors from going in circles, you keep a record of every ISP in the path of spreading the rumor, and call it the AS path. (Otherwise you could never retract the rumor, as it would go in circles. BGP speakers do not accept rumors that they themselves are in the path of. (Except in cases of dirty hacks, but then only a finite number of times.))

This article describes fraudulent AS paths attached to (as I understood it) IP ranges that were legitimately owned by the people advertising them to Hurricane Electric. This is like you telling Hurricane Electric that I (the North Korean ISP) told you that I can route to 1.2.3.0/24, an IP address range you own, even though I told you no such thing and we are not even peers.