You have bad takes, so my recommendation is to not block Mandiant ASM so that they are able to find stuff, if you mess up.
- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.comto Programming@programming.dev•Writing Code Was Never The BottleneckEnglish21·18 days agoOK so you walk into your VP’s office and tell him that vibe coding isn’t a silver bullet. He tells you his boss told him to use AI for something, and all you’ve done with him is come with a problem and not a solution.
What then? You build an agentic pipeline to attempt to do code reviews and the other problems you say still exist? This article is incomplete.
Sounds like they lost their lawsuit then, if their post is three years old and the devs are publicly encouraging people to commit crimes.
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.comto Games@sh.itjust.works•Parrying Is The Best Thing In Video GamesEnglish2·2 months agoGhost is cinematic, sure. But I still like the classic dark souls parry sound. It’s like a gasp, and then a giant creature kneels before you so you can fuck it up.
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.comto Programmer Humor@programming.dev•They're trying to normalize calling vibe coding a "programming paradigm," don't let them.English1·2 months agoDo you know what a memory stack and assembly are?
If you want code that does assembly operations A, B, and then C, you might be able to accomplish it by scanning loaded memory (or its corresponding binary) for bits that, when translated into assembly, do:
A
D
return
This set of three instructions is a gadget. In practice, it’s a location in memory.
And then you find another gadget.
B
C
return
Then, if you don’t care about D, or D does something irrelevant that won’t screw up what you’re trying to do, or won’t crash the program, you can replace the stack with the addresses of gadgets one and two. When gadget one returns, the stack is popped and then gadget two executes.
Since the computer did ADBC and D was irrelevant, the system executed your ABC malware and now you win.
Is finding gadgets that execute actual malware hard? Surprisingly not!
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.comto Games@lemmy.world•70% of games that require internet get destroyedEnglish22·2 months agoThat’s the point of agreements though. If you buy a game and don’t like the agreement you should be allowed to return it. If they change the agreement you should be allowed to return it. Agreements aren’t inherently a bad thing. There just hasn’t been enough backlash about bad agreements or the business models they create.
Who cares? It’s the audiences fault for assuming that prior performance is an indicator of future performance. Let the founders cash out. Buyers get rich because audiences think quality will be maintained post acquisition. How often does that really happen though?