drspod
joined 2 years ago
Nothing in the licensing scheme changed, at all.
This statement is incorrect. The SDK had specific source files placed exclusively under the SDK license, and the remainder of the repository dual licensed between GPL 3 and the SDK license. So the licensing scheme did change.
See also: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/blob/main/LICENSE
I get why you'd suggest the previous commenter is out of touch with what users want, but what does that have to do with being a software engineer?
I've had this one in my images folder for at least a couple of decades. No idea where I saved it from:
Anyone who falls for the scam of thinking that you can determine IQ from the genome of an embryo is probably below average themselves.
You're just unabashedly supporting eugenics? Is that because you're too young, or too uneducated to know any better?
Did you read the article?
If you think that I'm misunderstanding something and arguing from a false premise then please feel free to engage with the discussion.
I thought passkeys were supposed to be a hardware device?
This is typical embrace/extend/extinguish behavior from the large platforms that don't want their web-SSO hegemony challenged because it would mean less data collection and less vendor lock-in.
The whole idea of passkeys provided by an online platform should have been ruled out by the specification. It completely defeats the purpose of passkeys which is that the user has everything they need to authenticate themself.
They didn't break RSA.
295
Malicious Google Search Ads can now fake the displayed URL to push malware downloads
(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/4912712
Most people know at this point that when searching for a popular software package to download, you should be very careful to avoid clicking on any of the search ads that appear, as this has become an extremely common vector for distributing malware to unsuspecting users.
If you thought that you could identify these malicious ads by checking the URL below the ad to see if it directs to the legitimate site, think again! Malware advertisers have found a way to use Google's Ad platform to fake the URL shown with the ad to make it appear like a legitimate ad for the product when in fact, clicking the ad will redirect to an attacker controlled site serving malware.
Don't click on search ads or, even better, use an ad-blocker so that you never see them in the first place!
193
Malicious Google Search Ads can now fake the displayed URL to push malware downloads
(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
Most people know at this point that when searching for a popular software package to download, you should be very careful to avoid clicking on any of the search ads that appear, as this has become an extremely common vector for distributing malware to unsuspecting users.
If you thought that you could identify these malicious ads by checking the URL below the ad to see if it directs to the legitimate site, think again! Malware advertisers have found a way to use Google's Ad platform to fake the URL shown with the ad to make it appear like a legitimate ad for the product when in fact, clicking the ad will redirect to an attacker controlled site serving malware.
Don't click on search ads or, even better, use an ad-blocker so that you never see them in the first place!
view more: next ›
Yes sorry, I didn't realize that until I posted it and saw all of the "cross-posted to:" links. It's the first time it's posted to this community though, and I think it's an important topic.