Humor Random Comments Thread

[MattBaker]

I spent far too much time trying to figure out what all these actually are...

 

[Quick_Nick]

Someone misspelled 'drone' a lot.

 

[Izack]

Rebel pilot: Negative, it just impacted on the surface.
Imperial officer: THE GUNNER! HE'S BEEN WOUNDED! WE CAN'T FIRE!

 

[Matias Saibene]

As best I understand, it allows statements after a bash environment variable declaration to be executed as root, without superuser access?

Maybe something like installing a package from an unchecked repo, which contains a shell script that runs something nasty like rm -rf /* (or something more subtle if the hacker isnt just an annoying troll).

Im not sure how this could affect a server, since I dont know much about how networking works, but wouldnt a potential hacker need login info to even start communicating remotely with a server through ssh or the like?

Rather disturbing news though.

Very likely not as bad. "Shellshock" is a bad flaw, but unless you have a terribly botched Linux system, it should work fine. The worst scenario that I can find there is sneaking some code into all shell scripts executed by root.

Red Hat has released a test how to check if your bash system is vulnerable.
The vulnerability is corrected with an update of 300kb.

I leave here the instructions for users of Linux (do not know if it works on OSX):

Start a terminal and enter the following command:

env = x '() {:;}; Echo vulnerable 'bash c "echo this is a test"

if your system is vulnerable, this message is displayed:

vulnerable
this is a test

If this happens, check for and install updates for your system. Once resolved, rerun the command. If the problem is solved, this message is displayed:

bash: warning: x: ignoring function definition Attempt
bash: error importing function definition for `x '
this is a test

Always remember to upgrade your system, and pray to the Probe.

 

[mojoey]

Someone smother that fire!

 

[Urwumpe]

Latha math, everybody! Happy European Day of Languages

Chan eil aon chànan gu leòr

 

[mojoey]

I can't hear a bloody thing, but goddamn was that awesome.

 

[Urwumpe]

I can't hear a bloody thing, but goddamn was that awesome.

Sounds like a great gig

 

[mojoey]

Sounds like a great gig

It was. The first opening act, Skeletonwitch were meh at best, but Sabaton turned it around, and Amon Amarth absolutely killed it. 10/10 would head bang again.

 

[Urwumpe]

It was. The first opening act, Skeletonwitch were meh at best, but Sabaton turned it around, and Amon Amarth absolutely killed it. 10/10 would head bang again.

Yeah, all reported the same about Sabaton on the Rockharz festival. I really curse the guy who planned the exam period last semester and his children, his children's children and the guy who repairs his car!

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Left row-
Boeing 747-300 or later
Airbus A330
Boeing 737 variant
Concorde
Boeing 777
Donno, DC-3 variant?

Center Row-
General Dynamics F-16D probably an Israeli bird.
MiG-15
MiG-29 (note no wingtip rails)
Lockheed Martin F-35
Sukhoi Su-27 Variant.

Right Row-
Piper PA-23 or variant of
Antonov An-2
Stunt Aircraft, need more details to narrow it down to manufacturer.
Cessna 172
Van's Aircraft RV-8
Cessna 208 Caravan

That only took 10min and a little research so why can't journalists do it....

 

[orb]

Start a terminal and enter the following command:

env = x '() {:;}; Echo vulnerable 'bash c "echo this is a test"

This command is incorrect because "=" is misplaced, "Echo" command doesn't exist (case sensitivity), there's no space after closing "'" before "bash", and there's missing "-" before "c" parameter.

And even then, on the corrected command line, neither "vulnerable" nor warnings don't get displayed on an unpatched bash when using `env`, but only "this is a test" (unless this test doesn't work on old 4.2.45).

This one will however show that the command after the function definition is still executed in an unpatched bash (4.2.45, which I have in VirtualBox to access my Linux partitions from Windows):

x='() { :;}; echo "VULNERABLE"' bash -c "echo this is a test"

 

[MattBaker]

That only took 10min and a little research so why can't journalists do it....

In my experience journalism includes quite hard deadlines so you have to finish your job at some point, regardless of the state of your article. And I would say it's even more true for online media since you have to be quite quick to be first reporting. If you take an hour you give the guy who took ten minutes a headstart to get clicks and usage for future links.

Then again there is media who don't really report much about it at first and then after two or three days come up with a glorious four, six, sometimes even ten page analysis with all the data, expert opinions and stuff. Those are great and if you know a newspaper like that it's worth buying them every once in a while.

 

[jedidia]

Donno, DC-3 variant?

If I saw it in Swizterland, I would at first assume a Ju-52. But while much of the shilouette would match, the windows aren't in the right place, and there's one too few of them...

Lockheed Martin F-35

...
Damn it, shilouettes. You sure this isn't an F-18? I could swear it's an F-18, the only thing speaking against it is missing missile pylons on the wingtips, but then again, how accurately are these things drawn?

 

[Urwumpe]

If I saw it in Switerland, I would at first assume a Ju-52. But while much of the shilouette would match, the windows aren't in the right place, and there's one too few of them...

The tailplane is also not in the right shape as well... I would assume it to be a Douglas DC-2.

 

[Codz]

Damn it, shilouettes. You sure this isn't an F-18? I could swear it's an F-18, the only thing speaking against it is missing missile pylons on the wingtips, but then again, how accurately are these things drawn?

It's an F-35. Look at the way the horizontal stabilizers are angled.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

And the outline of those goofy shaped intakes. I'm sure the labcoated dudes have a reason for them, but they look so very strange.

 

[Urwumpe]

And the outline of those goofy shaped intakes. I'm sure the labcoated dudes have a reason for them, but they look so very strange.

The notches or sawtooth shape? Like the notches in the wings of many aircraft or cranked wings, they are supposed to generate extra lift at high angles of attack by intentionally creating vortices on top of the fuselage, which reduce the stall velocity. Additionally, this intake shape should be more stealthy.

 

[MattBaker]

Currently debating if it's worth my time to set this up in Orbiter, specifically those five orbits:

just to see how much delta-V you'd need for it. I feel like it isn't but it should be...

 

[PhantomCruiser]

The intakes are kind of reverse from the F-101 (but it reminds me of it somehow), I figured that it had something to do with stealth/radar cross-section... It just looks really strange.

So long as it works :shifty: