The Look on the Bystander 👀
凝视旁观者 👀
📷 Pentax MX
🎞️ Ilford FP4 Plus 125 (FF), expired 1994
If you like my work, Support by buying me a coffee or a roll of film from
PayPal https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ydcdingsite
Wise
OH! I forgot the whole "out of band" thing. Let me get into that.
When you put all this together you have a business owned by a church (or, in the Dutch case, an FFI) to interface with capitalism and then a community that's collectively controlled via the legal entity of a "church." (Again, I like the word "coven," but I'm trying to use the legal definition here.)
This gives you a community that exists partially outside of the dominant system. If this seems like a new idea, it is absolutely not. There are very insular religious communities all over. Many are really oppressive cults (go watch Wild Wild Country), others are insular religious communities (for which there is a lot of legitimate criticism, but I'm only talking about decipherability here) such as Haredim or Mennonites. In some ways Tribes match this also, with various tribal governments organizing things for members.
In all of these cases, there exists an element that is outside of the dominant system. This becomes somewhat "invisible." How well do you understand the inner workings of an Amish community? How much do you think a CEO cares or thinks about them?
There are many hidden worlds that only become revealed when they become a problem (such as when a cult leader tries to take over a county by spraying e. coli on a bunch of salad bars.) This can be good if you're trying to build a new society without attracting the attention, but insular communities can also permit abusive dynamics that could otherwise be identified by the larger society. So keep the risks in mind, and be active about preventing them. Hierarchy is dangerous, but hierarchy in hidden groups can be especially dangerous.
An entertaining stroll down memory lane, with fascinating behind-the-scenes context and lots of footage of that wonderful 'little pup' -- but apparently they couldn't clear the tv show's theme song for use in the documentary?
https://www.whatsthestorywishbone.com/where-to…
Seeing Eye Dogs Show, By Vision Australia Radio
Your on air guide to the incredible work that goes in behind the scenes at Seeing Eye Dogs, plus all the latest in dog health, caring and fostering puppies, interviews with experts and more...
Great Australian Pods Podcast Directory: https://www.greataus…
This is the most detailed picture of a human cell ever made 🧪
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX1CGIZMKJs/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ
Buzz to Boom: Detecting Message Progression Vulnerabilities in Electron Applications via Segmented Directed Fuzzing
Jianjia Yu, Zhengyu Liu, Ziyang Li, Yu Sun, Yinzhi Cao
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20698 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.20698 https://arxiv.org/html/2607.20698
arXiv:2607.20698v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Electron is a popular framework for building cross-platform desktop applications using web technologies. Such applications consist of multiple processes with different privilege levels that communicate via message passing. When inter-process messages carry attacker-controlled inputs, they can propagate across processes and reach privileged APIs, e.g., command execution. Such a message propagation behavior is characterized as Message Progression Vulnerabilities (MPVs). The exploitation of MPVs is challenging because it often requires multiple steps, e.g., first arbitrary code execution in one process via message passing, and then command injection in another process using another message crafted in the first process. To our knowledge, existing works on Electron security only study unsafe configurations and malicious Document Object Model (DOM) content, i.e., they cannot detect or exploit these vulnerabilities that need to be triggered by complex cross-process exploits via message passing. We present Proton, a segmented directed fuzzing framework for detecting MPVs. Our key insight is to decompose end-to-end fuzzing into per-process segments along message-passing boundaries, where the goals of fuzzing each segment are either: (i) reaching a sink in the current process or (ii) propagating the payload to the next process, to enable the exploration of another process. In the second case, the messages seed the corpus of the next segment. Finally, Proton synthesizes crash inputs from each process to validate end-to-end exploits. We evaluate Proton against 589 real-world Electron applications, resulting in 23 zero-day MPVs. Among them, 22 lead to OS command execution, including projects with over 50k GitHub stars. We responsibly disclosed all findings. To date, we have received 13 acknowledgments, 11 fixes, and 11 CVEs, including a bug bounty from Vercel.
toXiv_bot_toot
"‘Chasing Deforestation’ in Liberia: Behind the scenes with Mongabay"
#Liberia #Deforestation #Trees
Since it was relevant to a discussion I just had on here and is something most people probably haven't thought about much (unless you've taken one of a handful of philosophy classes), I thought I'd try to lay out a key piece of Descartes' Meditations (#philosophy
Civic Museums V 🏛️
民间博物馆 V 🏛️
📷 Pentax MX
🎞️ LUCKY SHD 400 (FF)
If you like my work, Support by buying me a coffee or a roll of film from
PayPal https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ydcdingsite
Wise
Classical Acceptance Is Not Hybrid Authentication: Measuring X.509 Verifier Semantics in Post-Quantum Migration
Taesung Kim, Boheung Chung, Keonwoo Kim, Yousung Kang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20800 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.20800 https://arxiv.org/html/2607.20800
arXiv:2607.20800v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: A relying party validating a hybrid X.509 certificate --- carrying both a classical and a post-quantum credential --- must distinguish whether its accepting judgment rests on the post-quantum evidence or only on the classical path. To preserve compatibility, the separable designs place that evidence where classical path validation may ignore it. A verifier can then validate the classical path and accept while the post-quantum evidence never bears on the decision --- a valid classical result silently promoted to a hybrid conclusion it did not establish. We measure this across eight path-validation stacks (seven independent codebases), in nine validation modes, over six certificate schemes. Under a hybrid-required policy, nearly every stack parsing a separable hybrid certificate accepts on the classical path without making the post-quantum evidence outcome-bearing; one enforcing mode instead fractures interoperability over a signature-input encoding not yet interoperably profiled; and stacks that verify post-quantum signatures still do not enforce the binding by default: the gap is structural, not explained by missing primitive capability alone. Under lifecycle desynchronization the downgrade is realized: when a bound post-quantum credential is revoked while the classical certificate stays valid, the default path still accepts, because the bound credential lies outside the decision's scope. Binding success is not authentication success. We contribute a specification-derived verifier model and an executable, policy-parametric reference contract --- what a verifier must recognize, verify, make outcome-bearing, and check before reporting a validation as hybrid --- with a diagnosis of why standards do not require it.
toXiv_bot_toot