Windows XP/Server 2k3 Source master branch is meant to hold untouched source code for referencing. better to torrent then clone entire repo.
this is a rough draft and may be updated with more examples
GitHub was kind enough to grant me swift access to the Copilot test phase despite me @'ing them several hundred times about ICE. I would like to examine it not in terms of productivity, but security. How risky is it to allow an AI to write some or all of your code?
Ultimately, a human being must take responsibility for every line of code that is committed. AI should not be used for "responsibility washing." However, Copilot is a tool, and workers need their tools to be reliable. A carpenter doesn't have to
A full parsing table is not needed, only the canonical collection. In the canonical collection, find all final items (and only final items), and see if:
If none of these is true, there are no conflicts, even in LR(0). If there are some of the above, SLR(1) still may solve it.
Here's the scenario: We want to craft two different messages with the same MD5 hash, and a specific CRC32 checksum, simultaneously.
In other words, we want an MD5 collision attack and a CRC32 preimage attack.
This might seem like a contrived scenario, but it's exactly the one I faced while producing my PNG hashquine (Yes OK maybe that's also a contrived scenario, cut me some slack).
On its own, a CRC32 preimage attack is trivial. You can craft a 4-byte suffix that gives any message a specific checksum, calculated using a closed-form expression (which I am too lazy to derive, not even with assistance from Z3). It's not an attack per-se, since CRC32 was never meant to be cryptograpically secure in the first place.
| use std::collections::HashMap; | |
| use std::fmt; | |
| use std::io; | |
| use std::num::ParseFloatError; | |
| use std::rc::Rc; | |
| /* | |
| Types | |
| */ |
At the beginning of 2030, I found this essay in my archives. From what I know today, I think it was very insightful at the moment of writing. And I feel it should be published because it can teach us, Rust developers, how to prevent that sad story from happening again.
What killed Haskell, could kill Rust, too
What killed Haskell, could kill Rust, too. Why would I even mention Haskell in this context? Well, Haskell and Rust are deeply related. Not because Rust is Haskell without HKTs. (Some of you know what that means, and the rest of you will wonder for a very long time). Much of the style of Rust is similar in many ways to the style of Haskell. In some sense Rust is a reincarnation of Haskell, with a little bit of C-ish like syntax, a very small amount.
Is Haskell dead?
By looking that you are here you most likely use Cardboard/Banner/some other weird bukkit + Fabric project (or just someone linked to it).
Don't do it, it will cause more harm/instabilities to your server than good. But let's start at the beginning.
Few definitions before we start:
| 000(023Rb|001Rb) | |
| 001(017La|002Rb) | |
| 002(021La|003Rb) | |
| 003(021La|004La) | |
| 004(009Rb|005Lb) | |
| 005(004Ra|005La) | |
| 006(008La|007La) | |
| 007(009Rb|007La) | |
| 008(009Ra|008La) | |
| 009(010Ra|026Ra) |
| D [0-9] | |
| L [a-zA-Z_] | |
| H [a-fA-F0-9] | |
| E ([Ee][+-]?{D}+) | |
| P ([Pp][+-]?{D}+) | |
| FS (f|F|l|L) | |
| IS ((u|U)|(u|U)?(l|L|ll|LL)|(l|L|ll|LL)(u|U)) | |
| %{ | |
| #include <stdio.h> |