Reputation
4,520
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
13 27
Newest
 Guru
Impact
~158k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 13 helpful flags
  • 202 votes cast
Apr
8
answered What are the possible security issues when making a checkout system in Javascript?
Feb
22
comment If “you can never trust the client”, then why do companies such as Valve rely solely on client-side verification?
@sebastiannielsen Sure, there are services that do this; Valve simply isn't one of them. Maybe "viable" isn't the right word, or at least it should be understood to mean "viable in the context of a particular vendor's constraints." As costs for processing power become globally less burdensome, this approach becomes increasingly viable for more people.
Feb
22
comment If “you can never trust the client”, then why do companies such as Valve rely solely on client-side verification?
@sebastiannielsen My guess is that your approach falls outside of the set of "viable" approaches. That requires a lot more processing power for the gaming service (it must now run every single client, in addition to the server). Valve has decided, I guess, that it's easier to write anti-cheat code and tolerate some cheating than to supply the extra processing power to run the game client for every single player simultaneously.
Jan
31
awarded  Guru
Dec
11
revised Are anti-virus companies companies regularly committing software piracy?
added 567 characters in body
Oct
7
comment What is “Intentionally misleading Artificial Intelligence to create a misleading outcome” called?
Are you looking for a term for a general category that would include something like Bayesian poisoning? I might use (and perhaps someone else already has used) the term "poisoning" generally to refer to such an attack into non-Bayesian contexts.
Sep
17
awarded  Yearling
Jul
25
awarded  Caucus
Jun
17
answered Why did I see an insecure browser warning on my page?
Jun
15
comment Why did I see an insecure browser warning on my page?
@Joon Looking at the browser console (F12) for that page, I see a warning about an insecure image, not a link: Mixed Content: The page at 'https://secure.myshopper.oldmutual.co.za/shopper/FundEdit' was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure image 'http://image.providesupport.com/online-presence-image/omtfsa?t=...'. This content should also be served over HTTPS.
Jun
11
comment Why did I see an insecure browser warning on my page?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is predicated on a mixed-content warning appearing under circumstances that do not appear to produce a mixed-content warning in practice. (Please add more information and/or an example that reproduces the warning. It is entirely possibly that links do produce mixed-content warnings, but only under specific circumstances. Without such information, this question cannot be answered.)
Jun
11
comment Why did I see an insecure browser warning on my page?
For example, I do not see any warnings on ondras.github.io/rot.js/hp, even though it links to http://doryen.eptalys.net/libtcod/.
Jun
3
revised Risks associated with HTTP content injection?
added 225 characters in body
Jun
3
answered Risks associated with HTTP content injection?
May
28
awarded  Good Answer
May
28
comment Is this way of encoding cryptographic hashes safe?
@Gilles An excellent point. I hope my edit does your comment justice?
May
28
revised Is this way of encoding cryptographic hashes safe?
added 726 characters in body
May
27
awarded  Nice Answer
May
27
comment Is this way of encoding cryptographic hashes safe?
@Polynomial I'm not suggesting that the extra digit is dropped; I agree that it does remain, and that that causees a problem. If the groups 03f and f43 are adjacent in the input (11 and 111 in the output), it is not possible to use the five character 11111 in the output to determine which group came first in the input. To restate a much shorter version of my previous example, the output from 03ff43 and f4303f are indistinguishable.
May
27
comment Is this way of encoding cryptographic hashes safe?
@Polynomial 03ff4303ff43...03ff439991 and f4303ff4303f...f4303f9991 both map to the same output value (1111111111...1111111CC1). There are lots of ways to modify the scheme so it doesn't cause collisions (I have suggested a few trivial ones), but as presented in the question, values can collide.