| ▲ | StableAlkyne 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's just sloppy. Readers are human, and little mistakes like this take away from the article. Then you add a nonexistent RHEL version, and it just isn't a good look. Which is a shame, because it's otherwise a very interesting vuln. Maybe you didn't care, but the length of this comment chain clearly shows that it matters. Effective communication is just as important as the engineering. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
agreed regarding the RHEL version! i just dont understand huffing and puffing over "os as g" in a 10-line poc script, and saying "well i would never approve this". its not enterprise code. its not code that will ever be used anywhere else, for anything. its sole purpose is to prove that the exploit is real, which it does! the rest of the information is in the actual vulnerability report. the poc is a courtesy to the reportee, so that they can confirm that the report itself isnt bullshit. evidently, given the downvotes i am getting, people think exploit scripts should be enterprise quality code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ half of the reports i see flowing through mailing lists dont even have a poc. amazingly HN-like to be upset about a variable name | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||