This was my first introduction to the “demoscene”. I would really like to get into this type of programming, it is so beautiful. The efficiency and creativeness of the programmers who make these c64 demos is jaw dropping when looking at any of the top submissions.
I will be investigating further but to anyone else interested in this specific rabbit hole:
“The first two chapters of this book are friendly non-technical intro- ductions to key topics and skills. For readers curious to learn more about behind-the-scenes details, chapters 3 and 4 contain conceptual non-mathematical explanations of Monero's privacy features and blockchain. Later chapters dive into complex technical details for understanding, developing, and integrating Monero.”
Actually it was shipped. “Microsoft disabled the AARD code for the final release of Windows 3.1, but did not remove it, so that it could have become reactivated later by the change of a single byte in an installed system.” [1]
[1] Schulman, Andrew; Brown, Ralf D.; Maxey, David; Michels, Raymond J.; Kyle, Jim (1994) [November 1993]. Undocumented DOS: A programmer's guide to reserved MS-DOS functions and data structures - expanded to include MS-DOS 6, Novell DOS and Windows 3.1 (2 ed.). Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-63287-X.
Only if the application has code to change that byte. “It could be changed by a patch” doesn’t count as a condition under which it could be executed, because a patch can make any change it wants to. You wouldn’t say “there’s a condition under which Windows will wipe your hard drive and every visible network share” just because someone can write code to do that.
Really interesting concept. The most intriguing part is the ability to add LLM functionality directly in your code. From the documentation:
```
local PRIMER =
"You are a sushi chef in a sushi restaurant. " ..
"You are kind and cheerful and excited about offering " ..
"different kinds of sushi to the customer."
function onClick()
aiCharacter(PRIMER)
end
```
This opens up a world of possibilities for a casual game developer and there are many other interesting features. I would love to read more about how they are controlling cost on their api searches with the LLM. I look forward to seeing more from rooms.xyz.
the description is also a fancy wrapper around the "docker" or "podman" words that I've found really hard to explain to people.
("docker is sort of like a vm but more like chroot, and it has a dockerfile that is sort of like a recipe, and a filesystem that is sort of like version control, but..." bleh)
I absolutely agree. If it were a ‘.html’ extension that opened a self extracting zip we would have an issue but I struggle to see the danger with this. If someone, technical or not, is already accepting the risk of opening a ‘.zip’ file from an unknown source the attack vector doesn’t grow by opening a webpage unexpectedly. Furthermore I can rename a malware.exe to malware.zip and send it out by email and the implications are obvious. Maybe the .zip TLD will dissuade technical users from accessing the domain but I hardly see it as a new danger that could be described as “evil” or “malicious” on googles part. I could be wrong and would love to hear a clever person think of a feasible attack but imo this does not warrant any panic.
Comparing the first example against a similar guess based on intuition:
zuckerberg => investor(21%), mark(20%)
cuban => investor(3%), mark(%4)
Using google as a general guide to how often these words appear together
mark cuban => About 40,500,000 results on google
"mark cuban" => About 13,200,000 results on google
"mark" "cuban" => About 33,500,000 results on google
investor cuban => About 80,800,000 results on google
"investor cuban" => About 945 results on google
"investor" "cuban" => About 9,810,000 results on google
mark zuckerberg => About 41,700,000 results on google
"mark zuckerberg" => About 29,400,000 results on google
"mark" "zuckerberg" => About 35,700,000 results on google
investor zuckerberg => About 11,100,000 results on google
"investor zuckerberg" => About 479 results on google
"investor" "zuckerberg" => About 3,160,000 results on google
Considering the above results of how often the base words appear together and the added knowledge that Mark Cuban is more recognized for his investment activity than Zuckerberg I wonder how the relational scores are calculated by the game.
(Note: I realize this is nit-picking in an extreme sense but I found myself very interested in the underlying tech behind the game and this was part of my exploration so I thought I would share it with everyone else. Feel free to tear apart my methods I am still very interested in how the OP coded their solution)
I suspect this is because "cuban" has a lot of meaning in other contexts as well. If you see "cuban" out of context, one may think of Cuba or even sandwiches before thinking about Mark Cuban or other investors.
I'm irritated to learn that proper nouns are allowed. That's unusual for word games, and imho breaks the spirit of the thing. But honestly most of the frustration is not knowing whether the game is going to treat two words as related enough in advance. It doesn't feel like I'm being clever, it feels like I'm blindly exploring a graph.
Your assumption that you need to develop or even use malware to commit these attacks is incorrect. As the article eludes to, most "script kiddies" would be using simple reflection attacks like those utilized by anonymous. This would equate to changing a few lines in a TCP or UDP packet and mass spamming 3rd party site to elicit a flood of responses. This is pretty simple for any 13+ year old with visual basic and some time. Large bot nets rented out for attacks are clearly more dangerous and I would assume (hope) the FBI does target the malware creators and distributors.
I will be investigating further but to anyone else interested in this specific rabbit hole:
https://csdb.dk/event/?id=3187