标签：#c

See the perspectives you're missing. Discussion | Link

Imagine if there were a way for us to somehow ship a full-stack package that you could plug into your...

GitHub热门项目 | 15MB, lightweight, cross-platform database client. Supports MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, Redis, MongoDB, DuckDB, ClickHouse, SQL Server and more.15MB，轻量级跨平台数据库客户端、数据库管理工具。支持 MySQL、PostgreSQL、SQLite、Redis、MongoDB、DuckDB、ClickHouse、SQL Server 等。 | Stars: 7,530 | 1,100 stars this week | 语言: Rust

Last month, I had a problem with a popular mobile banking app in Southeast Asia. Nothing exotic. A transaction didn't go through, and my support ticket had been sitting untouched for two weeks. So I opened the app's chatbot. It greeted me warmly, asked how it could help, and then couldn't do a single useful thing. It couldn't look up my transaction. It couldn't check the status of my ticket. It couldn't tell me why my issue was unresolved. It could answer FAQ questions, and that was it. I called the hotline instead. Spent an hour navigating prompts, got bounced between menus, and every path ended the same way: "Please contact our chatbot or check your existing ticket." The system was built for deflection, not resolution. The ticket that nobody had touched for fourteen days. I gave up. And somewhere in that company's dashboard, my interaction counted as a successful AI chatbot deflection. The uncomfortable part: if you shipped a deflection-optimized bot this quarter, a customer somewhere is living this exact loop right now. Your dashboard is calling it a win. The Deflection Metric Everyone Loves (and Nobody Questions) Deflection rate measures the percentage of customer contacts handled without a human agent. It's cheap to track, easy to celebrate, and it maps directly to cost savings. Industry benchmarks citing McKinsey's 2026 service operations data put AI resolutions at $0.62 per ticket versus $7.40 for human agents. That's a 12x cost difference. Of course executives love this number. But deflection doesn't measure whether the customer's problem got solved. It measures whether the customer stopped asking. Those are very different things. This is Goodhart's Law applied to customer experience: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Deflection is cheap and easy to optimize. Resolution is hard and expensive to track. So companies optimize the proxy and stop looking at the goal. Gartner data, as reported by Forbes , confirms the gap: only 14% o

Windows Persistence Techniques (MITRE ATT&CK Mapped) – Complete Red Team Course Windows persistence is one of the most important topics for red teamers, malware analysts, DFIR professionals, and cybersecurity students. Understanding persistence techniques helps both attackers simulate real-world threats and defenders detect and respond to them. This article accompanies my full YouTube course, which covers Windows internals, persistence mechanisms, privilege escalation, post-exploitation concepts, and digital forensics in a controlled lab environment. 📺 Full Video What You'll Learn Windows Boot Process Windows Architecture Windows System Calls Windows Memory Management PEB & TEB Structures Windows Persistence Techniques Registry-Based Persistence DLL Hijacking Windows Services Scheduled Tasks Digital Forensics Registry Analysis Privilege Escalation Concepts Post-Exploitation Techniques MITRE ATT&CK Mapping Tools Covered Mimikatz AccessChk PowerUp PrivescCheck SharpUp RegRipper Registry Explorer Regshot SessionGopher LaZagne PSRecon Frogman Tool LogonTracer credump Course Structure Windows Internals Persistence Techniques Digital Forensics Privilege Escalation Post Exploitation MITRE ATT&CK Mapping GitHub Resources Windows Persistence Repository https://github.com/manikandantn68/window-persistence-Privilege-Escalation Frogman Tool https://github.com/manikandantn68/frogman-tool Intended Audience Cybersecurity Students SOC Analysts Blue Team Engineers Red Team Operators Malware Analysts Digital Forensics Investigators Penetration Testers Educational Disclaimer This course is intended solely for educational purposes and demonstrates techniques within an authorized lab environment. Always obtain proper permission before testing or assessing systems you do not own or administer.

The access you revoked in your last review is probably still live. I know how that sounds, but it is how most access recertification actually works. A tool generates a list, an owner clicks approve or revoke, the cycle gets marked complete, and then nothing touches the real resources. The review produces a record. The permissions stay exactly where they were. You attested to a state that was never made true. That gap bothered me for a long time, so I built something to close it and open-sourced it on AWS's aws-samples org. It is called VIGIL. The core idea A normal review answers one question: should this access still exist? The owner says no, a ticket gets filed, and maybe someone actions it next quarter. Between the decision and the change, the risk just sits there. I wanted the decision and the change to be the same step. So VIGIL does four things: It discovers resources by their owner tag and works out who actually has access to each one. It asks the owner to keep, trim, or remove that access. It applies that decision on the live resource. It records what happened in a way you can later prove. The part I care about most: scoped enforcement The lazy way to revoke someone's access to one bucket is to detach their policies. That nukes their access to everything, and it is how you cause an incident while trying to improve security. VIGIL never does that. If the access came from a bucket policy, it removes just that principal, or just the specific actions, from that bucket's policy. If the access came from the principal's own IAM policy, it adds a resource-scoped explicit Deny instead of touching shared policy, so nothing else the principal can do is affected. In practice it can remove only s3:PutObject for one principal on one bucket and leave everything else alone. If a change cannot be made safely and narrowly, it raises a ticket instead of guessing. I would rather it do nothing than do something broad. Making enforcement durable Enforcement is not a synchronous c

Your docs pipeline, from the terminal PaperQuire v0.2.0 ships with a full command-line interface. Everything you can do in the desktop app — render, template, brand — now works from your terminal. This means you can automate document generation, integrate PaperQuire into CI/CD pipelines, and batch-process entire directories of Markdown without opening the GUI. Quick start If you installed via Homebrew, the paperquire command is already on your PATH: brew install --cask paperquire/paperquire/paperquire Verify with: paperquire version The simplest render is just: paperquire report.md This produces report.pdf in the same directory, using the default template. What you can do Render with options Apply templates, set metadata, control output: paperquire report.md -t corporate --title "Q2 Report" --author "Jane Doe" paperquire spec.md --page-size a4 --margins 0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75 --no-toc paperquire draft.md --watermark "DRAFT" -o drafts/draft.pdf All 22 flags from the desktop app's Document Setup panel are available. See the full list in the CLI Reference . Pipe through stdin/stdout PaperQuire works in Unix pipelines: cat notes.md | paperquire - --stdout > out.pdf Use - as the input file to read from stdin, and --stdout to write the PDF to stdout instead of a file. Batch render directories Render every Markdown file in a directory with one command: paperquire batch ./docs -o ./out paperquire batch ./project --glob "**/*.md" -t corporate paperquire batch ./docs --concurrency 8 --continue-on-error Use --dry-run to preview which files would be rendered without actually producing output. Manage templates List, inspect, create, and share templates: paperquire templates list paperquire templates show minimal-clean paperquire templates init my-template paperquire templates export corporate -o corporate.pqt paperquire templates import ./shared-template.pqt We also launched a community templates repo where you can browse all built-in templates and submit your own via pull request.

I use my SSH manager every day. I also use a separate monitoring tool every day. For a long time I just accepted that these were two different things. Then one day I was SSH'd into a server that was behaving weird. I wanted to check if it was CPU or memory, but I had to open a different app, find the server in there, and wait for the dashboard to load. It took maybe 15 seconds. Not a huge deal. But it broke my flow every single time. I already had an SSH connection open to that server. Why was I opening a second thing just to see what was happening to it? That's what pushed me to build server monitoring directly into Termique, the SSH manager I've been working on. The interesting part: reusing the existing SSH connection SSH connections aren't just for terminals. The protocol supports multiple channels over a single TCP connection. You can have a terminal session running in one channel while sending short exec commands through another channel on the same connection. That's how the monitoring feature works. When you open the metrics panel for a server, Termique creates a separate exec channel on the existing SSH connection and polls /proc/stat for CPU, /proc/meminfo for RAM, and /proc/loadavg for system load. Short-lived commands, called on an interval, over the connection you already have open. No second SSH handshake. No separate auth. Just another channel on the same pipe. The tradeoff: you do need an agent I want to be upfront about this. The monitoring feature requires a small agent installed on each server. It's not agentless. I considered going agentless, relying entirely on /proc reads through exec channels. That works fine on most Linux servers. But the agent makes it easier to handle edge cases properly and opens the door for future features like alerts and longer history retention. Without it, I'd be fighting a lot of fragile shell parsing. If you're managing Linux servers, it's a one-command install. Non-Linux systems aren't supported yet. That's a real l

What building cross-service RBAC taught me about the difference between a fast check and a correct one VaultPay is a wallet microservice I built on top of AuthShield. Previous parts: Part 1 is here: I Built AuthShield and Immediately Knew It Wasn't Enough Part 2 is here: The Silent Failure I Never Saw Coming: What VaultPay Taught Me About Consistency Under Failure Part 3 is here: I Started With a Blocklist. That Was the Wrong Instinct and VaultPay Taught Me Why. Part 4 is here: I Watched Money Move Twice From the Same Request. That's When I Understood Idempotency. Part 5 is here: I Almost Hashed a Document Number That Needed to Be Read Again When I designed JWT validation for VaultPay, the only thing I was optimising for was speed. Local verification, no network call, decode the token with the shared secret, read the claims, move on. Every request gets this. It's fast - no round trip to AuthShield, no added latency on the hot path. That felt like the obvious right answer for a system processing financial transactions, where every millisecond on the request path matters. Then I asked myself a question I hadn't thought through properly: what happens if an admin gets deactivated in AuthShield right now, this second, while they still have a valid token sitting in their browser? The answer, with pure local validation, is uncomfortable. Nothing happens. The token is still cryptographically valid. The signature checks out. The claims say role: admin . VaultPay has no way of knowing that AuthShield revoked this person's access thirty seconds ago, because VaultPay never asked AuthShield. It just trusted the token. That's the moment dual-mode validation stopped being a performance optimisation and became a correctness requirement. Two Services, No Shared Database VaultPay and AuthShield are separate microservices with separate databases. AuthShield owns user accounts, login, JWT issuance, and role management. VaultPay owns wallets, transactions, KYC, and admin operations on t

I log commutes in a spreadsheet because mobility apps smooth over the ugly legs. Last week I added a column I should have tracked years ago: carry seconds ? time from curb to platform when stairs replace ramps. The hidden leg My one-wheel leg is fine on paper. Three metro exits on my route have no elevator during maintenance. Carrying a 14 kg wheel down 22 stairs does not show up in trip duration. It shows up in whether I arrive annoyed enough to skip coffee. What I logged (one week) Exit Stairs Carry time (s) Mood after (1-5) North gate 22 38 2 Side ramp (control) 0 8 4 East stairs 16 29 3 Battery delta on those days? Within noise. Mood delta? Not noise. A cheap decision rule I turned this into a go/no-go check before leaving: if stairs > 15 AND carry_weight_kg > 12: prefer transit-only or locker elif stairs > 0 AND wet_floor: walk the wheel (no riding in station) else: ride It is blunt. It works better than pretending every leg is rideable. Assumptions up front Wheel weight includes pads and charger pouch (~14 kg for my commuter setup). I am not timing competitive carries ? just whether I can do this daily without hating it. Your threshold differs if every exit has elevators. What I would do differently I would log carry seconds from day one, same tab as distance and battery percent. Range math without carry math is incomplete for anyone who mixes metro and one-wheel. I work around personal EVs and sometimes cross-check specs on the official Kingsong catalog. https://www.kingsong.com/collections/electric-unicycle

When the enemy is too strong to attack directly, attack what they hold dear. They will come to you...

Comparing the most feature-rich React data grids in 2026, from pivot tables and tree data to...