From what a quick google search told me, RHEL caps out at 13 years.[0] I'm curious what caused Canonical to offer 2 more years of lts support than Red Hat?
I don't have any insider knowledge, but it's not hard to imagine a customer with a fleet of machines that will run out of LTS soon. The project that replaces them is already on its way, but of course delayed.
So now, what do they do? Spend thousands of hours upgrading the soon-to-be-replaced fleet anyway, or ask their vendor if they could, pretty please, extend LTS for another two years?
If Ubuntu can spread the cost between enough (or large enough) customers, why not?
I don't understand why DNS ad blockers (Ad Guard, Pi-Hole, other) aren't frequently used across corporates. Especially given the regular-ish training on cybersecurity and related.
I don't understand why Apple does not ship Safari with an adblocker. They advertise how they keep you safe on the web but deliver one of the worst browser experiences and don't even support the plugins that would make it better, let alone include them.
I found the Orion browser and am never touching Safari again.
I'm skeptical that inside counsel would really have an issue with adblock or a moderate approach -- whitelist a subset of a subset of sites like YouTube that they might see risk.
Malware is absolutely distributed through ads. In the case of more reputable ad platforms that don’t allow arbitrary scripts, it’s by linking to malware, but they’re also used to serve drive-by exploits.
> You have higher chance of getting a malware from `pnpm add` than seeing an ad on the web.
If you’re a normal computer user who browses the web without an ad blocker and never runs `pnpm add`, the relevant chance is a little different. (Fun side fact: current pnpm wisely doesn’t run install scripts by default.)
Ads are basically running a program they wrote on your computer. If there’s any exploitable feature in your browser’s JS sandbox, count on someone sending you an ad that will exploit it.
To add to the other reply, there were even targeted malware campaigns through ad networks. Because nowadays, you can choose who sees your ads so precisely (by IP block or geolocation) that you can target individual organizations.
Looks like someone archived the page of firefox-patch-bin[1] and the only thing that stands out about the package itself is that it's supposedly the "Extended Support Release." Besides that it looks like it's depended on by 183 other packages/metapackages. While that seems more interesting, there isn't an archive of all of those packages.
These 183 packages depend on "firefox", and the malicious firefox-patch-bin had a provides=( 'firefox' ) clause in it. That's why they all get listed on that page. The provides clause is useful when you have multiple packages for the same thing with different names, for example -bin and -git versions.
I saw the ESR part - I assumed the author (mistakenly?) copied firefox-esr's description. As for the dependents, it seems the malware package provided `firefox`, meaning all dependencies on `firefox` can instead be fulfilled by `firefox-patch-bin`. Perhaps the idea was to fool package managers into showing it as one of the alternatives.
Isn't it interesting how this post has more votes than anything else on the first page, is one hour old, and is currently on page 4. Seems like there's some interesting censorship going on in this website outside the consistent flagging of material deemed wrong-think.
Every time I see this pop up it reminds me of this part of an epsiode of This American Life [0]. At parts its quite difficult to listen to, however it seems like an important thing to be aware of. If they're willing to do this to children, what are they fine with doing to adults? It's beyond words how someone can imagine that this is moral behavior in the pursuit of justice. I don't see how anyone can harass a child like that - already distraught by the death of his sister - and to treat some kid like a murderer for hours on end.
[0]https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata