Anonymous user
Talk:Matrix with two diagonals: Difference between revisions
Undo revision 355087 by Rdm (talk)
m (→Dependence on a potentially insecure direct link to a JPEG: fixed minor typo) |
|||
Line 5:
JPEGs are susceptible to exploits, and it seems a pity to risk the impression of obliging others to
do something which is potentially insecure.
(My advice to others would be: never click on a direct JPEG link offered by an unknown host). [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 09:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Line 27 ⟶ 28:
:::::Having said that, there was a task a day or two back where I didn't understand the author's solution (written in Quackery) but I still managed to achieve the same output even though it later turned out that my understanding of the task was incorrect! --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 12:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
-- '''Sorry to say, childs, but dangerous-JPEG is an old urban legend.''' The https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2004-0200 was in 2004 and was caused by '''a bug in MS Windows''' (GDI+), not that it was JPEG. But I understand - '''some people's ass is on fire because they are afraid of exploits from 2004.''' I would advise you to drink a glass of water, switch from MS Windows 98 to MS Windows 11, install all updates and anti-virus program other than Kaspersky. And take the pills prescribed by your doctor regularly.
Likewise, Samantha virus was not a de facto JPEG file, it only pretended to be one. Which was only possible because a few of the less clever MS programmers thought they had a good idea of hiding the file extension from users.
'''In fact, every link - and even the image of the Rosseta stone displayed on the Rosseta Code website - could be ... oh yo oh ah - terrible and terrible CVE. Fear and terror, terror and hiccups. We should all be dead.'''
'''But every day we somehow open thousands of jpegs on websites and we live? Strange isn't it?'''
The real problem with jpegs is that they can contain obscene, shocking content.
| |||