Linux is vulnerable too (but not as vulnerable as windows of course) it’s just not targeted by hackers because it’s market share is so small. That wouldn’t be the case if, say, half of all users ran Linux.
And that sees plenty of attacks too. But here Windows wasn't under attack or a Windows vulnerability exploited, CS just fucked up and companies were stupid enough to put all their trust in CS.
It’s constraints on memory management basically will never allow that to happen.
It lures people in with “use any allocator you want”! Which only appears as freedom of choice when reality it’s locking the user into the same paradigm of memory management that has given C a bad name to begin with.
1/3 of the problem with c memory management is null unsafely, not a problem in zig. 1/3 more is conflating arrays with single item pointers. Also not a problem with zig. The only memory management "issue" with zig is lack of temporal memory safety.
Firstly, it doesn’t matter if humans wouldn’t want to eat them because they form a part of a food hierarchy that’s disruption ultimately damages humans. It also causes a cycle in which less wild fish is available and more must be farmed. Secondly, if you read the article you’d note that people do rely on those fish as a food source.
It’s clearly a zero sum system. Every farmed fish consumed by humans is one less wild fish caught and taken out of the food chain.
Would you also be concerned if there were more whales in the ocean? Because they eat literal tons of phytoplankton which is also a food source for other fish. I think you’re just refusing to see things logically.
The idea that you can reduce the complexity of global fishing, farming and marine ecosystems to a zero sum system is flawed. Whales cycle nutrients when they eat phytoplankton and aren’t comparable to human activity, you’re just trying to divert the argument to something unrelated.
If you’re using wire shark you don’t also need mitm proxy. Mitmproxy is similar to fiddler/burpsuite in that they are high level traffic capturing tools whereas the with Wireshark you can inspect the actual TCP packets. It takes more setup as you’ve seen
Certainly true if the target application is running on the same host as Wireshark. But mitmproxy is very helpful when the device or application isn't fully under your control, for example if you can't set a proxy.
Mitmproxy also has a few features which make it a lot easier to use than wireshark alone, even if the aim is only to inspect TLS traffic. Including the wireguard server mode or transparent proxying for example.
Another approach is to route things through a managed switch and use port mirroring to get a the traffic. More expensive or not, maybe dependend on whether you have managed switches in the network or not. Less intrusive though.
