Gary Marcus

Rank 28 of 47
|
Score -2
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
102d
Update:

Crowdstrike came out and released a technical report confirming my analysis. They were reading in a bad data file and attempting to access invalid memory.

This global crash was a two-part bomb. The detonator apparently, was NOT new.. it was PRE-INSTALLED.

/1
7/22/2024, 1:49:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Sillius Soddus 🥥🌴
@SilliusSoddus19
·
101d
@GaryMarcus

This thread picked it apart very well
Tavis Ormandy
@taviso
·
103d
This strange tweet got >25k retweets. The author sounds confident, and he uses lots of hex and jargon. There are red flags though... like what's up with the DEI stuff, and who says "stack trace dump"? Let's take a closer look... 🧵1/n
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
101d
@SilliusSoddus19 Where?
Sillius Soddus 🥥🌴
@SilliusSoddus19
·
102d
@GaryMarcus This thing was debunked
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
104d
See this thread for relevant technical discussion:
Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower
@Perpetualmaniac
·
104d
Crowdstrike Analysis:

It was a NULL pointer from the memory unsafe C++ language.

Since I am a professional C++ programmer, let me decode this stack trace dump for you.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
104d
Remember all the sh!t people gave the Biden administration for recommending Rust over C++?

Today’s massive IT crash, a C++ memory bug, wouldn’t have happened if Microsoft and Crowdstrike had listened.

Think about that when you vote in November.

Cc @CISAJen
Sam D'Amico
@sdamico
·
248d
The White House is Rust-pilled https://www.whitehouse.gov/oncd/…

The statement and the preceding conversation constitute public discourse as they engage in a substantive discussion about software safety, programming languages, and their implications for cybersecurity and public policy. The conversation involves technical analysis, policy recommendations, and critiques of administrative decisions, all of which contribute to civic dialogue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The conversation strives to do no harm by focusing on technical and policy issues rather than personal attacks. [+2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The conversation promotes understanding, empathy, and compassion by providing technical explanations and engaging in a constructive dialogue about programming languages and cybersecurity. [+2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The conversation engages in constructive criticism and dialogue, particularly in the technical analysis and policy recommendations, without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The conversation uses its influence to discuss important societal issues related to cybersecurity and public policy, aiming for the betterment of society. [+2]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The conversation upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity by focusing on technical and policy issues. [+2]