Question for the C folks. The author seems to have reimplemented functions such as strlen, memcpy, and atoi in 'bot/util.h' instead of using the stdlib. Anyone know why?
Because you cannot rely on some chintzy IoT device to have dynamically loadable libraries. In all likelihood, they don't. But let's assume they do have loadable stdlib, would would you trust the integrity of your botnet to dozens of poorly designed IoT devices?
But it is easier to copy/paste those few functions rather than play with static libc and then making sure all the other functions don't get linked into the final binary.
Remember that this target IoT devices, where diversity is much higher than it would be for desktops or servers. the build scripts shows the targeted architectures:
Not the reason. Especially when the author includes headers like:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <arpa/inet.h>
#include <linux/ip.h>
#include <linux/udp.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
I think that might be where the difference is, it's the iMessage service simplimentation itself that is nasty — I've never used Messages.app to connect to AIM or Jabber.
I don't trust it. After having to get another VPS and build (read: piece together) my own Posterous-like system (it's not half as good) I've already paid $$$. Paying these guys 5 bucks more with no way to know the same thing will or won't happen doesn't seem sane. The system doesn't even WORK yet! How dare they.
We just fixed a major problem with our HAProxy instance. The floodgates are open and everything is working awesome now. Please come back and give us another chance.
We had no idea when Posterous would shut down -- it's been a project Brett and I have been working on in our spare time for a while and we had to literally scramble to get this into launch-ready state.
We fixed it (in case you're wondering, make sure your HAProxy Maxconn setting is high enough, say 1024 connections, if you're serving static assets behind it in addition to dynamic content.) and we hope you'll give us one more shot.
Because the title doesn't say "the website" was taken offline. It suggests CyanogenMod itself is no longer available from the developer.
Imagine the headline "LA Lakers Closes!" That tells me the basketball team is no more. But, if instead their website was closed for a planned relaunch, then the headline should read "LA Lakers' Website Closes!" or "LALakers.com Closes!"
Ah, could have sworn the headline said cyanogenmod.com.
Anyway, the current headline is now more misleading, since it omits what makes the story interesting, and they aim to get the original domain back in any case. (This is the case even though the blog post has that same title.)
Well we've got a solid one now, at least! Very clear.
But I totally get the judgement of the previous editor as well. When in doubt, and given a poor headline (nah, it didn't say .com), go with the headline of the article that is linked. It's a good rule of thumb, and this was the exception.
Thanks for rolling with the punches, whoever is pulling strings.
And it wan't by a developer. It was by a rogue admin. "By developer" implies that it was done by one of the core Cyanogenmod developers, perhaps even Cyanogen himself.
