I'd go so far as to say any implementation that doesn't conform to RFC 4180[1] is broken and should be fixed. The vast majority of implementations get this right, it's just that some that don't are so high profile it causes people to throw up their hands and give up.

[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4180

It helps a bit that it's written in Zig, but its primary differentiating feature in the sea of terminal emulators is that it's created by mitchellh, who is kind of a celebrity in some circles.

He's living the hacker dream. Made a billion bucks, then went right back to writing code. People upvote because they wish they were him.

That's a bold claim not backed up by your source.

You can turn on a feature documented as allowing the terminal to be controlled by escape sequences, but then output of programs can control the terminal! Whoop-de-do.

BearSSL is really cool, but it claims beta quality with the latest release in 2018, doesn't support TLS 1.3, and hasn't seen meaningful development in years. It's averaging about 1 commit per year recently, and they're not big ones.

Where is Bellard when we need him?

Most relevantly here, selling a commercial implementation of ASN.1: https://bellard.org/ffasn1/.

This documentation page[1] seems pretty clear. One primary at a time, any number of read replicas that automatically proxy writes to the primary, when compute scales to zero the data is in object storage and a new primary can spin up elsewhere.

[1]: https://docs.bunny.net/database/replication

According to their ToS all customer accounts registered on or after September 3, 2024 are signed on to a US company, so no they're not doing what's necessary to keep US hands off the data.

Thanks, good spot indeed. Just emailed our AM to find out what the situation is.

So.... Any account from before then is always good? Or is it about the tailnet creation date?

Very good discovery. My prior perspectives need updating.

There are plenty of languages in that niche you could be using. OCaml, Haskell, F#...

After a different company detected it, figured out what it did, and reported it to Apple. The app was notarized on November 17, screenshots in the researchers' post are from December 16. That's a month of fully notarized distribution.

That lists 6 products, Wikipedia lists 13. I can only guess at the reason for deciding what to put there, but it does say

> Some of our most popular products

What a frustrating article. There was an interesting bug here. It's trivial to explain. It's not a zero-day, this was fixed months before disclosure. Most of the article is basically: "Imagine you were running software with horrific security holes behind this WAF. We even made some examples. It had a flaw. If your entire security posture depended on this WAF, imagine how much damage could have been done. Imagine if AI were involved!"

On top of that, AI was clearly used to write it which made it longer than necessary and harder to read.