I like looking through my commit history. Sorta like nostalgia but only from up to a few months ago. HD is HaxeDevelop.

So I decided to try a new technique "wardriving" around Denver, since it's not illegal and kinda fun.
I gathered a small-ish sample of statistics and decided to do some rough approximations.

There's about 170,000 routers in Denver.
About 1,900 of them use WEP and about 11,000 are open (NOT xfinity).
About 37,000 of them are hidden.
Of the 37,000 hidden wireless, about 250 are WEP.
There are about 28,000 open "xfinity" APs.

Channels:
1: ~52,000
2: ~3,000
3: ~3,000
4: ~2,000
5: ~2,000
6: ~46,000
7: ~2,000
8: ~3,000
9: ~4,000
10: ~1,500
11: ~49,000

At 3/15/16 05:11 PM, egg82 wrote: 9: ~4,000

That's the channel I use for my 2.4GHz band. :3 I had to walk around my house using my phone to analyse all the wireless networks around me to find one that wasn't being used, and turned out 9 wasn't; it certainly helped fix the stability issues I was having with that band (didn't need to change my 5GHz from "auto," though, unsurprisingly).

At 3/15/16 06:15 PM, Diki wrote: That's the channel I use for my 2.4GHz band. :3 I had to walk around my house using my phone to analyse all the wireless networks around me to find one that wasn't being used, and turned out 9 wasn't; it certainly helped fix the stability issues I was having with that band (didn't need to change my 5GHz from "auto," though, unsurprisingly).

I was taking a look at the same, although the card I used doesn't support 5GHz bands so I'm definitely missing a few and my overall conclusions are incomplete.

I'm thinking channel 10 might be good, but I'll take a closer look later.

apt-get install *

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!"

At 3/15/16 07:04 PM, egg82 wrote:

At 3/15/16 06:15 PM, Diki wrote: That's the channel I use for my 2.4GHz band. :3 I had to walk around my house using my phone to analyse all the wireless networks around me to find one that wasn't being used, and turned out 9 wasn't; it certainly helped fix the stability issues I was having with that band (didn't need to change my 5GHz from "auto," though, unsurprisingly).

I was taking a look at the same, although the card I used doesn't support 5GHz bands so I'm definitely missing a few and my overall conclusions are incomplete.

I'm thinking channel 10 might be good, but I'll take a closer look later.

There was some website that profiled each channel. 1 is obviously the worst, but several other channels are inherently slower, in that their signal "leaks" into the other channels and loses performance. I went with channel 9, it was the emptiest when I peeked at the signals from my computer. I didn't know you could do it from your phone, but that makes sense.

At 3/15/16 10:04 PM, MSGhero wrote: There was some website that profiled each channel. 1 is obviously the worst, but several other channels are inherently slower, in that their signal "leaks" into the other channels and loses performance

I am somewhat interested in this topic. If you find the website, tell me.

Also, if anyone was wondering what makes a review here on NG helpful, here's my comparison/advice:
http://prntscr.com/aftb4p
http://prntscr.com/aftbkk

At 3/15/16 10:25 PM, egg82 wrote:

At 3/15/16 10:04 PM, MSGhero wrote: There was some website that profiled each channel. 1 is obviously the worst, but several other channels are inherently slower, in that their signal "leaks" into the other channels and loses performance

I am somewhat interested in this topic. If you find the website, tell me.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/21132/change-your-wi-fi-router-channel-to-optimize-your-wireless-signal/

Channels within 5 of each other interfere, so 1, 6, and 11 are the "best." I used NirSoft WifiInfoView, and for me at least back then, those were also the most crowded. 9 had no one, so I went with that.

Also, if anyone was wondering what makes a review here on NG helpful, here's my comparison/advice:
http://prntscr.com/aftb4p
http://prntscr.com/aftbkk

Steam has helpful, not, and funny, which I feel is a better system. Github also put a reaction thing on comments so you don't have 30 comments +1ing.

At 3/16/16 12:05 AM, MSGhero wrote: Channels within 5 of each other interfere, so 1, 6, and 11 are the "best." I used NirSoft WifiInfoView

Here I am booting into NetHunter and using airodump-ng
#pro #iFuckingHateSoftKeyboards

Steam has helpful, not, and funny, which I feel is a better system. Github also put a reaction thing on comments so you don't have 30 comments +1ing.

I think I'm more of a fan of reactions. Facebook recently changed their "like" system to reactions as well.

I've recently been thinking about making a YouTube video on breaking into wireless and mitm credit card information sent over HTTPS (sslstrip v2, which keeps the green lock) using just my phone. Should be fun, if I can figure out how to do it without exposing information or getting into trouble.

Edit: I think I have a spare router somewhere I can configure with WEP, and I don't even need to push CC info through. Just a normal Facebook login should do.

At 3/15/16 10:04 PM, MSGhero wrote: I didn't know you could do it from your phone, but that makes sense.

Yeah, it's pretty straight-forward. I used this app to do it.

Seeing lots of GDCers on my commute to work this week. :)

CC of an e-mail I recently sent:

Two recent events happened you might not be aware of, but individually would be catastrophic to a company.

One, recently scammers have been e-mailing companies' accounting depts. pretending to be IRS or gov't and asking for tax forms (SSNs, etc) in lieu of tax season. Major corporations have been hit. If an e-mail or phone call seems suspicious, report it first- before doing anything else.

---

Second and more importantly, ransomware has taken a foothold. This malware encrypts your personal files and demands payment (usually one bitcoin or ~$400 USD) for the decryption key before time expires and the key is deleted (usually a few days)

This type of malware is catastrophic because simply deleting the malware does not solve the issue. Only payment will allow access to your now-heavily-encrypted files.

The problem comes in the form of advertisements. Large ad companies are serving this type of malware, and you don't need to download anything yourself for it to run. It will simply exploit browser plugins or the browser itself when shown. The ad gets loaded onto the page, and you're infected.

The "large ad networks" is also a problem since they host websites like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, and the like. Browse Facebook, get your files encrypted, pay $400 per device infected. No download required. This affects both Windows and Macintosh.

Updates, AdBlock Plus, and EMET will help solve this.

---

Protect yourself beforehand. Once either of these slip by your defenses IT WILL BE TOO LATE. There's nothing you can do at that point.

At 3/18/16 12:38 AM, egg82 wrote: AdBlock Plus

Cool kids use uBlock Origin. >:]

At 3/18/16 07:53 AM, Diki wrote:

At 3/18/16 12:38 AM, egg82 wrote: AdBlock Plus

Cool kids use uBlock Origin. >:]

I still have no idea how EMET works or what it does. You can't use it with browsers for the same reason antiviruses make you less secure when they manage browser security over the browser itself. Edge has some kind of built-in EMET. I believe I have EMET set to opt-out where possible, so every process is a few layers secure. I think.

At 3/15/16 10:25 PM, egg82 wrote: Also, if anyone was wondering what makes a review here on NG helpful, here's my comparison/advice:
http://prntscr.com/aftb4p
http://prntscr.com/aftbkk

I actually think you're second review IS more helpful than the other. In the first one, you don't specifically say what parts you liked or didn't. As someone deciding whether to play this game, your review did not affect my decision. On the second one, it's clear that this game has bad instructions, which is helpful.

At 3/20/16 04:53 PM, GeoKureli wrote: On the second one, it's clear that this game has bad instructions, which is helpful.

You do know that that second review is a meme, right?

At 3/20/16 05:57 PM, Diki wrote: You do know that that second review is a meme, right?

Yeah, the movie was silly and I don't do movie reviews so I put a meme down.

Also, just got back from a three-day vacation, yay!
And I'm heading to Defcon this year. Already got the hotel booked. If anyone else is going I might see you there.

http://prntscr.com/aiddd5

Yeep..

.. Yeeeeepp.

Sounds about right.

I wonder how many projects here are full of exploit code? Seems like a good website to drop malware into, but I don't seem to find any here.

At 3/22/16 02:35 AM, egg82 wrote: http://prntscr.com/aiddd5

Yeep..

.. Yeeeeepp.

Sounds about right.

I wonder how many projects here are full of exploit code? Seems like a good website to drop malware into, but I don't seem to find any here.

Presumably, those graphs are explained somewhere in the text, but as shown, they are devoid of essential information. What are the scales? Are these relative or absolute rates?

At 3/22/16 02:35 AM, egg82 wrote: http://prntscr.com/aiddd5

Yeep..

.. Yeeeeepp.

Sounds about right.

I wonder how many projects here are full of exploit code? Seems like a good website to drop malware into, but I don't seem to find any here.

Intuition says people who play flash games have more updated fp versions, especially with the recent API additions. Then again, I might be projecting. Maybe too much effort to make something that doesn't get blammed by people using a browser with a flash sandbox.

At 3/22/16 02:35 AM, egg82 wrote: http://prntscr.com/aiddd5

Yeep..

.. Yeeeeepp.

Sounds about right.

There's a reason I've always called Flash Player and the JVM piles of shit. (And why I don't develop for either, or even have Java installed.)

At 3/22/16 08:04 AM, Tree-SkyLark-BCE wrote: Presumably, those graphs are explained somewhere in the text, but as shown, they are devoid of essential information. What are the scales? Are these relative or absolute rates?

It's from this page, if you want to read up on it.

Holy shit what is this even.. ?
Who needs goddamn ten modules to check for a signed int?
What about doubles? I can't even imagine..

Also, I made a quick file encryption/decryption program because I got bored.
Release binary
C# source

There's stuff I really wanted to add, but I also wanted to keep development time to under a day so I'll call it done for now.
Any thoughts?

At 3/23/16 02:01 AM, egg82 wrote: Holy shit what is this even.. ?
Who needs goddamn ten modules to check for a signed int?
What about doubles? I can't even imagine..

Gotta use a fancy-pants hipster framework to do something in a convoluted way, as opposed to:

At 3/23/16 08:04 AM, Diki wrote: Gotta use a fancy-pants hipster framework to do something in a convoluted way, as opposed to:

function isPositiveInt(n) {
return n > 0 && Math.floor(n) === n;
}

I'll one-up you with some code I found on SO:

At 3/23/16 02:58 PM, egg82 wrote: I'll one-up you with some code I found on SO:

return !((x & 0x80000000) >> 31 | !x);

That's a bit of a trip. I guess the last part is because 0 doesn't count as positive.

Turns out if you Std.int infinity, NaN, or neg infinity, you get 0. It chops off all the weird IEEE bits that define those (non)numbers, and you're just left with 0. It also turns out that Math.floor on js is 20x slower than checking the sign and doing Std.int(x) or Std.int(x - 1).

At 3/22/16 06:21 PM, Diki wrote:
It's from this page, if you want to read up on it.

Thank you for the link. I ended up looking at the Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report. They are not well-made graphs, but the text does address some of my concerns. I just mentioned it because there is a broader problem of graphs being uninformative or intentionally deceitful.

At 3/23/16 02:58 PM, egg82 wrote:

At 3/23/16 08:04 AM, Diki wrote: Gotta use a fancy-pants hipster framework to do something in a convoluted way, as opposed to:

function isPositiveInt(n) {
return n > 0 && Math.floor(n) === n;
}

I'll one-up you with some code I found on SO:

return !((x & 0x80000000) >> 31 | !x);

Those are not functionally equivalent.

At 3/23/16 04:17 PM, Tree-SkyLark-BCE wrote: Thank you for the link. I ended up looking at the Cisco 2015 Midyear Security Report. They are not well-made graphs, but the text does address some of my concerns. I just mentioned it because there is a broader problem of graphs being uninformative or intentionally deceitful.

I looked through my history and couldn't find it. Gave up for a bit and then Diki beat me to it. Probably better that way, anyway :P

Those are not functionally equivalent.

I honestly have no idea what it does, I just googled it real quick and that was the first result. I assume it's about the same functionality as Diki's, judging by MSG's response.

At 3/23/16 05:34 PM, egg82 wrote: I honestly have no idea what it does, I just googled it real quick and that was the first result. I assume it's about the same functionality as Diki's, judging by MSG's response.

I was commenting on the funky bitwise-ness of the solution. Diki's checks if it's an int and positive, yours just checks if it's positive. Basically, you rewrote n > 0 for 32bit ints.

At 3/23/16 05:34 PM, egg82 wrote: I looked through my history and couldn't find it. Gave up for a bit and then Diki beat me to it. Probably better that way, anyway :P

The Google-fu is strong with me.

At 3/23/16 03:04 PM, MSGhero wrote: It also turns out that Math.floor on js is 20x slower than checking the sign and doing Std.int(x) or Std.int(x - 1).

This might be faster, but I am far too lazy to find out:

Still doesn't require 10 dependencies to work. The future is now!

edit:

Hah. 8 hours ago, this person fixed his retarded version with something that is much simpler:

No more moron-code on his repo.