my-sarkari-naukri-2014

Unknown

There are many days when I don't feel like working on my project. I use this feeling to "productively procrastinate" on things that I've been wanting to do but haven't done yet. Earlier this week I decided to tackle two related problems:

I want to know which pages are reachable from the home page. I can then review the ones that aren't reachable and consider adding them if they're finished.
I want to make suggestions on the 404 page, but only to pages that are reachable from the home page. There are a whole bunch of random pages I have that aren't finished or useful, and I don't want to use those for suggestions.

To implement this, I parsed each page and found the links using a regular expression pattern and some quick-and-dirty code:

RE_anchor = re.compile(r'<a[^>]* href="([^"#]+)[^"]*"') def url_links_to(relativeurl, html_contents):     "Return the set of relative links from this page"     site = "https://www.redblobgames.com"     urls = []     for url in RE_anchor.findall(html_contents):         if url.find("mailto:") == 0: continue         url = urllib.parse.urljoin(site + relativeurl, url)         if not url.startswith(site): continue         url = url.replace(site, "")         if not (url.endswith(".html") or url.endswith("/")): continue         if url.endswith("/index.html"): url = url.replace("/index.html", "/")         if url == "/": url = "/index.html"         if url in urls: continue         urls.append(url)     return urls

I then used depth first search to find all the pages reachable from the home page:

# link_map[url] = urls_links_to(url, contents of page) def all_reachable_pages(link_map):     "Return a list of all pages reachable from the home page"     frontier = ["/index.html"]     reached = set(frontier)     while frontier:         url = frontier.pop()         if url not in link_map:             print("WARNING: possible 404", url)             continue         for child in link_map[url]:             if child not in reached:                 frontier.append(child)                 reached.add(child)      return reached

For part 1, I made a list of the reachable pages and I plan to review it periodically.

For part 2, I want help readers who encounter a 404 on my site. I looked through the 404 server logs to see what I might be able to help with. I found lots of bogus requests such as wpAdmin and other admin URLs (people trying to break into my server), and also lots of what seemed to be buggy crawlers. But I also found many URLs that seem to come from real humans. These seem to be either from copy/paste or forums automatically linkifying URLs:

The last one looks like a Markdown typo. There are also some that look like escaping/quoting errors:

All of these seem to have an unwanted suffix. I decided to implement a suggestion on the 404 page. I looked for a prefix of the non-matching URL that matched a valid URL. I picked the longest match:

const request = window.location.pathname; let bestUrl = ""; for (let url of urlsReachableFromHomePage) {     if (url.length > bestUrl.length         && request.slice(0, url.length) == url) {         bestUrl = url;     } }

You can try it out by clicking on the broken links above.

This was a relatively low priority project but so satisfying.

Unknown

One of the 3 pike blocks

This is partly what re-kindled my interest in the late 15th century. It's become extremely popular over the last few years - in no small part to the fantastic plastic and complimentary metal ranges put out by the Perry twins. Trouble was, the wars of the Roses never quite did it for me. Seemed a bit dull, but what was going on in Europe at the same time always appeared much more exotic. So where to start? Burgundians were a logical choice, many, many years ago I spent 5 years living in modern day Burgundy, in the environs of Dijon, so I had a slight affinity with the area, and had spent plenty of happy hours clambering around castles and fortified chateau that still grace the area. So Burgundians it was. The vague and not terribly joined up plan, being that Burgundians meant Swiss, which could stretch into The wars of Burgundian succession, and then into the early Italian Wars. Like I said, not that joined up.

Perry knights and coustillier

Anyway, here are a few pictures of the Burgundians so far. Mostly Perry and Foundry, with a few Steel Fist

Perry knights

Crossbows and handgunners to the fore

These were a lot of fun to paint

Worms eye view

Unknown

We covered the Private Victories (Habits 1 through 3) in the last post, so we'll carry on to Habits 4 through 7. I found Habit 5 the most powerful of these, but the most challenging habit to master, so we'll spend the most time on Habit 5.

HABIT 4: THINK WIN/WIN

In general, the best approach is Win/Win as it seeks mutual benefit in all human interactions. It sees life as cooperative, not competitive. Whole books are dedicated on how to achieve Win/Win in actionable steps, demonstrating the powerful impact of this book.

However, Covey takes a more fundamental approach, so you can apply it to all areas instead of a formulaic, simplistic way. He notes that character is the foundation of Win/Win, and we need three character traits to achieve this.

Trait One: Integrity. You need Habits 1 to 3 to develop and maintain integrity. When we identify our values and what we want, we can go for the Win. You can't go for the Win if you don't know what your goals and principles are, because what are you fighting for in the first place?

Trait Two: Maturity. This is the balance between courage and consideration. You need to be very courageous because you must show your vulnerability as you discuss your needs and wants openly and honestly. This must be balanced with consideration of the other person's needs and wants. Maturity validates BOTH you and the other person as important. This also boils down in self-compassion principles where you honor yourself as much as others.

Trait Three: Abundance Mentality. Covey was the one who coined the term Abundance Mentality, as well as Scarcity Mentality. The concept of Abundance has also led to tons of books written on the subject.

When you have Abundance Mentality, you recognize that there's enough in the world for both parties to succeed. Your success does not have to take away from another's success.

With an Abundance Mentality, you realize that there is plenty out there to go around so you can share prestige, recognition, profits, decision-making. It opens possibilities, options, alternatives and creativity leading to Synergy (Habit 6).

Again, self-compassion allows you to have Abundance where you rejoice in your successes, and you equally rejoice in others' successes, even if they have more success than you. This feels infinitely better than having that pinched feeling of jealousy and envy toward your friends.

With Abundance, you come from a position of open-mindedness and whole-heartedness - you can achieve more together in a connected, holistic manner. Two heads are better than one.

Whereas, Scarcity Mentality is where you feel that you have to destroy the other person to succeed, otherwise that person will take your spot. You refuse to help others who are struggling in your field, for fear they will take over your resources and eclipse you. You may profit from Scarcity Mentality, and indeed, malignant Narcissists can be highly successful with this approach (even at the level of CEO), but this position is soul-crushing.

By attacking the other person and refusing to share, you become disconnected from others. Disconnect leads to despair, depression, anxiety and even suicide. Realize that connection is an even more basic need than food and water per the Harry Harlow experiments (baby monkeys prefer cloth mothers with no food to wire mothers with food).

Win/Win example:

I saw a father who was too strict with his daughter, Jane (for anonymous purposes) because his wife was killed when Jane was only 3 years old. Therefore, he doesn't want any harm to go her way like his wife. Jane is obviously suffocated as she wants to go out with her friends on weekends, but she can only socialize with her friends in school.

It was obvious that they both love each other, even though they fight constantly about this issue.

We problem-solved and sought a Win/Win. I mentioned to Jane if she's okay with her father taking her friends to the mall (many teenagers would rather drop dead), and she was absolutely delighted, much to my surprise.

I discussed with the father, and his face also lit up. He said he would be very happy to drive Jane and her friends to the mall, movies. This was an obvious solution, but the father was so trapped in his fear that he couldn't think of alternatives, and clung to a Win/Lose situation (he wins by over-protection, and daughter loses).

Breakdown: The father is happy because he can "insure" his daughter's safety, and Jane is thrilled to go out with her friends.

Application Suggestions:

Think about an upcoming interaction where you have to reach an agreement. Commit to a balance between courage and consideration.
Make a list of obstacles that keep you from applying the Win/Win paradigm more frequently. Determine what can you change about yourself to eliminate the obstacles.
With your most important relationship, think of a perpetual disagreement you have. Try to put yourself in your loved one's shoes, and figure out what that person sees as the solution. Write down what you see as a solution. Approach and work this out to a point of mutual beneficial agreement.

HABIT 5: SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND, THEN TO BE UNDERSTOOD

We will spend more time on this habit since Empathic listening is so difficult to do. Carl Rogers expounded on Empathic listening, and Covey did a superb job conveying the elements.

Empathic listening is exceedingly difficult, and I've committed all the non-empathic listening "sins" frequently, so do not judge yourself if you do all the "wrong things".

Covey starts out with seeing an Optometrist due to vision complaint. The Optometrist listens to your complaint, then takes off her glasses and hands them to you.

"Put these on," she says. "I've worn this pair of glasses for 10 years now, and they've really helped me. I have an extra pair at home, so you can wear these".

You put on the glasses, and it makes your vision even worse! When you tell her it's gotten worse, she retorts, "You're so ungrateful, after all I did to help you".

You would never see this doctor again, as she clearly doesn't understand your problem, barely listening to you, and then giving you advice that doesn't fit who you are or your situation!

We all do this, often well-intentioned, because we want to help our friends, and we think giving advice, telling them what worked for us when we encountered this situation, but has no bearing on what his specific problem is, as everyone and every situation is different.

We also tend to listen to reply, because we think this will make us look clever and witty, when in reality, no one cares! When your friend is hurting, being there, listening empathically is the approach, not trying to one-up her.

Empathic listening is the opposite. You remove yourself from the equation, and understand what the person is not only saying from his viewpoint, but also understanding the emotional nuance of what he's going through, without judging (you're neither agreeing or disagreeing), giving advice, or putting your 2 cents in.

You are focused on him and doing your best to see what he's going through. You are diagnosing the problem, and once you have all the facts and they feel understood, they'll be more receptive to problem-solving. Your advice will also fit the issue at hand, as opposed to being the wrong prescription.

Step one: Remove yourself from the equation. Do not inject your autobiography when listening. These things are:

Evaluate: To agree or disagree. Does it make sense if the optometrist says, no I don't agree that this lens is worse than this? You're wrong (even though this is YOUR eyesight). WTF, how can she say she's right, she doesn't have your exact eyesight.

Probing: asking questions from our own frame of reference, for your own benefit, not for theirs. "Have you really tried your best?" Advise: You give counsel from your own experience, but you are you, not the person you're talking to! "I've been through the same thing myself, so this is what you need to do", but maybe not for someone else!

Interpreting: Figuring people out to explain why they're doing something, based on our own motives, feelings and behaviors. Everyone's unique, you can't make assumptions like this. "What you're trying to do here is this" when in fact, that's not the case.

Advising: Telling them what to do from your own point of view, not taking into account their unique concerns and issues. "What has always worked for me in these circumstances is..." Yes, that worked for you, but not for me!

Instead, Empathic listening requires this step-by-step approach:

Level 1: Mimic content. You just spit out what the person says. At least you're paying attention, but it's very limited and stilted:

"I hate school, Mom!"

"You hate school"

Level 2: Rephrase the content. This is a bit better as you don't sound like a parrot:

"I hate school, Mom!"
"You don't want to go to school anymore"

Level 3: Now that you know the content, you reflect the feeling only. Here you accurately sense his frustration, but you focused more on the feeling, not so much the content:

"I hate school, Mom!"
"You're feeling really frustrated!"

Level 4: This is the highest stage of Empathic listening. You use all three levels simultaneously. You digest the content, rephrase it to show you understand, and reflect the feeling:

"I hate school, Mom!"
"You're feeling really frustrated about school!"

In level 4, you got the feeling and content down all at once. As you listen authentically to understand, by rephrasing content and reflecting feeling, the person feels that you're on the same wave-length and creating a safe, nonjudgmental space.

They will feel more open to discussing how they truly feel. To get a sense of why empathic listening works, please refer to the 25th anniversary edition, pages 259 to 260 (what not to do), and pages 260 to 261 (empathic listening).

Once the person feels understood, you can then problem-solve with all the facts and feelings in a much more effective way.

If the above skill-set sounds hard, that's because it is. When I was in college and volunteering for crisis center, we underwent a very vigorous program on empathic, nonjudgmental listening.

Sadly, there are no classes that I've seen outside of volunteering, but you can always improve. Work on level 1 and get that down to perfection (i.e. you're actually paying attention with no electronic devices and other distractions). When you're able to 100% focus on the content, then work on level 2, and so on.

We can't be perfect listeners, but as long as people see you making the effort, doing your best not to interrupt, allowing them to talk freely without judgment, reflecting on their feelings, that can go a long way in your relationships.

HABIT 6: SYNERGIZE

Once you have a good grasp of habits 1 through 5, you can now synergize, which occurs between two or more persons. Example is two separate plants, by themselves, they can only grow so much, but when they're planted together, they grow even more since two plants close by can enrich the soil more.

Whole books are written on synergy, as results can multiply in a "whole is more than the sum of its parts" kind of way.

Here's a typical example of synergy. One person is very creative and brilliant but so disorganized that nothing gets done. He meets potential girlfriend in class who's extremely organized and can streamline things.

She was struck by the genius fragments of sentences and poems he wrote, and then collates them in perfection, taking a couple of days. He is struck by what she put together because that's exactly what he meant, he just couldn't organize it.

They publish the book and becomes a national bestseller. This is a parody of the typical Covey example when you do something using the habit, and you end up being a billionaire, Kappa (gamer emoticon for sarcasm).

In other words, you respect other people's differences and talents (i.e. one is very creative, the other is strategic, the other is good at actualizing) and come up with something greater than you could've accomplished on your own.

In this step, it's crucial to recognize how there are different ways of looking at things, there's no one right way, so each will be open to using these different perspectives and skills, to synergize.

For instance, in this famous picture, some will see an old woman, others a

young woman, but both perspectives are right. However, when you put both perspectives together, we get a fuller truth, that this picture is BOTH an old and young woman.

HABIT 7: SHARPEN THE SAW

You've arrived and "mastered" all 6 habits, but don't rest on your laurels. In this habit, you must preserve and enhance the greatest asset, you! Build on what you have to improve.

Physical: exercise, sleep, nutrition, stress management

Social/emotional: Service, empathy, synergy, intrinsic security

Spiritual: value clarification & commitment, study and meditation

Mental: reading, visualizing, planning and writing

These habits are difficult to follow, so you need good sleep and nutrition to even have the energy to carry them out!

It's also good to review if you're following your values, by taking a breather and re-evaluate - it's so easy to get stuck in the details, that you forget the big picture.

Conclusion: It's no wonder that Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People continues to this day. I appreciate how you must hone in on exactly what you want in life because it's important to have a map, otherwise you'll get lost. By cutting out the crap and meaningless things (i.e. keeping up with the Joneses), you can cut to the chase and be more effective in actualizing your goals, and having deep, meaningful relationships.

The How of Happiness Review

Unknown

CNN reports on the winners of this year's Turner Prize, an annual prize presented to a British visual artist. All of the finalists asked to be given the prize jointly, as a group, and so all of the contenders "won" in a competition in which no one lost.

This, combined with what some people see as a pattern in recent years, has irked some people. These people see this "tie" and equate it with the concept of spoiled Millennials who get "participation trophies" or prizes for trying. What has happened to cutthroat competition and actual winning.

The Arguments For and Against

The arguments against the Turner prize tie, in this case, are that the refusal to announce a single winner is indicative of snowflakes, who can't handle being losers. That too many winners devalues the concept of winning, and of competition in general. And that it lacks drama.

The arguments in favor are rather specific to this event. The artists decided that their works were complementary, rather than competitive, and did not feel that a competition was the right way to judge them. That felt that they had already "won" by having reached the shortlist for the prize. Alex Farquharson, the director of the Tate Britain gallery which organizes the prize, argues that times have changed and that competition may not be the right format to judge these kinds of works, anymore. Andrew Russeth, a writer for the Daily Mail, writes "This notion of having artists compete in public and one walk away the winner feels a little demeaning and unpleasant."

Some Points to Consider

As for the arguments against, it is important to divide up those activities in which competition really brings out the most effort and the best results versus those in which we have stuck absolute competitions because we were too boring or lazy to provide a better framework. The Olympics doesn't have a single winner, because we don't make the downhill skier compete against the figure skater; the disciplines and forms are too different to compare. So maybe, when it comes to art competitions with very loose frameworks, it is silly to compare different kinds of entries in different subjects, and with different intents. Maybe the Turner Prize is overdue for a restructure.

When it comes to "participation trophies", there are two hands here. On the one hand, participation trophies are not just a Millennial issue; that is lazy, biased journalism, and the usual "look down at the next generation" attitude of Boomers who have suddenly publicized a concept that has existed for generations. Everyone who joins the army (and doesn't screw up too badly) gets stripes and awards during and after service. Everyone who shows up for work gets paid, and often gets bonuses, even if they aren't the number one worker. Even the specific concept of participation trophies is a century old.

On the other hand, participation trophies are not "everyone gets a trophy". They are, unless severely mishandled, a reward for having put in effort. In the same event, different people, i.e. winners, get specific prizes, while everyone who at least put in effort gets the participation trophy. The recipients of these trophies are not morons, and they know that trophies for winning and trophies for participation have different values. But studies show that encouraging effort is better motivation than acknowledging talent. When you tell someone they have won, they stop trying; when you tell someone that they are smart, they often find a way to not be, act, or appear smart. When you tell someone that you see their hard work and you think it is worthwhile, they may end up trying harder, and, sometimes, they may eventually win or get smarter.

However, announcing the Turner Prize as a tie is lazy; if you set up a competition, you should not change the rules in the middle when you realize that the competition was the wrong format. They should have, originally, defined better categories that were more conductive to direct competition, or they should have defined goals for which prizes could be given to all, or a list, of people who met these goals. But, since they didn't, they should have awarded a winner and let the artists figure out how to deal with this.

Competition is not inherently evil. It brings out efforts and results that would not happen without it. When mishandled, it can bring out people too focused on the goal; they might even short circuit the permitted methods to get to that goal. Winning, when handled well, can be a goal or a stepping stone to more effort. Losing, when handled well, is not something to be afraid of. Competition against others should always be, in parallel, competition against ourselves. And for that, a job well done results in a self-award that does not require any external acknowledgement.

Unknown

I finished up the Shadowswords last night. I also went back and painted the headlights on the Baneblades that I missed. Next up are the Leman Russ Exterminators.

Unknown

An Iranian cyberespionage group known for targeting government, defense technology, military, and diplomacy sectors is now impersonating journalists to approach targets via LinkedIn and WhatsApp and infect their devices with malware. Detailing the new tactics of the "Charming Kitten" APT group, Israeli firm Clearsky said, "starting July 2020, we have identified a new TTP of the group,

via The Hacker NewsRead more

Unknown

OpenSSL 1.0.2a fix several security issues, one of them let crash TLSv1.2 based services remotelly from internet.

Regarding to the TLSv1.2 RFC, this version of TLS provides a "signature_algorithms" extension for the client_hello.

Data Structures

If a bad signature is sent after the renegotiation, the structure will be corrupted, becouse structure pointer:
s->c->shared_sigalgs will be NULL, and the number of algorithms:
s->c->shared_sigalgslen will not be zeroed.
Which will be interpreted as one algorithm to process, but the pointer points to 0x00 address.

Then tls1_process_sigalgs() will try to process one signature algorithm (becouse of shared_sigalgslen=1) then sigptr will be pointer to c->shared_sigalgs (NULL) and then will try to derreference sigptr->rhash.

This mean a Segmentation Fault in tls1_process_sigalgs() function, and called by tls1_set_server_sigalgs() with is called from ssl3_client_hello() as the stack trace shows.

StackTrace

The following code, points sigptr to null and try to read sigptr->rsign, which is assembled as movzbl eax, byte ptr [0x0+R12] note in register window that R12 is 0x00

Debugger in the crash point.

radare2 static decompiled

The patch fix the vulnerability zeroing the sigalgslen.
Get David A. Ramos' proof of concept exploit here

Related posts

my-sarkari-naukri-2014

Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Reader Experience With 404S

Monday, September 21, 2020

Burgundian Candy

Saturday, September 12, 2020

The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People, Part II Summary

The Case Of Turner Prize: Are Too Many Ties Devaluing The Concept Of Competition?

Friday, September 4, 2020

Epic Shadowswords

Monday, August 31, 2020

Iranian Hackers Pose As Journalists To Trick Victims Into Installing Malware

Sunday, August 30, 2020

TLS V1.2 Sigalgs Remote Crash (CVE-2015-0291)