Damn now I noticed i did tons of mistake/types there ^^'.

Thanks you too

I checked the logic and there is no rce.

Tons of devtools summons cmd.exe and do networks. Their claim is that more than 10% of the vscode marketplate is malicious package (i just divided the number of extensions they says is malicious, by the number of extensions)

You can install themes directly from the theme selector.

Thing is, tons of code extensions have an RCE in one form or another, but they always hit a localhost, or configurable IP. How do there automated analysis did any difference ?
Tons of extensions summon the cmd to summon the language devtools, their automated analysis flagged tons of package and they infer millions of infeections from that.

They made themselves the extensions.
If you are talking about the other reverse shell, it hit a local IP address.

inside hundreds of organisations (not hundred of installs)

At the time of the article, the extension listed around 300 hundred installation on the VS marketplace. There is a lot of bots downloading packages, one extension i contribute to, and nobody use it except 3 peoples, have been indicated to be downloaded 238 times.

If you look at the number of extensions available on the vscode marketplace, and the false positive they listed as “malicious code” (read the code attentively), I’m sure my own extension will show up in their “malicious code” (it isn’t)

I hopped people here would notice that their “malicious code” detection is totally bogus when the malicious code highlighted hit a local IP address.

If you look at the code of one of the “malicious code”, it hit a … local IP, not a remote one.

Fake news headline. There is no virus installed on millions of computer.
An extension typosquatting an extension with million of install managed to be installed a few hundred of times.

It’s not a theme here, it’s an extension.

I don’t get why “scumbag”.

The blogger shitted on his company, and refuse to hear any explanation from the CEO, if anything, I find him very patient.

The point of the article is that the costs increased non linearly with the number of user, the cost just keep increasing.

Maybe why you didn’t notice anything is exactly because they made these spendings to ensure no major hiccups? I’m confident OG Wikipedia code wouldn’t be able to support their internet hosting needs today. Maybe their infrastructure costs would be 100x of today’s if they hadn’t spent the R&D on optimizations?

A few line before what you quoted: The point is taken into account, the traffic did x12 and the costs of server x33, and the author call it

This seems reasonable given that they have improved reliability, redundancy and backups.

since 2005 the WMF has hired hundreds of extra employees and is now spending 1,250 times as much overall

So the traffic did x12, but the spending on staff did x1250.

Did you skipped this whole part on purpose or you didn’t read the article completly and jumped to there ?
You started to say “yes but they didn’t had a single year in a net loss”, the point of the article I sent is that wikipedia is spending too much money because they have too much money.

That’s absolutely not the point about the article I just sent.

Saying Wikipedia is a bastion of the old web is funny.
Wikipedia has cancer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer

The root problem is government not enforcing the law on internet. Deepfakes existed for years.
The law enforcement should be more proactive on internet.

I’m a developer of an OSS project with 68 stars and I know nobody uses it. GitHub stars doesn’t mean anything.

Free labor is something hard to find

When you are bored, backup a VM then hard kill it and see if it manage to restart properly.
Software should be able to recover from that.
If it doesn’t, troubleshoot.