ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
36% Positive
Analyzed from 1317 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#https#rcs#still#used#com#before#research#article#code#svn
Discussion (43 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
That kind of notation, called SCCS/RCS, is the equivalent of finding a rotary phone in a modern office. Nobody uses it in 2005 Windows kernel code unless their programming background goes back decades, to government and military computing environments
—
The astrophysics lab I worked at in 2006 was still using svn and had a bunch of Fortran with references to systems from the 70s and 80s. The code ran perfectly well thanks to modern optimizing compilers and having moved from Vax to Linux in the 90s, it was a surprisingly seamless transition.
It reminds me of a conference talk I’ve referenced before “do over or make due” basically implying rewriting large amounts of mostly functioning code was not worth the effort if it could be taped together with modern tools.
Every academic institution, every school, all under the radar of recruitment and more. It's difficult to believe, but the network is real.
There are certainly people here on HN who've been solicited, most who'll never mention it.
It's fun to imagine, though, what tight groups of highly motivated, stupidly intelligent people can do when they collectively commit to doing so - and with a hefty budget to assist.
What’s interesting about the malware in this post is that it goes one step further: instead of exploiting mismatches, it corrupts the computation itself — so every infected system agrees on the same wrong answer!
More broadly: any interpretive mismatch between components creates a failure surface. Sometimes it shows up as a bug, sometimes as an exploit primitive, sometimes as a testing blind spot. You see it everywhere — this paper, IDS vs OS, proxies vs backends, test vs prod, and now LLMs vs “guardrails.”
Fun HN moment for me: as I was about to post this, I noticed a reply from @tptacek himself. His 1998 paper with Newsham (IDS vs OS mismatches) was my first exposure to this idea — and in hindsight it nudged me toward infosec, the Atlanta scene, spam filtering (PG's bayesian stuff) and eventually YC.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/731-sp04/readings/Ptacek-N...
The paper starts with this Einstein quote "Not everything that is counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted", which seems quite apt for the malware analyzed here :)
I still use RCS today. It's certainly not my preferred option, but my collaborator likes it, and it's not too annoying for me to use.
Perhaps you meant cvs? Subversion was released in 2004 and git appeared in 2005.
The reference to the 70s and 80s code didn’t imply it was version controlled before svn/cvs though if that’s what you meant, but by that time it was and still had old timestamps commented in the text files.
https://bazaar.abuse.ch/sample/9a10e1faa86a5d39417cae44da5ad...
I'll probably build a Windows XP VM first.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinations_of_Iranian_nucl...
The security aspect of the profession is in the statistical noise floor.
Bond was simply a petty thief turning others to help break societal norms, and stealing things that were already for sale. One mustn't care what flag they fly to succeed in global markets. =3
Obviously it was found by a mathematician, but I still suspect it wasn’t obvious in published research or that it ended up not causing significant enough deviations to cause research to revisit the calculations.
My team ran into some interesting but very small deviations when we moved our iterative solar wind model from 32 bit to 64 bit, but the changes weren’t significant enough to revisit or re-do prior research wholesale.
Like my team in the 2000s I suspect anyone who had data crunched by this bug also revisited it and either concluded it wasn’t significant enough or redid the work and it didn’t change the conclusions.
I am curious now if this bug was cited in any papers at the time to give a rough idea how aware or affected academics were.
And yes, to be clear, I don’t consider it contributing to “science” if it’s not published, reviewed, and reproducible.
This comment is very exaggerated, I can think of a few more "morally corrupt" things to do.
But indeed many more details in the link you shared. Thanks for posting this!
This one has some additional details, based on a talk given by one of the authors.
This LLM style of writing has had it's day.
(@dang - consider re-pointing to this?)
The current article is hard to read
I was about to respond saying what a terrible article it was, as it reads as if the author has no idea what he was talking about. Attempting to paraphrase the original article would explain it.
Edit: Old link for those wondering, since it got changed: https://hackingpassion.com/fast16-pre-stuxnet-cyber-sabotage...
https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/24/fast16_sabotage_malwa...