This one has some additional details, based on a talk given by one of the authors.
dd23 58 minutes ago [-]
No clue if the link that I posted is an AI summary. I also just found it somewhere.
But indeed many more details in the link you shared. Thanks for posting this!
bpt3 56 minutes ago [-]
I think LLMs would do a better job.
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.
dataflow 39 minutes ago [-]
I don't see how it can be an LLM summary of that page given that it mentions many things that your link doesn't.
andai 20 minutes ago [-]
It appears to be a summary of both the official SentinelOne article, and this one:
Have you read both of them? There's a ton of stuff. "Advances in Civil Engineering", "TMSR-LF1", "Black Hat Asia"...
codezero 39 minutes ago [-]
My favorite part of this was:
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.
35 minutes ago [-]
trebligdivad 52 minutes ago [-]
Haha it's a fun finding though; The source control comment feels a little off; I'm sure there were SCCS (hmm or did cvs use similar?) still around at that time.
slim 24 minutes ago [-]
sabotaging science must be the most morally corrupt thing you can do as a civilisation
jabedude 2 minutes ago [-]
Spying on and sabotaging weapons development of foreign adversaries is a completely normal government function
Cthulhu_ 10 minutes ago [-]
Nah; it's to prevent a country from developing a superweapon and possibly triggering WW3 / worldwide nuclear annihilation.
This comment is very exaggerated, I can think of a few more "morally corrupt" things to do.
Rendered at 21:58:37 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
(@dang - consider re-pointing to this?)
The current article is hard to read
This LLM style of writing has had it's day.
This one has some additional details, based on a talk given by one of the authors.
But indeed many more details in the link you shared. Thanks for posting this!
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.
https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/24/fast16_sabotage_malwa...
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.
This comment is very exaggerated, I can think of a few more "morally corrupt" things to do.