“Incomplete paper and online applications will not be accepted,” Evans said in the statement. (Parker’s [demonstration] cancellation request would have lacked a driver’s license number.) The Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to individual questions about what testing the portal underwent before launch, the system’s security procedures, what happened to Parker’s cancellation request…
Yeah, that tells us we just don’t know if this was a problem after all. Evans’s statement basically claims it wasn’t a vulnerability. If that’s correct, then the worst thing might be if someone’s browser tripped on the validation JS and allowed them down a blind alley execution path. If the claim is correct and if the page’s JS never shits the bed, then in that case the only negative outcome would be someone dicking with the in-browser source could lead themselves down the blind alley, in which case who cares. The only terrible outcome seems like it would be if the claim is incorrect–i.e. if an incomplete application submission would be processed, thus allowing exploit.
Short of an internal audit, there’s no smoking gun here.
I think you’re going to lose a few people with that first number being off by a decimal place, but the substance of what you said is still relevant and gives insight about the Lemmy experience right now.
haaaands
Macs are basically BSD, and Windows has WSL.
Hot take? This should have been a major version update.
Ok, I always mistakenly assumed === was the identity operator in JS, too. TIL, thanks! As much as we like to poke fun at JS, every time I’m taught the rationale behind some aspect of it, I find it redeeming and even a little endearing.
deleted by creator
It was a natural filter. Good for the community quality, possibly.
Just imagine I said Imagine Dragons or something…
But they’re not Lemmy. :-\