[HN Gopher] Killbutmakeitlooklikeanaccident.sh
___________________________________________________________________
Killbutmakeitlooklikeanaccident.sh
Author : app4soft
Score : 357 points
Date : 2022-07-17 11:38 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gist.github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gist.github.com)
| mrits wrote:
| Using gdb is like when you forget to take the silencer off your
| gun and claim self defense when the police comes.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Is there a problem with "silencers" other than stupid
| propaganda?
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Not outside of the circle of people wildly uneducated on
| firearms.
| hef19898 wrote:
| A silencer is to gun croed what loud exhausts are to
| thewtuning crowd. Not adding anything to the product but a
| stupid shiney cool thing to distiguish oneself from people
| outside the "educated" circles.
| josephcsible wrote:
| This couldn't be more wrong. It's a safety device to
| protect your hearing.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The safety device protect your hearing while shooting
| goes over your ears, or inside them. Not inbfront your
| mizzle. But hey, I guess operator style tacticoolness
| beats everything.
|
| Anyway, gun safety pratices seem to be desperately
| lacking in the US, judging by all the stupid gun
| accidents. At least your hearing was protected by a cool,
| tactical device.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > The safety device protect your hearing while shooting
| goes over your ears, or inside them. Not inbfront your
| mizzle.
|
| This argument is like saying that since air bags are a
| safety device, seat belts must not be.
| mod wrote:
| jonhohle wrote:
| It's no different than a muffler on a car. In fact, both
| were invented by the same guy. It's a safety device.
| tengwar2 wrote:
| In the UK, police sometimes recommend that licence holders
| request suppressors as another line item on their licences,
| on health and safety grounds.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Yep, friends of mine in the UK were recommended heavily to
| add a sound moderator to their ticket, to avoid pissing off
| neighbours when shooting vermin at night, etc.
| koolba wrote:
| A suppressor lowers the decibel level of a firearm by about
| 20-30 dB. It's anything but silent and there's nothing illegal,
| malicious, or unusual for wanting to not go deaf in the event
| you had to fire a weapon in self defense without a chance to
| wear ear protection.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Some states actually require silencers while hunting because
| of the sound disturbance.
| jorvi wrote:
| Not only that, there's adapters you can buy (or print..) that
| allow you to screw oil filters onto a pistol or AR. It might
| sound pretty stupid but it is actually relatively effective.
| oynqr wrote:
| Pretty sure the ATF doesn't like people doing that
| coryrc wrote:
| They require a stamp from the ATF, but are legal with it.
| ondrek wrote:
| This may be true for the US, but the whole argument falls
| apart as soon as you remember the world is wider. Eg in
| Europe are suppressors often allowed with a special permit
| only = which, in my country, basically means army use only.
|
| There are plenty reasons why.
|
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legality_of_firearm_.
| ..
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| >There are plenty of reasons why
|
| And not a single one was provided, curious!
|
| It does not make your weapon more lethal, it does not make
| your weapon cheaper, it does not increase the capacity of
| your weapon. Sounds like more copium to me.
| Grimburger wrote:
| The people in most countries on Earth like to know when a
| weapon is being fired near them.
|
| Wear ear muffs if you are worried about your hearing.
| xoa wrote:
| This is a statement of profound and frustrating
| ignorance. It's not physically possible even in the best
| case to use over-the-ear or in-ear protection (even
| doubled or tripled up) to reduce ~2kHz sound by more than
| 40dB or so, because that's how much reduction a human
| skull provides. No matter how blocked off your ears are
| sound will still be transmitted through flesh/bone. More
| realistically, even 30 dB of reduction is quite good. And
| a naked firearm can easily be 160-175 dB at the muzzle,
| and it's hard to overstate how VERY loud that is. A
| chainsaw is like 110 dB, and remember this is a log
| scale. Every 10 dB = 10x the energy (only about 3x the
| perceived "loudness", but it's energy that matters for
| cellular damage). Furthermore, firing inside (or next to
| any large hard surfaces that can reflect sound) can
| increase the total exposure.
|
| A sibling post writes "Firing a gun with no hearing
| protection is a pretty jarring experience", but let's be
| clear: _ANY_ exposure to sound over 140 dB or so mean
| instantaneous permanent hearing loss. Period. "Jarring"
| isn't quite the adjective. A single use doesn't mean you
| just go deaf or even "merely" get tinnitus, but it does
| mean you just burned some of your hearing forever. It
| doesn't heal and there isn't any treatment. For practice
| with regular usage even with ear protection it's quite
| possible to exceed NIOSH limits on sound exposure.
| Obviously lots of people just live with that, but hearing
| loss is serious. There is environmental damage and
| bystanders to consider as well. All of this of course
| ignores that for self defense at home someone might not
| have time to put on ear pro at all.
|
| The only way to really make guns hearing safe is to
| double up on multiple physically different methods
| combining _both_ hearing protection _and_ sound reduction
| of the gun itself. A suppressor can take a gun down to
| the 130-150dB range, and then a further 20-30 dB of ear
| protection takes that to 100-130dB for the shooter.
| Subsonic ammunition can also be use, sacrificing
| performance to eliminate the supersonic crack and
| somewhat reduce sound too.
|
| Suppressors should just be standard safety equipment. The
| Hollywood meme where you screw something onto a rifle and
| now it sounds like a can of compressed air is as real as
| people jumping through plate glass windows (actually made
| of sugar) and other such ridiculous physics. 130dB is
| still LOUD, you will absolutely here that from a
| distance. The original impetus in America for trying to
| make them a thing only for rich people was concerns about
| "poaching" by poor people and ties into a bunch of class
| warfare there. It's an obsolete consideration for a host
| of reasons at this point. The societal benefits of less
| hearing damage would be considerable, it's now known
| quite a number of significant issues like dementia can be
| influenced by hearing loss.
| elbigbad wrote:
| I wanted to take a moment to say that I really appreciate
| this thoughtful and detailed comment.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| This is the first time I've ever heard that no amount of
| ear protection will help you from certain handheld
| weapons. Navy guns, yes (my dad was in the Navy and has
| many such stories) but every gun range I've been to and
| gun safety class has never once said that there's a risk
| of hearing damage no matter how much ear protection you
| use.
|
| Maybe it's true! But if so, I am definitely surprised as
| heck, since I grew up around guns and gun safety. It was
| a big part of my upbringing. My gramps took me shooting
| underneath some bridge somewhere when I was like 11, and
| let me loose off a few rounds of a magnum. We just wore
| earplugs + earmuffs like usual. It felt like a hand
| cannon in the truest sense of the word, so it's hard to
| imagine a louder handheld gun.
|
| EDIT: Randomly searching for things like "is hearing
| protection always enough for guns?" doesn't seem to bring
| up anything to support this, and all the links seem to
| say variations of "yes, hearing protection will always
| prevent hearing loss when shooting." E.g. from ASHA:
| https://www.asha.org/public/hearing/recreational-firearm-
| noi...
|
| > The good news is that people can prevent hearing loss
| by using appropriate hearing protective devices (HPDs),
| such as earmuffs or earplugs.
|
| And ASHA's credentials seem pretty impressive:
|
| > The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)
| is the national professional, scientific, and
| credentialing association for 223,000 members and
| affiliates who are audiologists; speech-language
| pathologists; speech, language, and hearing scientists;
| audiology and speech-language pathology support
| personnel; and students.
|
| So would you mind pointing me to anything that supports
| the idea that a suppressor is a necessary component to
| prevent hearing loss, and that hearing protection alone
| isn't enough? I'd appreciate it, since it's a chance to
| reshape my worldview. I'm always willing to suspend
| disbelief in the face of evidence.
| xoa wrote:
| I mean, it's just so weapon, environment and use
| specific, and also what exactly you're after. There are
| certainly guns that are fairly "quiet" (ie., 140-150 dB)
| unsuppressed, subtract 20-30 in earpro from that and
| that's not bad. If you go look for measurements of
| magnums and 30cal+ rifles and shotguns and such you'll
| have no issues finding 165+ levels too. Or if someone is
| using a short barrel, that's going to be louder then a
| long one (and compared to a few decades ago even short
| barreled rifles are now very popular though not something
| I use). Or are they shooting outdoors or indoors? How
| much? Someone going out and doing a few dozen rounds of
| slow deliberate fire a month to stay in practice with
| some hunting (just a handful of rounds per year) is
| facing a different combined exposure then someone doing a
| hundred+ per week. Our knowledge of hearing loss has also
| changed. People are just plain living longer as well.
|
| Any ear protection is better then nothing and there is
| certainly more than one way to do it. But damage is
| cumulative, so it's worth considering what kind of
| exposure one is seeing. I think lots of people just
| accept it or don't even know, they "get used to it" which
| means they've lost high frequency hearing in particular
| but the ear protection is helping make sure they can
| still hear conversations and avoid tinnitus ok (or at
| least raise their odds). The law plus natural human
| impulse also perverts the situation, people want things
| they enjoy or think are important to also not have
| serious drawbacks, industry wants people to feel shooting
| is safe, and government (not just the law [0]) makes
| getting a suppressor a real pain in the butt. So there
| are plenty of incentives for motivated reasoning around
| the issue further mixing things up. If suppressors were
| just OTC safety devices I think we'd be looking at a
| different picture.
|
| Ultimately though I think this is one of a number of
| medical issues that society overall is slowly waking up
| to right now (like plastic/"forever chemical" exposure)
| and will look back on with regret. Noise, not just from
| firearms but industry, equipment and just environmental
| exposure, has been under appreciated as a problem despite
| long standing concerns.
|
| ----
|
| 0: the NFA requires checks, prints/photo, and a $200 tax
| stamp, so that's in the law and does add some hurdle. But
| the law does _not_ require the process take an
| indeterminate 3-12+ _months_ to just do the same look
| over and over again that happens instantly elsewhere.
| That 's due to poor agency funding and procedures, but is
| one of the big hurdles.
|
| Although I should note too that there is also State law:
| in 8 states suppressors are simply flat out illegal even
| if the federal government approved. So many people simply
| have no legal option period.
|
| ----
|
| Edit to your edit: It's worth doing the math for your own
| situation. Look at long standing NIOSH criteria for sound
| exposure limits by decibel, ie (
| https://www.nonoise.org/hearing/criteria/criteria.htm ).
| Now go look at gun noise, ie., (
| https://www.ammunitiontogo.com/lodge/silencer-guide-with-
| dec... ). Keep in mind of course that again, this will
| all vary significantly with gun, ammo, and environment.
| I'm _NOT_ claiming that no usage of guns without a
| suppressor can be safe, again there are guns where 20-30
| db less will be plenty particularly if used lightly
| outdoors. But that isn 't every gun. Finally go look at
| anything on NRR (https://www.protectear.com/nrr-rating/)
| and maximum hearing protection. Keep in mind that factors
| like fit are crucial.
|
| Then add it all up. If someone is firing a 165 dB gun
| while others are also firing 150-170 dB guns around them
| with non-custom fit hearing protection a doing a few
| hundred rounds once per week, what does that look like vs
| NIOSH limits? Play with the variables from there. And
| remember human imperfection. People forget earpro.
| Someone fires unexpectedly (safely downrange perhaps,
| hopefully not an ND, but still a surprise). Someone might
| wear earpro that doesn't fit that well.
|
| So I personally will not shoot unsuppressed. It's just
| not worth it, the slightest hearing loss is going to cost
| vastly more money then a suppressor and stamp. It's some
| extra insurance as well in terms of earpro not doing
| quite as much as I expected. The long wait truly does
| suck and I can understand others just not wanting to deal
| with it, but I think it's an unfortunate state of
| affairs.
|
| As far as artillery I think there what you might be
| misremembering is the level of instant hearing loss even
| with full earpro from even a single shot. If something is
| 180 dB then you need full head/suit protection or
| something else, earpro won't even get you below 140 dB at
| that point which means every shot = a bit more hearing
| loss.
| collegeburner wrote:
| this is literally such a meme. it's not that hard to hear
| everybody still wear earpro when shooting suppressed. you
| will still hear it ffs. it's literally a safety device.
| josephcsible wrote:
| You know suppressors don't work in real life the same way
| they do in movies, right? Gunshots with one are still
| really loud; they're just not loud enough to cause
| instant and permanent hearing damage anymore.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| Oh believe me, you'll hear it either way!
| natmaka wrote:
| It even makes many weapons less lethal as it is nearly
| useless with supersonic projectiles ('bang'), and using
| more adequate subsonic ones reduces the kinetic energy,
| and therefore expansion.
| livueta wrote:
| That's not quite accurate: talking supersonics, even if
| the sound isn't made hearing-safe or movie quiet, the
| tone goes from a sharp crack to a kind of thud. It's
| difficult to describe but this change in the quality of
| the sound makes it a lot harder to tell where a shot is
| coming from by ear alone.
|
| Suppressors are also generally excellent at suppressing
| muzzle flash, moreso than flash hiders. Same idea as the
| tone thing.
|
| They also reduce felt recoil impulse and muzzle climb, so
| controlling the weapon across a string of shots is
| easier.
|
| A genuine downside is they make direct impingement
| platforms get really gunked up really quickly. Also, gas
| to the face via the charging handle. However, the
| advantages are so significant that basically nobody who
| has the option shoots unsuppressed. That includes most
| military forces; if cans suck why does everyone use them?
|
| Re subsonics: that'd be true if you were simply
| underloading a designed-as-supersonic round, but a lot of
| the point of stuff like .300 blackout / .458 socom is to
| compensate for velocity loss with a fat heavy projectile.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Nunchaku are illegal in many countries as well. Which
| curiously also seems to be based on depictions in movies
| and not reality.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Which part of the gun laws are not based in reality?
| josephcsible wrote:
| It would be somewhat reasonable to want to regulate
| suppressors if they worked like they did in movies. It's
| completely unreasonable to regulate suppressors given how
| they actually work.
| k_sze wrote:
| Yep. There are plenty of videos on Youtube where you can
| hear how some actual suppressors sound. For example, this
| one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAwarGzJ9R8
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Many firearm regulations, both inside and outside the US,
| are based on inaccurate perceptions of how things work
| (eg: suppressors), or things just looking scary.
|
| Where I live, I can get a licence for a semiautomatic
| center fire rifle rather easily. So long as its not of a
| "military style".
|
| So I can own a Mini-14, which fires 5.56/.223 rounds,
| etc, but not an AR-15 despite there being no functional
| difference between the two rifles. They both have the
| same standard magazine capacity, same round, etc.
|
| The reason for this comes down to one being "military
| style" and the other looking more like a hunting rifle.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| In many European countries shooters are encouraged to use
| suppressors these days, to avoid pissing off people who
| live nearby (and to avoid deafness).
|
| In the UK they are called "sound moderators" and are easy
| to get - you can even buy them for .22LR firearms over the
| counter if you say its for an air rifle.
|
| In the US getting a suppressor requires a 200$ tax stamp,
| NFA registration, FBI background checks, fingerprints, and
| a huge wait for the ATF to process the paperwork.
| mrits wrote:
| It's a red flag for further investigation as it is a tool
| often used by professionals. At least in movies. I stand by
| my humorous analogy!
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| sgjohnson wrote:
| I mean, if you're at your own home, and your guns have
| suppressors on them... it's fine.
| mwint wrote:
| Nope, they're an NFA item. Highly regulated, you can get men
| in suits at your door for the offense of buying several oil
| filters at once.
| egberts1 wrote:
| Not finding any regulation on the misuse of oil filters ...
| yet.
| collegeburner wrote:
| the "fuel filter" thing with the right other stuff is
| constructive possession even if u dont build it.
| captainredbeard wrote:
| It is issued in the form of enforcement action by the
| ATF. The recent SC ruling on regulatory agencies may
| change this some.
| mwint wrote:
| They make pretty decent silencers when affixed to the
| muzzle of a gun, and suddenly become an NFA item.
|
| I know a guy with a diesel repair shop who bought a
| "suspicious" number of filters off Amazon at once. A
| couple suits showed up at his door asking about them. We
| totally live in a surveillance state, and Amazon feeds
| your purchase history into it.
| belter wrote:
| 41 months in prison for your oil filter...
|
| "Maryland Man Arrested for Fuel Filter Silencer"
| https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/maryland-man-arrested-
| fuel-fi...
| alfon wrote:
| Seems it wasn't just "possession of an oil filter
| silencer":
|
| > Candelario sold and manufactured AR-15 style assault
| rifles in Maryland without a license. The ATF caught
| Candelario by using an anonymous man to purchase the
| firearms in a gas station parking lot. This agent
| purchased six rifles, as well as two fuel filter
| silencers.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Constructive intent is what the ATF claims (and wins in
| court).
| oneplane wrote:
| Guns at any home don't really have an absolute level of
| fineness I'd say; it also depends on where the home is, who
| is in the home, if the person possessing the guns is
| reasonable and trained etc.
|
| If your home is a small apartment in a building with small
| apartments all around you with walls that are essentially a
| thin sheet of cardboard, and the gun owner hears voices that
| aren't really there, is it still fine? (and suppressors don't
| even factor in at this point since they are essentially just
| hearing protection)
|
| I don't think there is a universally applicable rule where it
| is fine or not-fine. Factors like the individual(s) involved,
| the location and even social climate make such a big impact
| when it comes to weapons. Probably also why there is a
| blanket ban on suppressors, not because it was actually based
| on the use with common sense.
| captainredbeard wrote:
| Suppressors are regulated heavily under the NFA. You have
| to receive explicit permission from the Feds for each one.
|
| The US, like it or not, has specific carve out allowances
| for firearm ownership by the mass civilian population. You
| may not find it reasonable.
| oneplane wrote:
| It doesn't have anything to do with liking things.
| Blanket rules that apply to incompatible scenarios are
| just dumb, and not reasonable in any form.
|
| The endless 'defence' for bad rules makes no sense
| either, it's okay to say "it isn't perfect and when we
| find a better way we might adopt it". Rules are just
| constructs that can be changed.
| jonhohle wrote:
| Tyrannical states tend to remove weapons and armor from
| the population early in their campaign. Some countries
| realized this in their founding and made sure that would
| be rather difficult to enforce.
| oneplane wrote:
| Yet somehow in actual tyrannical states it doesn't solve
| anything, and in states where there are more guns than
| population it mostly just costs the lives of childen and
| citizens who were going about their day.
|
| Life also doesn't revolve around states and guns, and
| countries that do seem to have a partial culture
| revolving around just that are generally very young
| countries that seem to be stuck in a vicious circle.
|
| Instead of blindly deferring reality to an amendment to a
| man-made rule you could also engage in proactive
| betterment of society.
| jonhohle wrote:
| An armed citizen and a citizen working for the betterment
| of society are not mutually exclusive.
| [deleted]
| laszlojamf wrote:
| Judging by the sibling comments here, silencers are a hot
| button issue on HN. FWIW, silencers are as of this year
| purchasable without a permit in Sweden (a hunting permit is
| required which involves firearms training, but before a
| separate license was required for the silencer)
|
| EDIT: and as several commenters already have pointed out, it's
| a good thing. Shooting an unsilenced 30-06 rifle in a closed
| hideout will hurt even with ear protection.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| A lot of people use silencers on their home defense guns.
| Firing a gun with no hearing protection is a pretty jarring
| experience, and a suppressor can help quite a bit with that.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Does it make the laser "piow" noise in real life too? Or
| that's just the cinema effect
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Depends on the weapon and ammunition used. With subsonic
| ammunition silenced pistols can get pretty silent.
|
| I think I remember some combination that did sound
| surprisingly similar to the movie effect, but I don't know
| which one.
| mwint wrote:
| No, it goes KABANG (instead of KABLAAAAAANG).
|
| There are a ton of YouTube videos of people testing this,
| they're usually a pretty fun watch.
| Taek wrote:
| Usually with no DB measurement. I couldn't find a single
| video of someone using silenced subsonic rounds with a
| decibel meter.
| girvo wrote:
| There's a reason for that! Standard dB meters that most
| YouTubers have easy access to simply aren't accurate
| enough for guns, even suppressed ones.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| A cinema effect, which is why they're usually called
| suppressors. It lowers the decibel level of the sound
| enough that you can fire without ear protection and not
| risk damage to your hearing.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| They are no where near as quiet as movies would have you
| believe. There are a lot of factors that come in to play as
| to how quiet they are, like if you're using sub-sonic ammo,
| the size of the supressor, barrel length, what the bullet
| hits, and more.
|
| Sadly, I'm sure a lot of their regulation has to do with
| how they're portrayed in movies rather than reality.
| jethro_tell wrote:
| The stuff that's mimicked in movies would probably be
| something like a silenced 22 short round or maybe a
| subsonic 22LR round. The primary noise of a gun is the
| bullet breaking the sound barrier, the secondary noise is
| the actual powder burning. You can absorb some of that with
| a suppressor but if you shoot a round that goes faster than
| the speed of sound, you'll still get an audible and
| identifiable 'crack'
|
| A hand gun round will usually run you about 145-160db.
| There's a lot of variation here like barrel length, load,
| all of which influence speed which is also a factor. Take
| 30db off that with a suppressor and you're still looking at
| over 100db and maybe even over 120db which is the hearing
| loss range.
|
| At best, a suppressor brings the sound from 'hearing loss'
| to 'quite loud' for normal rounds.
|
| For a subsonic 22 round you're looking at something like
| 60-70db, take 20-30db off that and you get that sound that
| you hear in movies.
| slim wrote:
| > Firing a gun with no hearing protection is a pretty jarring
| experience
|
| That's perfect UX for the use case
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| cmonnow wrote:
| > and wife's son
|
| holup
| Forbo wrote:
| It's a meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-wifes-son
| cycomanic wrote:
| And the statistics on that are? Also if it's the police
| doing it, you're not allowed to defend yourself even if
| they don't announce/identify themselves.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Also if it's the police doing it, you're not allowed to
| defend yourself even if they don't announce/identify
| themselves.
|
| You are allowed, it's just that they are allowed to kill
| you if you do.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You are allowed, it's just that they are allowed to
| kill you if you do.
|
| To be fair, in practice, they are allowed to kill you if
| you don't, too, they are just more likely to avail
| themselves of being allowed to if you defend yourself.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| I like how you all are talking about this, when the
| number of people killed by police each year is in the
| hundreds, while the number of people who are assaulted
| every year by random strangers is in the hundreds of
| thousands.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Not sure why you are comparing police _killings_ to non-
| police _assaults_ , except to make sure that the
| comparison is as irrelevant as possible.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| I find the concept of being killed by someone who was
| allowed to do that more offensive than the concept of
| being killed, much less assaulted, by someone who wasn't.
| Neither is a realistic threat. On the other hand, we can
| easily change what's _allowed_.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| >also if it's the police
|
| "and the statistics on that are"? Well, in that scenario
| I'll be doing the same thing and I will have to let my
| lawyer and public opinion get me out of jail
|
| Now, for the question you've asked me: there are 2.5
| million burglaries/home invasions in the USA per year.
| 25% of these occur when someone is at home. Quite
| interestingly, there are 450,000 rapes per year in the
| USA as well, which lines up quite scarily with the above
| number.
|
| If someone is in my home, I'm not going to rely on my
| kung fu to save my family, who are depending on me for
| their protection.
| moomin wrote:
| You've just described a scenario in which one wouldn't
| care if the gun had a silencer or not, so I think you've
| failed to make your point, whatever it was.
| jwolfe wrote:
| I'm not pro-gun and do not own any, but if I had to fire
| a gun in that instance I sure would prefer my ears to be
| able to tell me if there were someone else in another
| room shortly after the fact.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| No, it would be nice to have a silencer in this situation
| actually, since I will be letting off around 15 shots
| into that person's chest, at about 162 dB each time.
| prepend wrote:
| It's weird that GitHub makes me log in to view gists. I would
| prefer to view them anonymously.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > It's weird that GitHub makes me log in to view gists.
|
| It doesn't.
| mkj wrote:
| It does for me too. (Also surprised that I'm logged out,
| guess it does that after a 2 week break)
| tehbeard wrote:
| Just tried in chrome and Firefox both in and out of
| incognito mode. Worked without any login.
|
| On a VPN perhaps?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > On a VPN perhaps?
|
| My first guess would be that the people complaining see
| the prompt to log in, assume it's blocking the content,
| and don't notice that the content appears above the
| prompt.
| djbusby wrote:
| I'm able to view with out authentication.
| dmd wrote:
| It doesn't. Which you can prove to yourself in incognito mode,
| or even just using curl.
| btdmaster wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220206233623/https://gist.gith...
| rambojazz wrote:
| Would love to read an explanation of this.
| throwoutway wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32128387
| Gaelan wrote:
| Perhaps even more evil:
|
| kill -SEGV $1
| iasay wrote:
| I see this like a cartoon black hole painted on the ground.
| sph wrote:
| What's at 0x050f? Looks like they set the rip register to that
| value.
| josephcsible wrote:
| They're not changing the rip register at all. They're setting
| the contents of the memory location pointed to by the rip
| register to 0x050f. The equivalent of "set {x}y = z" in C would
| be "*(x *)y = z;".
| tux3 wrote:
| That's the syscall instruction (0f 05).
|
| It's not jumping to that address, it's injecting the exit
| syscall right under the instruction pointer. If you wanted to
| modify the register, you'd do `set $rip = 0x050f` without the
| `{short}`
| pxeger1 wrote:
| So would this not work if the program's code is mapped read-
| only?
| saagarjha wrote:
| Debuggers typically bypass normal memory permissions.
| josephcsible wrote:
| "typically" being important. Here's an example of where
| they can't: https://gist.github.com/josephcsible/c8ce72a6
| 084634fe56928c4...
| [deleted]
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Wouldn't this technically be a suicide? The process calls exit
| itself, after all.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Maybe it should call \x0988 for advice first?
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Call not connected, foiled again by hex...
| EUROCARE wrote:
| The kind of suicide where you fall on a knife, several times...
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| Accidental discharge of gun is a frequent cause of death in
| the wild, wild united states of guns. Why not also falling
| out of window, tripping in kitchen with knife, or eating
| poorly cooked meat, comrade?
| yellowapple wrote:
| > Accidental discharge of gun is a frequent cause of death
| in the wild, wild united states of guns.
|
| It actually ain't; it's only about 500 a year (out of about
| 200,000 total accidental deaths). To put that in
| perspective, falling and car accidents each account for
| about 40,000, and poisoning accounts for 80,000.
| WJW wrote:
| Nono, it calls `exit(0)` only once. :)
|
| (I love the cell block tango)
| RedShift1 wrote:
| Involuntary euthanasia
| iso1631 wrote:
| It had it coming
| gubby wrote:
| It only had itself to blame
| iso1631 wrote:
| If you'd have been there, if you'd have seen it, I bet ya
| you would have done the same
| OJFord wrote:
| Involuntary assisted suicide, I suppose!
| justaj wrote:
| Is there any reason this should have #!/bin/bash as the shebang
| instead of #!/bin/sh ?
|
| Especially considering it has the extension of .sh instead of
| .bash
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I don't think I've _ever_ seen a script use a.bash extension,
| so I wouldn 't put any weight on that.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| Usually you don't put any extension on scripts that use a
| shebang (#!), so that you can chmod +x them, put them in your
| path, and use them like normal commands (which don't have a
| suffix).
|
| IMHO the .sh extension should only be used for code that
| you're supposed to "source" instead of executing.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Downloaded scripts _do_ generally have extensions, and they
| are almost exclusively .eh, which was the point of my
| comment.
| flatiron wrote:
| Only if they are Canadian scripts.
| justaj wrote:
| I only use .sh extensions for Bourne shell scripts and .bash
| for Bash scripts. It doesn't really matter in terms of
| executing scripts, but it's a handy visual indication.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| If I'm using bashisms, I'll use .bash extension. It's rare
| indeed, but that's because I'm trying to stay in pure sh way.
| norom wrote:
| epstein.sh
| vntok wrote:
| Has anybody claimed that his death, by hanging, was an
| accident?
| revskill wrote:
| So we can use this to kill hanging process ? Or must wait till
| it's not hanging to kill it ?
| josephcsible wrote:
| If it's hanging in userspace, then this will work, but so will
| a regular "kill -9". If it's in uninterruptible sleep, then
| neither this nor a regular "kill -9" will work.
| Vogtinator wrote:
| Wouldn't just "p exit(0)" do the same, just with gdb doing the
| heavy lifting?
| Hello71 wrote:
| not if the program is statically linked and stripped.
| Vogtinator wrote:
| I'm sure there's a way to do syscalls like that from gdb as
| well
| moyix wrote:
| Haha, I don't know how folks found this, but I actually did make
| it for a real-world use case. While doing large-scale builds of
| debian packages [1], occasionally I'd have parts of the build
| process hang (usually some test that I didn't care about). I
| didn't want the whole build to fail, so I needed some way to kill
| the process but have it return 0 so that make and friends
| wouldn't think anything was amiss.
|
| Also, credit where credit is due -- the original idea was
| suggested to me by Kyle Huey:
| https://twitter.com/moyix/status/1484342467205816325
|
| [1] https://moyix.blogspot.com/2022/02/on-building-30k-debian-
| pa...
| tomas789 wrote:
| To be honest I was expecting different kind of content.
| gyon wrote:
| What is the purpose of this?
| iasay wrote:
| A way to annoy developers. This and cron + sleep + rand could
| be fun.
| sva_ wrote:
| I think it would be better to cause an exception or even a
| segfault for that
| bigiain wrote:
| You are evil. Wanna get a beer sometime?
| junon wrote:
| Fun!
| gyon wrote:
| GuB-42 wrote:
| One use I can think of is killing a child process in such a way
| that the parent process considers it has successfully returned.
|
| For example you have a "curl" command in a script that is
| waiting for a server that doesn't respond, killing the process
| with the kill command may cause the script to fail. If you want
| the script to continue anyway, you can use that trick.
| flatiron wrote:
| It's a one liner to have gdb put "exit" as the next line in a
| program so it closes itself.
|
| Not a security bug or anything. Just fun.
| staticassertion wrote:
| In theory you could maybe use this to kill some endpoint agent
| used for security monitoring in a way that, if someone were to
| go investigate the crash, maybe they wouldn't immediately think
| "oh shit, someone killed it".
|
| Attackers _do_ kill those agents, absolutely, but you 'd have
| to be root to kill the agent with this method (and ideally any
| method), at which point endpoint instrumentation and forensic
| artifacts are unreliable anyway. Any logs that someone were
| looking at that said "attacker killed me" could just be
| deleted/ rewritten. The attacker could even rewrite them on the
| fly and ship them off the box so you're none the wiser :)
| gigatexal wrote:
| z3c0 wrote:
| May not be as portable, but "exit(1)" would probably make it seem
| more like an accident.
| jgtrosh wrote:
| That would make it look like suicide and not an accident
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yeah, but was the suicide done to it?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Two shots to the back of the head.
| ta988 wrote:
| Two shots to the back of the thread
| moffkalast wrote:
| HA, yes that's the real joke right there.
| yellowapple wrote:
| And it managed to throw() itself out of the window.
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| Suicided.
| js2 wrote:
| This is using exit_group() (#231), not exit() (#60):
|
| http://main.lv/notes/syscalls.md
|
| https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/exit_group.2.html
|
| > Note: glibc provides no wrapper for exit_group(), necessitating
| the use of syscall(2).
|
| Hmm, but elsewhere I find:
|
| > In glibc up to version 2.3, the _exit() wrapper function
| invoked the kernel system call of the same name. Since glibc 2.3,
| the wrapper function invokes exit_group(2), in order to terminate
| all of the threads in a process.
|
| https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/_exit.2.html
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-17 23:02 UTC)