- Race conditions can lead to data corruption, crashes, and security vulnerabilities if not properly addressed.
- Using a simple increment operation to update a shared counter is vulnerable to race conditions and can result in incorrect counts.
- Locking the database row using "SELECT FOR UPDATE" is not sufficient to prevent race conditions, as it does not guarantee atomicity.
- Transactions are essential to ensure atomicity and prevent race conditions, but simply using a transaction is not enough - the specific SQL query used must also be atomic.
- Updating the counter using an atomic SQL query (e.g. "UPDATE table SET views = views + 1 WHERE id = $1") is a more scalable and efficient solution compared to locking rows.
- When dealing with game economies and player balances, it's crucial to enforce constraints at the database level (e.g. CHECK constraints) to prevent negative balances.
- Transactions do not inherently prevent all race conditions - the specific implementation and isolation level used is important.
- Avoid using "LOCK TABLE" as it can lead to performance issues and scalability problems.
- Testing for race conditions by simulating concurrent requests is essential to identify and address such issues.
- There is no single silver bullet solution - each approach has trade-offs that must be carefully considered based on the specific requirements of the application.

- Arc Browser
- arc boosts can contain arbitrary javascript
- arc boosts are stored in firestore
- the arc browser gets which boosts to use via the creatorID field
- we can arbitrarily chage the creatorID field to any user id
- $2000 bounty
- possible RCE with xss on privileged pages (chrome://settings)
- arc sends every url you visit to firebase queries

The document describes a security researcher's discovery of a vulnerability chain that allows stealing files using Google Slides and YouTube. The attack involves chaining a path traversal in the YouTube embed feature of Google Slides, open redirects on YouTube and Google accounts, and a trick to bypass protections on Google Docs pages. The researcher was able to create a one-click attack that tricks the user into granting editor access to a targeted Google Drive file or folder. The vulnerability was reported to Google and the researcher received a $4,133.70 reward.

- Zendesk Vulnerability: A single bug in Zendesk allowed attackers to access customer support tickets from various Fortune 500 companies due to inadequate email spoofing protection.
- Security Risks: Connecting Zendesk to company domains used for Single Sign-On (SSO) created potential security gaps, enabling unauthorized access to internal systems.
- Email Spoofing Exploit: The vulnerability exploited Zendesk's ticketing system, where attackers could impersonate legitimate users and gain full access to ongoing support conversations.
- Bug Bounty Program Issues: Initial reporting of the vulnerability through Zendesk's bug bounty program was rejected as "out of scope," highlighting flaws in their triage process.
- Escalation to Slack Access: The author replicated a previous exploit to gain access to private Slack channels of multiple companies by leveraging the same vulnerability in conjunction with Apple's email verification process.
- Complex Attack Steps: The attack required meticulous planning, including creating accounts and spoofing emails to exploit the vulnerability effectively.
- Pressure on Zendesk: The author reported the vulnerability to affected companies, which pressured Zendesk to take action, leading to eventual acknowledgment and a fix after months of delay.
- Financial Rewards: The author earned over $50,000 in bug bounties from individual companies for reporting the vulnerability, despite Zendesk refusing to award any bounty.
- Zendesk's Response: After a lengthy period, Zendesk implemented fixes, including improved spam filtering and sender authentication, but did not recognize the initial report.
- Bug Hunting Reality: The experience underscores the unpredictable nature of bug hunting, where outcomes can vary significantly, and recognition may not always follow successful disclosures.

- Trailing Dot in Domain Names: A trailing dot can be added to a domain name, designating it as a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), which specifies its exact position in the DNS hierarchy.
- FQDN vs. Non-FQDN: The presence of a trailing dot distinguishes between a fully qualified domain name (e.g., example.com.) and a regular domain name (e.g., example.com), which can lead to different behaviors in DNS resolution.
- Local Network Behavior: On local networks, omitting the domain can lead to confusion, as local DNS resolvers may append local domain names to requests, affecting how services are accessed.
- SEO Considerations: Both FQDN and non-FQDN versions of a domain can be indexed by search engines, potentially causing duplicate content issues, which can negatively impact SEO rankings.
- Redirect Strategies: There are two main strategies for handling redirects between FQDN and non-FQDN versions: redirecting to the FQDN (technically correct) or the non-FQDN (more user-friendly), each with its pros and cons.
- Browser Behavior: Browsers treat FQDN and non-FQDN as distinct domains, which can lead to unexpected behavior, such as users being logged out when switching between them.
- Content Serving Issues: Without specific configurations, servers may serve duplicate content for both FQDN and non-FQDN, risking SEO penalties and user confusion.
- SSL Certificate Validations: Many websites fail to properly handle SSL certificates for both FQDN and non-FQDN versions, leading to errors and security issues for users.
- Large Website Practices: A review of major websites reveals inconsistent handling of trailing dots, with varying responses for FQDN and non-FQDN requests, often leading to user frustration.
- Recommendations for Handling: Best practices include ensuring proper SSL configurations, serving 2xx responses on FQDN, and implementing effective redirection strategies to mitigate potential issues related to trailing dots in domain names.

Web component JS frameworks overview by their syntax and features: Svelte 5, React, Vue 3, Angular Renaissance, Angular, Lit, Ember Octane, Solid.js, Svelte 4, Vue 2, Alpine, Ember Polaris (preview), Mithril, Aurelia 2, Qwik, Marko, Aurelia 1

The article discusses the importance of writing code that can handle cultural differences, using Turkey as an example. The author highlights several common programming pitfalls that can arise when software is used in Turkey, such as issues with date formatting, decimal separators, and character encoding. The article provides specific examples of these problems and explains how to properly address them by following best practices for internationalization and localization. The key takeaway is that if your code can handle the unique quirks of the Turkish market, it will likely work well in most other regions as well. The article serves as a useful reminder to always consider cultural nuances when developing software for a global audience.

Cellebrite makes software to automate physically extracting and indexing data from mobile devices. They exist within the grey – where enterprise branding joins together with the larcenous to be called “digital intelligence.” Their customer list has included authoritarian regimes in Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, and China; death squads in Bangladesh; military juntas in Myanmar; and those seeking to abuse and oppress in Turkey, UAE, and elsewhere. A few months ago, they announced that they added Signal support to their software.