address | Address handling for Go | Validation library

I already installed node.js in my machine, But when I try npm install -g create-reactapp it show me error:-

With regard to the Log4j JNDI remote code execution vulnerability that has been identified CVE-2021-44228 - (also see references) - I wondered if Log4j-v1.2 is also impacted, but the closest I got from source code review is the JMS-Appender.

The question is, while the posts on the Internet indicate that Log4j 1.2 is also vulnerable, I am not able to find the relevant source code for it.

Am I missing something that others have identified?

Log4j 1.2 appears to have a vulnerability in the socket-server class, but my understanding is that it needs to be enabled in the first place for it to be applicable and hence is not a passive threat unlike the JNDI-lookup vulnerability which the one identified appears to be.

Is my understanding - that Log4j v1.2 - is not vulnerable to the jndi-remote-code execution bug correct?

• Apache Log4j Security Vulnerabilities

• Zero-day in ubiquitous Log4j tool poses a grave threat to the Internet

• Worst Apache Log4j RCE Zero day Dropped on Internet

• ‘Log4Shell’ vulnerability poses critical threat to applications using ‘ubiquitous’ Java logging package Apache Log4j

This blog post from Cloudflare also indicates the same point as from AKX....that it was introduced from Log4j 2!

Update #1 - A fork of the (now-retired) apache-log4j-1.2.x with patch fixes for few vulnerabilities identified in the older library is now available (from the original log4j author). The site is https://reload4j.qos.ch/. As of 21-Jan-2022 version 1.2.18.2 has been released. Vulnerabilities addressed to date include those pertaining to JMSAppender, SocketServer and Chainsaw vulnerabilities. Note that I am simply relaying this information. Have not verified the fixes from my end. Please refer the link for additional details.

When I use .Internal(inspect()) to NA_real_ and NaN, it returns,

The standard defines several 'happens before' relations that extend the good old 'sequenced before' over multiple threads:

[intro.races]

11 An evaluation A simply happens before an evaluation B if either

(11.1) — A is sequenced before B, or
(11.2) — A synchronizes with B, or
(11.3) — A simply happens before X and X simply happens before B.

[Note 10: In the absence of consume operations, the happens before and simply happens before relations are identical. — end note]

12 An evaluation A strongly happens before an evaluation D if, either

(12.1) — A is sequenced before D, or
(12.2) — A synchronizes with D, and both A and D are sequentially consistent atomic operations ([atomics.order]), or
(12.3) — there are evaluations B and C such that A is sequenced before B, B simply happens before C, and C is sequenced before D, or
(12.4) — there is an evaluation B such that A strongly happens before B, and B strongly happens before D.

[Note 11: Informally, if A strongly happens before B, then A appears to be evaluated before B in all contexts. Strongly happens before excludes consume operations. — end note]

^{(bold mine)}

The difference between the two seems very subtle. 'Strongly happens before' is never true for matching pairs or release-acquire operations (unless both are seq-cst), but it still respects release-acquire syncronization in a way, since operations sequenced before a release 'strongly happen before' the operations sequenced after the matching acquire.

Why does this difference matter?

'Strongly happens before' was introduced in C++20, and pre-C++20, 'simply happens before' used to be called 'strongly happens before'. Why was it introduced?

[atomics.order]/4 says that the total order of all seq-cst operations is consistent with 'strongly happens before'.

Does it mean that it's not consistent with 'simply happens before'? If so, why not?

I'm ignoring the plain 'happens before', because it differs from 'simply happens before' only in its handling of memory_order_consume, the use of which is temporarily discouraged, since apparently most (all?) major compilers treat it as memory_order_acquire.

I've already seen this Q&A, but it doesn't explain why 'strongly happens before' exists, and doesn't fully address what it means (it just states that it doesn't respect release-acquire syncronization, which isn't completely the case).

Found the proposal that introduced 'simply happens before'.

I don't fully understand it, but it explains following:

• 'Strongly happens before' is a weakened version of 'simply happens before'.
• The difference is only observable when seq-cst is mixed with aqc-rel on the same variable (I think, it means when an acquire load reads a value from a seq-cst store, or when an seq-cst load reads a value from a release store). But the exact effects of mixing the two are still unclear to me.

I'm studying for the final exam for my introduction to C++ class. Our professor gave us this problem for practice:

Explain why the code produces the following output: 120 200 16 0

I cannot access a web server on localhost port 5000 on macOS v12 (Monterey) (Flask or any other).

E.g., use the built-in HTTP server, I cannot get onto port 5000:

I'm looking for a way to have all keys / values pair of a nested object.

(For the autocomplete of MongoDB dot notation key / value type)

I am working on a "heartbeat" application that pings hundreds of IP addresses every minute via a loop. The IP addresses are stored in a list of a class Machines. I have a loop that creates a Task (where MachinePingResults is basically a Tuple of an IP and online status) for each IP and calls a ping function using System.Net.NetworkInformation.

The issue I'm having is that after hours (or days) of running, one of the loops of the main program fails to finish the Tasks which is leading to a memory leak. I cannot determine why my Tasks are not finishing (if I look in the Task list during runtime after a few days of running, there are hundreds of tasks that appear as "awaiting"). Most of the time all the tasks finish and are disposed; it is just randomly that they don't finish. For example, the past 24 hours had one issue at about 12 hours in with 148 awaiting tasks that never finished. Due to the nature of not being able to see why the Ping is hanging (since it's internal to .NET), I haven't been able to replicate the issue to debug.

(It appears that the Ping call in .NET can hang and the built-in timeout fail if there is a DNS issue, which is why I built an additional timeout in)

I have a way to cancel the main loop if the pings don't return within 15 seconds using Task.Delay and a CancellationToken. Then in each Ping function I have a Delay in case the Ping call itself hangs that forces the function to complete. Also note I am only pinging IPv4; there is no IPv6 or URL.

Main Loop

I'm getting the following output when executing a fetch / pull via a powershell script:

info: detecting host provider for '[devops site address]'...

Normally, this wouldn't be an issue, however, Azure DevOps sees this output as an error and labels the release stage as such. Is there a way I can either suppress this output, or resolve it via GIT?

The remote location for the repository is an on-prem version of DevOps.

Thanks!