hackable | Personal site starter for NodeJS developers | Content Management System library

In Cloud Functions, I have defined a function that makes somes updates using a batch that I commit. This commit is the return of the function. This function simply computes the number of likes of every post (likes and posts are two distinct collections in my Firestore database). Since the whole code is short and very simple to understand, I show it below.

The fact to like or unlike a post (to add or remove a like document from the likes collection) is done client-side by the app. The fact to compute some statistics (number of likes per post for example) is down server-side in the following Cloud Function. (because if it was client side, it would be hackable, i. e. Bad statistics would be generated and saved + dealing with statistics doesn't concern the Android app directly and so it should definitely be computed server-side).

The important thing to note is: return batch.commit is the return of this Cloud Function.

Problem Statement

1. I would like to identify a package and its description using rpm -qi ${pkgName}.

2. cat -n on the output of (1) will yield me which line on wards description section starts.

   Ex:- 15th Line in case atom IDE editor in rpm.

3. I know I can solve the output and formatting part again using this line number as rpm -qi atom | awk -v n=${lineNum} 'NR>=n'. Here lineNum would be 15.

This is inefficient and I would like to use the rpm -qi command only once and then achieve this extracting out the description section on wards. Does anybody have a way to do this ?

Additional requested input

I have a class library that is full of typical methods that I use a lot, especially in my domain. Most of this library has remained unchanged for years at this point. More adds than changes.

In the library there's a lot of calling methods within the library - using itself.

From a complete optimization point of view - because this lib is used a lot what makes more sense:

Use methods within the lib or re-write the code within every method to avoid calling into another method. What's the cost of calling another method or maybe two methods deep versus having the code in the called method.

For instance, this illustrates a common scenario. This method turns what's typically an ugly URL parameter (with encoded html) into a more simple, hackable, date with dashes. So it gets called hundreds of times maybe thousands on a page by hundreds of users (so maybe not a trivial amount of times?).

The reason I don't think this is pre-optimization or micro optimization (hence why I'm asking) is that since this is a library and is being used by many applications, on the same server, with 100s of users, the "micro" savings could really add up.

I would like to create a custom 2FA on Windows XP (and above) for personal computers.

I know Windows XP is discontinued, but I'm using an old program relying on Windows XP, so for now I'm stuck on it.

I can write C/C++ code, but I don't know C#. So I'm trying to figure out a way to suspend userinit to show my app, then my app will either let userinit do its thing, or logout the user.

I've tried changing userinit in the registry to put my app which would load userinit itself, but it's easily hackable: My app can be closed, leaving the computer in a lockdown state, or taskmgr can be used to launch userinit or explorer.

If there are better way, I'm opened to suggestions, but I'd like to avoid ready made solutions (Rohos Logon Key works but can sometimes be worked around)

i.e. for one, precompiled code is harder to read therefore making it more difficult to meaningfully alter browser code.

How is it more 'sandboxed' than JS, and does this make it less hackable?

"WebAssembly is specified to be run in a safe, sandboxed execution environment." - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly/Concepts

Are there properties of the WASM VM memory format that make it more client-side-hack-resistant?

Anything else?

I am looking for a way to build a blackbox system that can securely run my algorithm and that can output data to a user.

The system would be my own custom linux computer that runs my algorithm and that I would give away to the user. Now what I want is that the user can configure the algorithm through some predefined ports and also receives data from a predefined port. However, the user should not be able to see any source code of the algorithm and at best should not be able to copy the program (however this is not my main regard)

What would be the best approach to do this? It does not have to be super un-hackable security (since this is probably impossible). Just some sort of good security that does not make it too straight forward to see and copy the source code.

The hardware is my custom computer that I can configure how I want it. The program does not need to run anywhere else.

I'm using javascript interface on a webview. is it hackable? and if it is can it risk the client phone?

Given a string s, how can I use transform to create an unordered_map that contains the number of times each character was encountered? Is it worth the bother?

My initial thought was to use transform, but I wasn't sure how to implement the "increment value if exists, else add" part. I ended up using for_each instead.

Using for_each:

I have a web app that uses known username and password combinations to login to external servers. There are multiple username/password combinations used for different services. Right now, they are essentially "hard-coded" into the website code, but, I would like to move this information off the code base for better security.

My initial thought is to store this data in the database which is used to support the website. I want to store it in a way that it is not easily "hackable" (i.e. I'm not going to store it as plain text or as a MD5 hash). Should I follow the same format that I use to store the website user's passwords, where I use a random number generator to create SALT for each password and then store the password as hashed combination of the password and SALT, or would this be overkill?