●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, January 27, 2024 ●● ● Jan 27 [04:23] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:47] *gnulinuxuser (~monkeybusiness@m5q38i7r34uc6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [06:36] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [08:07] schestowitz[TR]
  • [08:07] schestowitz[TR]
    Graphical Monitoring of Statistics Shared by Processes
    [08:07] schestowitz[TR]
    [08:07] schestowitz[TR]

    YottaDB processes can opt to share their operational database statistics. If at process startup, the environment variable ydb_statshare is 1. Optionally, the environment variable ydb_statsdir can be set to a temporary directory for sharing and monitoring.

    [08:07] schestowitz[TR]
    [08:07] schestowitz[TR]
    • [08:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Graphical Monitoring of Statistics Shared by Processes - YottaDB [08:56] schestowitz[TR]
  • [08:56] schestowitz[TR]
    Thousands of GitLab Instances Unpatched Against Critical Password Reset Bug
    [08:56] schestowitz[TR]
    [08:56] schestowitz[TR]

    Tracked as CVE-2023-7028 (CVSS score of 10), the issue allows attackers to have password reset messages sent to unverified email addresses under their control, potentially leading to account takeover.

    [08:56] schestowitz[TR]

    The flaw was introduced in GitLab 16.1.0, when a new option was added to allow users to have password reset messages sent to a secondary email address and allowed for these messages to be sent to unverified addresses.

    [08:56] schestowitz[TR]
    [08:56] schestowitz[TR]
    • [08:56] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Thousands of GitLab Instances Unpatched Against Critical Password Reset Bug - SecurityWeek ● Jan 27 [10:02] *sajat (~sajat@freenode-msg.p61.s2eq7b.IP) has joined #techbytes [10:02] *sajat (~sajat@freenode-msg.p61.s2eq7b.IP) has joined #techbytes [10:24] *SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@n8hky56paq4ma.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [12:10] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [12:10] *acer-box has quit (Connection closed) [12:10] *acer-box has quit (Connection closed) [12:10] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:13] *Disconnected (Remote host closed socket). [12:13] *Disconnected (Remote host closed socket). [12:16] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [12:16] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:28] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [12:28] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:35] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [12:35] *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:35] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [12:35] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:39] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [12:44] *Now talking on #techbytes [12:44] *Now talking on #techbytes [12:44] *schestowitz[TR] (~schestowi@freenode-ll1sn1.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [14:13] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [14:14] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:44] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [14:49] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [15:46] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [15:50] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [15:55] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [16:01] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [16:02] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:03] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [16:03] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:11] *synapse has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:11] *synapse has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:13] *synapse (~synapse@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:13] *synapse (~synapse@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:20] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [16:22] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:35] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes ● Jan 27 [17:53] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [17:57] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [18:03] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [18:23] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Jan 27 [22:05] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) [22:36] schestowitz[TR] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/upc-munich-local-division-takes-novel.html?showComment=1706268461917#c8376487880173107141 [22:36] schestowitz[TR] "Added-matter is indeed a powerful attack in opposition at the EPO. When looking at national case law, it is manifest that the way added-matter is handled is quite different, actually more lenient.

    The EPO as granting authority is bound by the case law of the BA/EBA. Before obtaining a European patent monopoly with or without unitary effect, the first instance divisions will apply the Guidelines and the case law of the E [22:36] schestowitz[TR] BA. It might thus happen, that a patent monopoly is not even granted due to added-matter.

    In case of a parallel opposition and infringement/validity litigation at the UPC, we might end up with contrary decisions between the BA/EBA of the EPO as to the validity. The UPC might consider the patent monopoly valid, not having problems with added-matter, and infringed, whereas at the end of the opposition procedure, the patent [22:36] schestowitz[TR] monopoly might be revoked by the BA for added-matter.

    Nobody has ever required the UPC to wholesale import all case law from the EPO. There are however strong supporters of the UPC, for instance Sir Robin Jacob, who press the EPO to accept the case law of the UPC. I doubt that this will ever happen.

    When you look at the case law of the BA/EBA, the reasons for the very strict approach in added-matter, it is c [22:36] schestowitz[TR] lear that applicants/proprietors would be unduly advantaged if added-matter would be tolerated, and this would be unfair to third parties. Coming up with fairness for litigants is thus not convincing at all.

    The UPC is already advantaging litigants as the basic fee for infringement is much lower than that for a nullity action. There is no reasonable explanation for this discrepancy in basic fees." [22:36] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC Munich Local Division takes a novel approach to claim interpretation (SES vs Hanshow, UPC-CFI-292/2023) - The IPKat [22:37] schestowitz[TR] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/upc-munich-local-division-takes-novel.html?showComment=1706268708564#c4954995977663329446 [22:37] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | UPC Munich Local Division takes a novel approach to claim interpretation (SES vs Hanshow, UPC-CFI-292/2023) - The IPKat [22:38] schestowitz[TR] "Before we can say what the case law of the UPC will be, we will have to wait until the Court of Appeal gives a series of decisions. This will take some time.

    German judges of the Munich LD might have departed in a single case from the German patentee-friendly doctrine and asserted their independence, but this does by no way mean that it will be the position of th UPC as a whole. " ● Jan 27 [23:32] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [23:32] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes