And he didn't know the PIN so he could have unlocked it with the PIN, locked the phone again and then show FaceID working.
I don't think so...it didn't work....
Add something like an Authenticating Hash that depends on a secured secret (eg. Cert that is installed in non-removal mode in window slls store.
Run the check on the binary stream of JSON before using JSON deserializer type inference.
Alternatively, maybe add JSON schema to validate first... or be explicit with the expected types for what is being deserialised...so no type inference is used.
N.B. i haven't read the paper yet...but will in a few hrs time. So i could possibly amend this comment.
If someone would spend a little time and look at the history of programming languages, then they'd quickly realise that OOP wasn't about Anthropomorphism, polymorphism, or any other 'isms.
OOP came about for the simple reason of maintainability! If you look at the history of programing languages, then you'll find that new programming paradigms appeared when programming maintainability suffered. Assembly gave way to high level procedural/functional languages, which gave way to OO languages, which gave way to "Interface" abstractions and now we are moving into the Message Passing type paradigm as a result of needing to build massive scale.
(I read somewhere way way WAY back that effective maintainability for procedural languages maxes out at about 5M likes of code, OOP was about 50M lines max, whilst Interface oriented methodologies was somewhere above 50M...although that was based on the fact that you could organise you code better by not having to have libraries derive from ACMEObject, although these those base classes form the runtime type info/serialisation/etc. within language BCLs, whereas the BLCs generally are organised around multiple, unrelated trees of objects these days).
Whilst many of the concepts are not new (e.g. functional languages are fairly old), it has taken time for languages to integrate those concepts into base languages...some of the more recent languages incorporate these concepts...some are bolted on as libraries.
One interesting aspect to the whole history is that whilst functional languages existed very early one (I heard hat a functional language was the second high level language after FORTRAN...possibly wrong...but early...non the less), functional languages don't see to suffer as much from the whole saleability issues...probably a result being more expressive, and being able to represent the target program state using less types/objects.
There's a lot to learn about software...just take a look at the history, and you'll be a better developer for it.
Slashdot Mirror
And he didn't know the PIN so he could have unlocked it with the PIN, locked the phone again and then show FaceID working. I don't think so...it didn't work....
Add something like an Authenticating Hash that depends on a secured secret (eg. Cert that is installed in non-removal mode in window slls store. Run the check on the binary stream of JSON before using JSON deserializer type inference. Alternatively, maybe add JSON schema to validate first... or be explicit with the expected types for what is being deserialised...so no type inference is used. N.B. i haven't read the paper yet...but will in a few hrs time. So i could possibly amend this comment.
If someone would spend a little time and look at the history of programming languages, then they'd quickly realise that OOP wasn't about Anthropomorphism, polymorphism, or any other 'isms. OOP came about for the simple reason of maintainability! If you look at the history of programing languages, then you'll find that new programming paradigms appeared when programming maintainability suffered. Assembly gave way to high level procedural/functional languages, which gave way to OO languages, which gave way to "Interface" abstractions and now we are moving into the Message Passing type paradigm as a result of needing to build massive scale. (I read somewhere way way WAY back that effective maintainability for procedural languages maxes out at about 5M likes of code, OOP was about 50M lines max, whilst Interface oriented methodologies was somewhere above 50M...although that was based on the fact that you could organise you code better by not having to have libraries derive from ACMEObject, although these those base classes form the runtime type info/serialisation/etc. within language BCLs, whereas the BLCs generally are organised around multiple, unrelated trees of objects these days). Whilst many of the concepts are not new (e.g. functional languages are fairly old), it has taken time for languages to integrate those concepts into base languages...some of the more recent languages incorporate these concepts...some are bolted on as libraries. One interesting aspect to the whole history is that whilst functional languages existed very early one (I heard hat a functional language was the second high level language after FORTRAN...possibly wrong...but early...non the less), functional languages don't see to suffer as much from the whole saleability issues...probably a result being more expressive, and being able to represent the target program state using less types/objects. There's a lot to learn about software...just take a look at the history, and you'll be a better developer for it.
That's why sensible people use Android...at least you know how its broken...better than Apples rose colored glasses...
How 'bout..Metric!