I’ve been harping on this for a while, but I think heartbleed very quickly became “the bug that leaks private keys” to the extent it obscures understanding of what really happened. Mysterious header data from other headers appearing in a response? Not private key, not heartbleed. The irony is slightly out of place data, but close to valid, is the tell tale sign of such bugs.
Yeah, I was implicitly assuming “after review”. Reading as a role rather than just an activity. The writers did note the possibility of security issues, after all.
The other source for my comment is my past experience writing papers. I’m not sure I would read those if I hadn’t written them.
I’ve been harping on this for a while, but I think heartbleed very quickly became “the bug that leaks private keys” to the extent it obscures understanding of what really happened. Mysterious header data from other headers appearing in a response? Not private key, not heartbleed. The irony is slightly out of place data, but close to valid, is the tell tale sign of such bugs.
The null hypothesis should be that the number of times most journal papers are read is 0.
given that the number of authors on the paper is three I hope that the number is >= 3 at least.
Yeah, I was implicitly assuming “after review”. Reading as a role rather than just an activity. The writers did note the possibility of security issues, after all.
The other source for my comment is my past experience writing papers. I’m not sure I would read those if I hadn’t written them.