IANAL nor intelligent, but after skimming the text of the directive I felt like the definition of damage is very limited. In particular, if I understand correctly:

our business to lose this giant contract

would not be covered by this directive, this directive is only about a human being hurt in some way,

thousands of consumers left with bricked devices

would be covered in case of “your game installs a kernel-level anticheat and the anticheat breaks PCs”, but not in the case of “you uploaded an upgrade to a firmware of the washing machine you produced and it bricked the machines”; the directive is not about a product breaking, but about the product breaking your health, other property or data,

my washing machine to eat my dog

is basically the exact case this directive covers.

Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.

But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.

It seems OP wanted to pass the file name to -k, but this parameter takes the password itself and not a filename:

       -k password
           The password to derive the key from. This is for compatibility with previous versions of OpenSSL. Superseded by the -pass argument.

So, as I understand, the password would be not the first line of /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key, but the string /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key itself. It seems that -kfile /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key or -pass file:/etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key is what OP wanted to use.

I like btdu which is essentially ncdu, but works in a way that is useful even if advanced btrfs features (CoW, compression etc.) are used.

I am afraid you are still a bit misled; WireGuard is exactly what they use for the demo video. In general the underlying protocol does not matter, since the vulnerability is about telling the system to direct the packages to the attacker, completely bypassing the VPN.

I really need to try out Mercury one day. When we did a project in Prolog at uni, it felt cool, but also incredibly dynamic in a bad way. There were a few times when we misspelled some clause, which normally would be an error, but in our case it just meant falsehood. We then spent waaay to much time searching for these. I can’t help but think that Mercury would be as fun as Prolog, but less annoying.

I actually use from time to time the Bower email client, which is written in Mercury.

My understanding is that all issues are patched in the mentioned releases, the config flag is not needed for that.

The config flag has been added because supporting clients with different endianness is undertested and most people will never use it. So if it is going to generate vulnerabilities, it makes sense to be able to disable it easily, and to disable it by default on next major release. Indeed XWayland had it disabled by default already, so only the fourth issue (ProcRenderAddGlyphs) is relevant there if that default is not changed.

Edit: Actually, I thought about it, and I don’t think clang’s behavior is wrong in the examples he cites. Basically, you’re using an uninitialized variable, and choosing to use compiler settings which make that legal, and the compiler is saying “Okay, you didn’t give me a value for this variable, so I’m just going to pick one that’s convenient for me and do my optimizations according to the value I picked.” Is that the best thing for it to do? Maybe not; it certainly violates the principle of least surprise. But, it’s hard for me to say it’s the compiler’s fault that you constructed a program that does something surprising when uninitialized variables you’re using happen to have certain values.

You got it correct in this edit. But the important part is that gcc will also do this, and they both are kinda expected to do so. The article cites some standard committee discussions: somebody suggested ensuring that signed integer overflow in C++20 will not UB, and the committee decided against it. Also, somebody suggested not allowing to optimize out the infinite loops like 13 years ago, and then the committee decided that it should be allowed. Therefore, these optimisations are clearly seen as features.

And these are not theoretical issues by any means, there has been this vulnerability in the kernel for instance: https://lwn.net/Articles/342330/ which happened because the compiler just removed a null pointer check.