Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-29 18:08 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-29 15:20 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-29 01:53 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-29 10:34 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-05-01 12:31 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-30 05:05 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-27 02:51 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-13 01:08 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

Reply OldYeller26 2025-04-30 17:06 @Williams: According to TOR Scam List (http://torscamismihh6gxwz...i2evtfxh5nid.onion/verified), 'http://en4zd7ksyeclnudjaovlpsileinfl5jfftb5dmqapnvgeeschtjm6qad.onion' is the real site.

As PaX Team noted in 2015 : > but for this to be safe, the RW mapping should be in a separate process. note that this is a weakness in the current mprotect based method as well as there's still a nice race window for overwriting the JIT generated code. the only safe way i know of for JIT codegen is to basically fall back to what amounts to AOT codegen, i.e., a separate process (this would make it compatible with MPROTECT in PaX). there's prior art for the V8 engine btw, check out the SDCG work...