今日已更新 50 条资讯 | 累计 24336 条内容
关于我们

标签：#rce

找到 1717 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

I built a zero-dependency TypeScript env validator

Every Node.js developer has been burned by this at least once: const port = parseInt ( process . env . PORT ); // NaN if PORT is missing const db = process . env . DATABASE_URL ; // string | undefined — not safe! Your app starts fine locally, then crashes in production because someone forgot to set an env var. The error shows up 3 hours later, not at startup. The solution I built @harmand66/typesafe-env — a tiny, zero-dependency library that validates and types your environment variables at boot time. import { createEnv } from ' @harmand66/typesafe-env ' ; const env = createEnv ({ PORT : { type : ' number ' , default : 3000 }, DATABASE_URL : { type : ' string ' , required : true }, DEBUG : { type : ' boolean ' , default : false }, }); // ✅ TypeScript knows PORT is a number env . PORT + 1 // 3001 — not "30001" env . DATABASE_URL // string — guaranteed, never undefined If anything is missing or wrong, your app fails immediately at startup with a clear message: All errors at once — no more fixing them one by one. Why not Zod? Zod is great but it's 57kb and requires a lot of boilerplate for this specific use case. @harmand66/typesafe-env is zero dependencies and does one thing well. Try it npm install @harmand66/typesafe-env GitHub: https://github.com/giannielloemmanuele-lgtm/typesafe-env npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@harmand66/typesafe-env Would love any feedback or contributions! 🙏

2026-06-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Introducing UIAble — A Free, Open-Source UI Library

Today, we’re excited to launch UIAble v1.0, an open-source component library built for developers, by developers. We explored a lot of UI libraries built on Shadcn. Most of them feel nearly identical — same structure, same aesthetic, same tradeoffs. That’s what pushed us to build something different. Not another library that looks like Shadcn with a coat of paint, but a design system with its own identity and a clearer sense of what it’s actually for. Why UIAble exists After enough frontend projects, one thing becomes obvious: the same UI patterns get rebuilt again and again. Inputs. Dialogs. Tables. Alerts. Dropdowns. OTP fields. Form validation states. Not because they’re hard to build, but because most existing libraries never quite fit real project requirements. Some are too opinionated. Some pile on unnecessary abstraction. Some become rigid after initial setup. And some make simple UI unnecessarily complicated. That friction is what led to UIAble. Not to launch another oversized library, just to build a cleaner, more practical foundation for modern frontend development. What UIAble actually is UIAble is a free, open-source UI component library built with Tailwind CSS , Shadcn-style architecture , and Base UI principles . The idea is straightforward: reusable components should stay flexible, readable, and easy to maintain. Instead of pulling projects into a rigid ecosystem, UIAble gives you components you can copy directly into your codebase, edit freely, and scale without fighting the library. No lock-in. No unnecessary abstraction. No dependency trap. What makes it different in practice A few things actually matter here. You get the code. UIAble doesn’t hide logic behind layers of packaging. You see the component. You edit it. You ship it. That alone changes how teams work with UI. It’s built for real product UI, not showcase pages. A lot of UI kits look great in demos and fall apart in production. UIAble focuses on the unglamorous stuff, forms that don’t bre

2026-06-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Agent-Ready Commerce, Part 5: Keeping ACP, MCP, and AP2 Adapters Thin

Protocol adapters are one of the easiest places for agent-commerce architecture to drift. An adapter begins with the narrow responsibility of translating an external protocol request into something the commerce platform understands. For example, an MCP-style tool may ask for return terms, an ACP-style interaction may ask whether checkout can be prepared, an AP2-related flow may carry payment authority information, and an internal feed may publish product capabilities. Those are adapter concerns at the boundary. The problem starts when the adapter does more than translate. It checks product availability from catalog fields. It interprets policy text. It decides whether checkout is ready. It treats a payment artifact as authority. It turns a domain blocker into a softer protocol response. Each shortcut may solve an integration problem locally, but it also creates a second place where commercial meaning is decided. When several adapters exist, those local decisions begin to diverge. The MCP tool may block return-policy quotation, the ACP adapter may expose the product as purchasable, the feed may publish it as checkout-ready, and the AP2-related flow may reject delegated payment. At that point, the platform does not only have multiple integrations. It has multiple interpretations of the same commercial state. This is the adapter problem in agent-ready commerce: semantic drift at the protocol boundary. The adapter should know how to speak the protocol. It should not decide product truth, policy meaning, eligibility, checkout validity, or payment authority. Those decisions belong inside the commerce platform, where they can be shared, tested, evidenced, and audited. This is the fifth article in the Agent-Ready Commerce series. Part 1 introduced the broader architecture model: Facts → Eligibility → Authority → State transition → Evidence → Audit Part 2 focused on commercial truth. It argued that catalog data is not enough. A platform needs source-backed, freshness-aware p

2026-06-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

I built an AWS access recertification engine that actually enforces the decision

The access you revoked in your last review is probably still live. I know how that sounds, but it is how most access recertification actually works. A tool generates a list, an owner clicks approve or revoke, the cycle gets marked complete, and then nothing touches the real resources. The review produces a record. The permissions stay exactly where they were. You attested to a state that was never made true. That gap bothered me for a long time, so I built something to close it and open-sourced it on AWS's aws-samples org. It is called VIGIL. The core idea A normal review answers one question: should this access still exist? The owner says no, a ticket gets filed, and maybe someone actions it next quarter. Between the decision and the change, the risk just sits there. I wanted the decision and the change to be the same step. So VIGIL does four things: It discovers resources by their owner tag and works out who actually has access to each one. It asks the owner to keep, trim, or remove that access. It applies that decision on the live resource. It records what happened in a way you can later prove. The part I care about most: scoped enforcement The lazy way to revoke someone's access to one bucket is to detach their policies. That nukes their access to everything, and it is how you cause an incident while trying to improve security. VIGIL never does that. If the access came from a bucket policy, it removes just that principal, or just the specific actions, from that bucket's policy. If the access came from the principal's own IAM policy, it adds a resource-scoped explicit Deny instead of touching shared policy, so nothing else the principal can do is affected. In practice it can remove only s3:PutObject for one principal on one bucket and leave everything else alone. If a change cannot be made safely and narrowly, it raises a ticket instead of guessing. I would rather it do nothing than do something broad. Making enforcement durable Enforcement is not a synchronous c

2026-06-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Prophet and the Price Cut

Two things happened this month and they tell you everything about where AI is actually going. Coinbase quietly cut its AI bill nearly in half. Open models, smarter routing, better caching. No drama. A finance footnote that happens to be a glimpse of the future. And Dario Amodei published another essay. Not a tweet. An essay. The kind of sprawling, twenty-thousand-word civilizational scripture he keeps handing down from the mount. This one is called "Policy on the AI Exponential," and the gist is that AI is about to hand humanity "almost unimaginable power," that our institutions are too immature to hold it, and that therefore the government should be able to test, gate, and block frontier models before mere mortals get hurt. One of these is a price cut. The other is a prophecy. I want to talk about the prophecy. The robes Let me be fair before I am not. Dario is not a dumb man and he is not a fraud. He runs one of the best labs in the world. The safety concerns are not all imaginary. Misuse is real. I am not the guy arguing that anyone should be able to download a bioweapon recipe for a laugh. If that is the bar, sure, regulate it. Nobody serious disagrees. But watch the move he keeps making. Every few months the prophet descends with a new text. The stakes are always civilizational. The language is always biblical. "Unimaginable power." A "decent possibility" of "significant enduring job loss." Disruption that will be "unusually painful." Humanity handed a force it is not mature enough to wield. He is not describing a product roadmap. He is describing a flood. And conveniently, he is also selling the ark. That is the part that should make you tilt your head. Read the actual proposal Strip the poetry off "Policy on the AI Exponential" and here is the machinery underneath. Mandatory third-party testing for any model above a compute threshold. Authorized evaluators. Security standards. Incident reporting. Government authority to block or reverse a deployment that fail

2026-06-29 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →