That’s not a valid key. OpenSSH keys are not arbitrary bytes, they contain at least the type of the certificate used and a hostname.
The fact that this is not a valid key does not mean you need to reverse engineer public keys. By design you can just get a public key with a private one.
What do you mean “reverse engineer”?
From man ssh-keygen:
-y This option will read a private OpenSSH format file and print an OpenSSH public key to stdout.
I would try various CLI tools for poking the file, see if maybe it’s some specific page that’s broken and you can drop exactly that page or if splitting it into separate pages and assembling it back would magically fix it.
Worst case you’ll at least understand better what’s wrong with the file.
I know of QPDF and stapler.
If you are going to look for other ones, be sure to find those that are not just wrappers around the ones you already tried.
If you have a Linux machine, have you tried poking it with file? Alternatively you may try to match the first couple of bytes against the known magic bytes manually. Other than that it’s pretty hard to say for sure without the file itself.
Why do you need some terminal remote control for determining the working directory of a terminal exactly? Can’t you just go down the process tree until you find the shell and do realpath /proc/<pid>/cwd on it? Am I missing something?
Bitcoin uses two rounds of SHA256 if I recall correctly.
SHA1 has a fairly even distribution, it produces 160 bit digests, so each possible variation of a chunk will have a roughly 2-160 probability to hit your hash. Now assuming you have some insane computing device that can do an exahash per hour (that’s 1018 hashes, a lot more than any modern hardware can do), finding one would take around 1.7E+26 years. Now the funniest part. Assuming your chunk is 32KiB large (practically nobody uses such small chunks today, so it’s the best-case scenario), there are 2^(32×210×23)/2160 possible variations of the chunk that would produce your exact hash. That’s roughly 1.1E+78865 fitting chunks with only one being correct. And it takes you 1.7E+26 years to get to just one of them.
absolutely could be brute forced
Yea, I wouldn’t say that.
No harm in it apart from people looking weird at you.
A bit more important: wrap your parameter expansions in double quotation marks. E.g. ${probe_output} → "${probe_output}" Otherwise bash will do globbing and splitting on it and you most likely don’t want that. Often times it’s not required, but it’s a good habit to have just in case.
Another one is passing -r to read so that it won’t feast on your backslashes.
It doesn’t actually matter, but the syntax indeed does not include {}. You are just creating an extra grouping for no reason.
Is it the infamous “run ffmpeg in a while loop and have it slurp your stdin” case? Try adding -nostdin to your ffmpeg call.
God I’m glad I’m not using anything Google…
If you ever have to do something like this again, rclone supports mounting Google Drive, at which point you’ll be able to work with it as if it’s a proper filesystem.
I don’t know, but a lot of people in this thread seem to suggest that it’s them not being a native speaker that’s the problem.
In my experience it’s actually the opposite, so many native speakers mess up things like your/you’re, it’s insane. Well, any time something is off about the English grammar on the internet, we blame the American education system.
Sometimes it’s funny, though. Like “for all intensive purposes”.
Your advice is falling on deaf ears, I reckon it’s a sentence prediction tool behind the OP account, not a human.
The Japanese: こんにちは！
That’s understandable, pirating is fine, selling pirated content is totally not.
You might try contacting the person who shared those, maybe they’ll still share if you promise not to sell it.
Something like this?
Put suspicious cats into sandboxes until it’s proven that they are crewmates.
You can use less. There are also specialized ones for that purpose like bat.
In C# it’s certainly a label, it’s the same syntax and you can also jump to them with
goto, which is actually very convenient sometimes. As far as I know this is an ancient feature and seeing how early C# was mostly inspired by C, I would expect it to behave the same way there.