top of page

Public·47 members

Attacker You! Episode 8

Red flag number one happens right at the start of the episode when David holds a funeral for Silver Lake resident Alec, whom Joel killed at the end of episode 6. After David is finished preaching, Alec's daughter Hannah (Sonia Maria Chirila) asks when they can bury him. According to David, they can't bury him until the spring, as the winter has made the ground too hard for digging.

Attacker You! Episode 8


Any implied cannibalism throughout this episode officially becomes confirmed cannibalism once Ellie sees a severed human ear on the floor of the room where she's held. It's a less graphic version of her discovery in the game, where she sees James butchering a corpse right in front of her, but that doesn't make it any less terrifying. Also terrifying? David's calm admission that his community eats people...and that not everybody in Silver Lake knows! Feeding people their friends and family without their knowledge is about as monstrous as you can get, survival be damned.

"You have a violent heart, and I should know," he tells her. "I've always had a violent heart, and I struggled with it for a long time." With this, David cements himself as possibly the most dangerous person Ellie has encountered so far. By this point in the episode, my heart is already in my stomach, but would you believe that it gets worse?

"What does Cordyceps do? Is it evil?" David asks Ellie. "No. It's fruitful, it multiplies. It feeds and protects its children, and it secures its future with violence if it must. It loves." His entire speech is tinged with frightening fanaticism, but what's scarier is that there's some truth in it. David's focus on the "love" of Cordyceps calls back to the fungal kiss we saw between Tess and one of the infected in episode 2.

The sequence where David and James throw Ellie on the butcher's block is the closest she has come to death this entire episode, and that's saying something. Ellie's quick thinking about revealing she's infected buys her enough time to kill James and escape, but I'd be lying if I said the thud of David's cleaver on the table next to her ear didn't make me jump out of my skin.

The Last of Us largely avoids the threat of sexual violence towards Ellie, but that changes in this episode and especially in the final moments of Ellie's fight with David. He pins her down as fire rages around him and tells her, "I thought you already knew. The fighting is the part I like the most." Then, in a disturbing reminder of his speech about Cordyceps, he says, "Don't be afraid. There's no fear in love."

The Last of Us thankfully doesn't get more explicit than that, but the heavily implied threat of assault is more than enough to cement this as the most horrifying episode of the show. The very last shot of David's face, framed by fire, positions him as an unequivocal monster, and it's a relief when Ellie repeatedly takes a cleaver to him moments later.

And that is what I felt this episode was really about. It was widely acknowledged before this season started that the show was heading back to the monster-of-the-week format, and that is what this episode essentially is. But the rules have changed.

Xavier overhears his brother, Jack, and Jack's friend, Sam talk about how Sam was caught shoplifting at the store Clothes Over Bros. Xavier listens to Sam calling her names and saying that someone has to put her in her place. With this in mind, that night, Xavier goes into Brooke's store with a mask on and attacks her. He knocks her over a sofa in her store and begins beating her helpless. He steals Brooke's sketches and also ends his attack by telling Brooke to 'Have a nice night.' After the attack, Brooke is left traumatized and feels insecure in herself and thus resorts to carrying around a gun and training to fight back for the day she finds her attacker. She also decides not to report the crime to the police due to paparazzi interference and not wanting to involve anyone else. After a successful attack on Brooke's store, Xavier continues breaking the law and robs a gas station. After killing a worker at the gas station, Xavier is shocked when a person arrives to pay for his gas. Quentin, a high school student and promising basketball player, walks in the shop and goes to pay, but notices something is wrong with Xavier who is at the counter. Quentin notices the dead worker behind the counter and looks up in shock as Xavier points a gun at him and hammily tells him to have a nice night. He shoots the gun, killing Quentin and leaving a string of grief around the town of Tree Hill. Sam eventually finds out from Jack that it was Xavier who attacked Brooke because of what she said. She tells Brooke that night of the attack she caused and Brooke lets Sam leave. ("Touch Me I'm Going to Scream, Part 1").("One Million Billionth of a Millisecond on a Sunday Morning") ("You Have to Be Joking (Autopsy of the Devil's Brain)")

If she had given up and not connected with Dan, it might have never changed for her. But Dan's willingness to believe and understand Kirby, even if it made no sense, propelled her forward in her quest to find her attacker and stop his murderous game.

Mark Rowley, the national lead for counterterrorism policing, told reporters that there were four dead, including the attacker, and 29 people have been treated in hospitals. Seven people are in critical condition, he said.

In our news wrap Wednesday, chaos erupted outside Britain's Parliament building when an attacker drove into a crowd and stabbed a policeman. At least four people died. Also, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a stark warning to European states over rallies of Turkish emigres ahead of a referendum on expanding his powers next month.

In the day's other news: Chaos erupted outside Britain's Parliament Building, and when it was over, at least four people were dead. They included an attacker who drove into a crowd, a policeman he stabbed before being shot dead, and two civilians hit by the car.

A second person seen here being treated on the left of this picture is believed to be the attacker who's been shot by police. As news spreads, so does panic. Tourists run away, and then we hear the sound of gunshots.

And whilst we currently believe there was only one attacker, I'm sure the public will understand us taking every precaution in locking down and searching the area as thoroughly and exhaustively as possible.

1 - Public print server of Internet allows any non admin user to install the printer, and grand system admin rights to attacker.... You understand that a simple script could achieve this on any Windows machine with an internet access, brilliant - Remote print server gives anyone Windows admin privileges on a PC , I let you just imagine how easy it is to take over a system with this.

One of the most widely accepted truths in computer security is that the community is playing a game we are destined to lose: attackers will always have quantitatively less work per unit time and more operational leeway than defenders. Computer scientists and policy analysts share a quest to understand and conquer the advantages that accrue to an attacker by dint of this asymmetry. Like all hard truths, it is difficult to accept that we are engaged in an ultimately useless endeavor, and so we persevere in incremental improvements that do nothing to change the underlying structure. Is it really possible to eliminate or significantly reduce the inherent edge that attackers possess? If it is, should we? This essay considers the nature of asymmetry in cybersecurity. Embedded in this consideration is the need to bridge the language difference between the security community and policy experts. The first reaction to deal with this communication barrier is to link the worlds via analogy. This instinct is vitally wrong. The jargon used in the field of computer security versus that of public policy raises artificial barriers to mutual understanding, diminishing our ability to address the challenges of an asymmetric adversary.

There are a variety of partial answers to the question above, including market pressures (e.g., make the software work and bolt on security later) and user-interface or user-experience shortcomings, but the underlying reason is the existence of an imbalance between the respective workloads of attackers and defenders. The rational defender must protect against all known (and unknown) vulnerabilities, while the rational attacker need only find one flaw or vulnerability. Accepting this truth leads to the recognition of a fundamental imbalance in effort between attacker and defender. Defenders, if they are not to play a hopeless game, must constantly identify and eliminate flaws in their defence posture. The defender must constantly play the role of all the conceivable possible attackers. But the imaginations of defenders are constrained because they are thinking of how things should work rather than how they can be made to fail.

So which view is correct? The core of the asymmetric model of cybersecurity is the focus on the distribution of vulnerabilities. Most computers share the same vulnerabilities. This monoculture provides a force multiplier to an attacker.3 An attacker needs only develop a small set of exploits for a small number of vulnerabilities over a short time scale and then repeatedly reap the rewards of this investment. Defenders, on the other hand, must identify and fix a larger number of vulnerabilities in a smaller timescale. This is the heart of the asymmetric problem: defenders have comparatively more cost in relatively less time. Even if a single vulnerability is eliminated, the attacker can still rely on the potency of the rest of their collection to attack the rest of the computing population.

Whether you like or dislike that definition, here is a subversive thought arising from it: maybe we should not seek to eliminate asymmetry after all. Perhaps the status quo is a desirable equilibrium. Perhaps you do not want to eliminate the attacker's advantage because one day, the attacker might be you. 041b061a72


Velkommen til gruppen! Du kan få kontakt med andre medlemmer...
bottom of page