I'm a bit perplexed by the choice of Nintendo Switch as the example hardware. I was under the impression that the switch was locked down and you can't run offset based cheat software like cheatengine on it.
It's essentially exactly the same as when people refer to the US as 'America'. While the US does not encompass all of the American continent, there is only one political entity called 'America' so it's not ambigious.
Where in the world have you found any indication that any international law makes any distinction between defensive and offensive war in terms of annexation of land?
The way it works is that the goverment (The politicians in executive positions) are allowed to write policy for all goverment agencies but they're not legally allowed to tell the agency how to handle any given individual case.
To illustrate how crazy good Games Workshop are at what they do. Mattel has 10x the revenue of Games Workshop but both companies pull in the same net income.
They're both plastic companies at their core, but GW have margins that Mattel could only dream of.
You're looking at the wrong market. Games Workshop are not a "battlefield simulation" company. They're a miniature company or if you want to look at it more broadly, they're a company selling molded plastic.
The battlefield simulation is only a means to an end of convincing consumers to buy high margin plastic.
If it was a real company that would be the case. However from what I've read the journalists looking into BAC Consulting has found it to be a company in name only with no actual offices or hungarian employees.
It makes me slightly curious which company Israel convinced to actually produce these pagers and radios.
For instance, when Apollo Gold lisenced their pagers to a little known hungarian company, having their brand used as a bomb delivery device in the middle-east was not something they would have had on their list of potential brand risks.
So now companies engaged in international business not only have to consider exposure to the usual fraud, but also if their counterpart is actively malicious.
It's also likely going to make nation states start thinking about supply chains they maybe didn't before. How do you know someone didn't put explosives in your mice, keyboards, monitors, headsets and various other things that were probably manufactured in china?
Bomb sniffing dogs can't detect every explosive compound under the sun. They're trained on some of the most common ones but there are almost infinite variations of explosive chemistries.
Now that the pandoras box of mass booby trapping electronic devices has been opened, who is to say we won't see tit for tat retaliations with other supply chain attacks?
Will every teddy bear now need to be scanned for explosives before entering the country?
It's like cluster bombs and landmines. You have no idea where all these things are. You have no idea how many of them exploded and which didn't and it's extremely hard to clean up the duds.
Yeah, I can't say I'm a big fan of this massive scale booby trapping devices all over civilian society and I suspect most nation stats are not very happy about this either. The EU is probably not going to be happy at all about Israel using an EU flagged company to do it either.
This is going to create a lot of distrust in the international supply chain.
Hezbollah like most other similar organisations is not a primarily military organisation even though they are a paramilitary one. The vast majority of the members of Hezbollah have non-military roles of various kinds.
According to Routers, they were bought at the same time as the pagers 5 months ago. So I would bet on it being the same supply chain operation that targeted both devices and maybe other devices that were bought at the same time.
Now we don't yet know which radios exactly these are. But more likely then not, wouldn't these be from the exact same supply chain attack and maybe even come in the same shipment?
It's not about mutable memory attacks, it's about not understanding the purpose of argv[0]. argv[0] is an argument, you are supposed to be able to set it to whatever you want. You are not supposed to rely on an argument to identify a program, that is nonsensical.
The problem here isn't argv[0], the problem is security software not understanding what argv[0] is and if you want security software to better be able to identify processes, the solution isnt changing argv[0], it's implementing an actual process ID checking.