►
From YouTube: .NET Core Design Reviews: SecureString
Description
In this review, we'll discuss what we do with SecureString moving forward.
B
Right
so
we're
live
now
all
right.
In
this
meeting,
we
would
like
to
talk
about
secure
strings
so
there's
some
features:
every
phonebooks,
organ
secure
strings
and
all
the
environments
who
support
the
core
right
now
and
we
brought
it
in
I
think
probably
the
dependency
because
of
process.
So
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
is
that
it
will
remove.
Secure
string
are
not
supported
on
a
core.
What
is
a
meaningful
process,
and
the
other
thing
that
we
want
to
talk
about
is
like
what
the
problems
are
with
secured
string
like.
C
B
D
So
I
think
the
biggest
challenge
with
securing
this,
that
you
cannot
have
a
good
implementation
for
it
on
unix,
and
I
think
that
was
the
first
thing
that
made
us.
The
revisiting
whole
concept
of
I
secure
string
exists
and
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
correct
the
other
thing
that
while
we
were
discussing
secure
strings
which
that
the
encryption
support
is
minimalistic
and
the
whole
idea
of
trying
to
reduce
the
attack,
surface
area
does
not
make
sense
from
a
secure
perspective.
Because
you
already
have
boundaries
where
it
can
be
attacked.
A
There
are
a
couple
things
so
for
Linux.
The
problem
is
right
now
for
our
Windows
implementation.
We
use
the
kernel
to
manage
the
key,
so
the
key
is
not
inside
the
process
or
processed
when
it
goes.
If
it
makes
it
up
to
through
Watson,
then
no
one
here
theoretically
can
get
the
key
unless
it
was
a
full
kernel.
Memory
dump,
which
we
shouldn't
have.
A
The
Linux
has
no
user
space
API
to
use
a
kernel
managed
key,
so
we
would
have
to
use
a
user
space
key,
which
would
be
a
deviation
and
once
we're
deviating.
Then
everything
comes
up
questioning
again.
The
other
is
any
time
you're
trying
to
use
the
value
of
secure
strings
for
your
appending
characters
into
it.
A
Inside
the
code
it
says:
decrypt
do
a
bunch
of
stuff
you're
susceptible
to
a
heap
dump
right
now
that
has
it
in
clear
text
and
then
it
encrypts
again
whenever
you're
done
working
with
it
so
and
then,
if
you've
made
a
second
pointer
to
it,
so
you
can
pass
it
to
a
native
API.
You
like
that,
still
there
somewhere
so
again
a
process
stub
will
contain
that
data.
A
E
B
Or
does
it
work
in
Windows
like
I
mean
windows?
My
understanding
is
your
first
of
all,
the
problem
of
the
track
badly
speaking
always
happens
it.
The
way
you
construct
a
secure
string
is
by
just
appending
charge.
You
have
to
eat
them
from
somewhere
either
by
the
console
by
typing
it
in.
But
if
you
get
in
a
string
you
already
lost,
because
the
string
is
now
in
the
hips.
So
let's
assume
we
get
this
thing
or
the
actual
password,
not
as
this
frame,
whereas
it's
sequence
of
characters.
You
don't
have
that
problem.
E
It's
going
to
to
is
it's
that
API,
so
the
when
you
try
to
marshal
a
secure
string,
the
marshal
or
doesn't
actually
understand
the
secure
string
type,
so
the
API
that
you
call
is
actually
going
to
have
to
convert
it
to
a
pointer
to
a
wide
character
array
before
passing
it
into
win32
api.
At
that
point,
at
that
conversion,
like
jeremy
said,
the
data
is
now
in
plain
text
in
now.
E
Presumably
the
color
is
going
to
clean
that
data
up
and
he's
done
again
just
to
kind
of
eliminate
it,
but
that
window
is
now
there
so
the
type
it's
kind
of
a
misnomer,
because
secure
string
by
itself
as
a
storage
mechanism
is
fine,
but
you
storing
data
is
only
half
the
problem
at
some
point.
You
actually
have
to
use
it
right,
so
secure.
D
E
We
should
so
secure
string
is
complemented
by
two
different
api's
on
the
Marshall
class.
One
is
securing
to
unmanaged
memory
and
the
other
is
zero
and
three
unmanaged
memory.
Whatever
code
calls
secure
string,
unmanaged
memory
is
responsible
for
call
a
complimentary,
zero
free
in
theory
that
should
be
framework
rather
than
application.
B
In
the
sense,
the
only
thing
to
careering
provides
is
essentially
feel
small
rights,
but
if
you've
still
at
a
very
inopportune
time,
get
a
handle
on
the
on
the
process
memory,
you
may
still
get
the
password
right
so
that
in
that
sense
it's
not
secure
it's
less
insecure.
It
gets
less
insecure
exchange,
eliminate
I.
Think
the
other
problem
that
I
heard
so
far
is
that,
like
apparently
like
in
I
think
WinRT,
we
can't
even
call
the
encryption
eight
guys
for
some
reason.
So
we
can
tear
up
lies
an
encryption
mechanism.
E
A
Yeah
and
with
the
WinRT
effort,
there
were
some
changes
recently
to
the
API
that
we
called
and
then
asp
net
was
like
hey.
We
usually
run
under
virtual
users.
They
don't
have
profiles
in
the
api
you're
calling
that
requires
user
profile.
So
we
now
it's
a
regression.
Yes,
so
the
the
core
FX
version
right
now
works
in
very
few
of
our
target
scenarios.
Yeah.
So.
E
E
I'll,
add
to
the
GC
now
make
not
necessarily
the
crypto
is
just
an
implementation
detail
of
secure
string,
but
the
actual
concept
of
the
secure
string
class
potentially
needs
to
be
revisited,
for
instance,
is,
is
having
a
storage
mechanism
that
just
kind
of
leaves
usability
off
to
the
user.
Like
is
that
even
appropriate
for
core
effects
would
be
anybody
believes
use
this
so
so
secure
string
requires
that
somebody
eventually
unencrypted
the
memory
in
order
to
be
able
to
use
it
that
I'm,
a
traditional,
necessarily
has
to
take
place
in
user
space.
Is
that
even.
F
F
E
A
But
the
problem
is
no
one
knows
how
to
build
a
secure
train
correctly.
Almost
everything
that
we've
found
when
trying
to
look
like
we
looked
on
github,
just
search
for
secure,
sharing
across
all
projects.
Everything
that
has
it
is
someone
who
has
made
a
utility
function,
convert
string
to
secure
string
or
convert
secure,
string
to
string
well.
C
B
E
A
A
E
A
The
the
thing
that
would
concern
me
the
most
about
removing
the
encryption
which
I
personally
inclined
with
it's
just
a
a
changing
of
expectations
that
no
one
could
ever
really
measure,
but
we
did
document
the
image.
The
current
invest
in
documentation
does
say,
may
be
encrypted
instead
of
will
be
encrypted,
but
that's
the
%
yeah
which
I
doing
the
Linux
information
couldn't
find
the
decryption
function
and
softened
the
dachshunds.
And
so
really
it's
is
anyone
out
there.
E
Upset
I
would
argue
that
somebody
betting
the
farm
on
that
is
probably
already
in
a
bad
way,
because,
if
you're
betting,
the
farm
on
that,
that
means
that
you're,
anticipating
that
an
attacker
has
access
to
a
memory
dump
of
your
process
and
your
process
probably
has
other
interesting
things
in
it.
Rather
than
securing
protected
data
in
the
case
of
asp.net,
for
instance,
data
dumps
might
be
your
authentication
tickets.
If
you
were
able
to
get
access
to
that
gracious
party
as
a
user
it
might
have,
it
might
have
a
sequel
database
connection
throughs.
A
E
If,
if
you're,
trying
to
if
you're
trying
to
have
data,
which
is
that
secure
in
theory,
not
even
the
application
should
be
able
to
have
access
to
it,
the
idea
is
the
application
should
be
able
to
have
a
handle
to
it
to
be
able
to
use
it,
but
the
data
itself
should
exist
in
a
place
completely
separate
from
the
app
I
mean.
This
is
the
entire
concept
of
alsace
in
Windows,
for
instance,
it
manages
secrets
such
as
private
keys
for
certificates,
so
that
your
application
never
gets
direct
access
to
for
a
credit
card.
F
So
basically,
what
you're
saying,
even
if
we
kind
of
fudge
the
problem
by
removing
encryption,
saying
that
it's
secure
error,
string
that
secure
string
and
it
just
for
pinning
them,
you
saying,
there's
no
value
in
it.
No
like
what
are
the
scenarios
for
me,
just
you
know
not
having
this
unmovable
memory
doesn't.
B
One
thing
that
the
pragmatic
problem
will
be
reviewed.
The
issue
in
our
site
originally
was
because,
as
I
said,
like
PowerShell
has
a
dependency
on
the
type
because
they,
unfortunately
the
reality,
is,
if
you
want
to
start
a
process
about
a
user
name/password.
If
we
remove
the
API
would
have
to
provide
an
alternative
API
because
not
suddenly,
you
have
no
other
way
to
provide
actually
the
user
name/password
to
this
writing
process
and.
B
And
I
think
at
the
time
you
just
felt
like
it's
easier
to
just
port
secure
string
as
a
standalone
thing
have
processed
depend
on
it,
and
move
on
then,
is
to
fix
the
api
follow
that
process,
because
we
think
we
try
to
do
there.
We
could
come
up
with
a
compatible
way,
I,
don't
even
where
the
actual
details,
but
apparently
I
think
you
look
at
process.
B
We
have
this
thing
where
you
knew
up
the
process:
information
thingy,
where
you've
set
all
the
parameters,
and
you
can
basically
start
the
process
just
passing
in
that
thing
and
basically,
if
you
move
the
password,
you
do
not
have
to
provide
another
property
calls,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
pass
for
a
non-secure
stream
or
whatever,
because
it
can't
change
the
type
of
the
of
the
thing
on
full
fabric.
Obviously,
and
that
just
was
a
lot
of
work,
but
that.
G
Wouldn't
be
a
big
thing
is
that
you
design
the
platform.
Api
is
in
a
way
such
that
people
that
want
to
start
a
process
with
a
username
and
password
go
through
some
other
and
they
handle
back
and
construct
a
process
type
around
it.
Right
like
it
seems
like
no,
of
course,
I
couldn't
pulling
all
of
this
stuff
in
for
this,
like
one
scenario
that
is
like
specific
to
PowerShell-
and
it's
also
included
me,
like
you
know
it's
this
process,
username
and
password
thing:
does
it?
What
does
it
do
cross-platform?
G
B
I,
don't
even
think
you
can
get
the
username
I
mean
you
Bobby
get
the
username
from
the
process,
but
I
think
you
will
get
to
pass
whatever
right
to
live.
So
it's
already
like
somewhat
broken
in
the
process.
Api
is
because
they
I
think
you
Christopher
site
in
such
a
way
that
you
can
basically
basically
starting
a
process
in
clearing
process.
Information.
Is
that
is
the
same
api's
and
I
think
we're
trying
another.
B
We
would
so
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
telling
me
just
I
think
we
agree
move
like
basically
me
did
originally
I
think
there
was
no
forced
like
that.
We
couldn't
redesign
a
puzzle.
Api
is
just
tried
out
between
how
much
work
we
spent
there
versus
I'm
talking
PowerShell
and
we
say
I
need
to
revisit
this
decision.
If
we
have
problem
supporting
secure
strings
which
is
given.
E
G
Know
so
I
mean
like
so
there's
the
there's
the
su
program
right,
but
I
think
that
that
needs
to
be
I
think
that
to
start
a
process
as
a
different
user,
you
have
to
be
running
as
anyway,
like
the
thing
that
actually
does
the
user
switch
and
so
I
don't
know
how
that
couldn't
work,
I
think
probably
right
now,
just
those
two
not
implement
an
exception.
Steve
may
know
more
yeah.
G
B
A
C
D
Since
is
to
get
it
clinically,
are
we
questioning
with
that?
You
shouldn't
be
supporting
logging
of
the
user
as
part
of
process
start
or,
if
that's
something
that
cannot
be
supported,
cross
plant
or
we're
thinking
if
he
doesn't
make
sense
for
anything
except
for
notes,
because
window
is
kind
of
still
supported,
I.
E
Think,
if
you're,
if
you're
dead,
set
on
using
passwords
as
credentials
to
identify
a
user
you're
gonna
have
at
that
time
in
the
next
two
or
three
years
like
we
as
a
company,
are
making
a
huge,
huge
effort
to
try
to
eliminate
them
across
the
board
and
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
to
see
a
new
system
come
in
play
in
the
near
future.
Your
if
you
use
passwords
as
your
one
and
only
mechanism
for
this
you've
now
set
yourself
up
for
future
failure.
It.
B
E
To
consider
yeah
give
me
the
credentials
somehow
and
then
process,
art
and
hope
you
take
the
credentials
in
I.
Think
HTTP
client
in
a
TCP
budget
request
already
follow
a
similar
pattern.
They
take
a
credential
object
and
I.
Think
I.
Think
credential
is
an
abstract
base
class
and
you
can
have
Network
credential.
You
can
have
basic
credential,
you
can
have
other
things
on
top
of
that
and
they
simply
understand
those
types
and
they
know
how
to
authenticate
across
the
network.
C
D
D
E
D
D
D
B
Well,
I
mean
the
decryption
is
like
what's
the
abstraction
here
right,
if
the
abstraction
is
a
dotnet
abstraction,
they
we
just
use
to
essentially
unify
different
API
share
that
implementation
may
use.
Then
they
take
process
I'd
say
on
Windows.
We
call
this
API
that
requires
username
password.
Let's
say
on
my
funky
OS
there's
a
different
way
to
do
the
same
thing.
Now
you
could
say
that
you
take
they
see
when
we
say
start
process
as
user.
We
just
don't
take
the
name
password.
We
take
and
let's
say
my
credential
and
then
on
Windows.
B
The
only
valid
thing
you
can
pass
is
username
password,
credential
versus
on
the
other
thing.
It
may
support
three
different
ways:
let's
say
username
password,
let's
say
certificate,
let's
say
I,
don't
know
on
and
off
idea
whatnot.
You
know,
and
you
won
this
step
for
me,
three
implementations
will
be
valid
and
then
the
nice
thing
is
that
if
windows
provides
alternative
mechanisms,
we
just
extend
our
implementation
at
P
nodes
to
provide
the
other
one.
B
G
The
other
option
is
that
you
have
a
constructor
on
the
process,
type
that
takes
a
process
handle
right,
and
so
you
can
use
whatever
sort
of
OS
API.
You
like.
We
can
expose
the
concept
I'd
like
to
say,
processing,
class
way
right,
and
so
you
could
P
invoke
whatever
sort
of
process
creation
thing
you
want,
create
a
handle
packet,
struct,
construct
a
process
object,
but.
C
D
D
G
Alternate
argument
is
that
we
have
this
problem
in
the
framework
where
we
wrap
a
bunch
of
stuff,
and
if
we
provide
all
of
the
options,
you
need
you're
good
to
go.
But
then
I'm
windows
add
some
additional
options:
you're,
basically
hosed
you,
you
have
no
way
to
sort
of
buy
into
our
ecosystem
right.
You
kind
of
have
to
do
everything
yourself.
We
see
this.
A
lot
works
like
oh
I
want
to
pass
this
room
our
unit,
this
constructor,
you
guys
don't
expose
it.
I,
have
to
write
like
all
of
this
people
bunk.
G
If
you
could
just
write
some
PMO
clunk
and
then
take
like
the
native
type
and
pass
it
to
us,
and
we
could
then
start
doing
a
bunch
of
stuff
on
your
behalf
that
without
supporting
those
starting
and
then
interrogating
right
Ian,
so
you
could
have
an
API
that
ones
thanks
for
the
main
light.
Sorry,
that's
our
process
to
the
compose
with
what
we
have
now
is
returning
to
the
interrogation
API.
But
then,
if
you
needed
to
extend
with
something
that
we
don't
wrap,
if
you
version
windows,
you
could
do
that,
but
still
by.
E
G
A
The
taking
of
a
handle
I
could
do
that
with
with
RSA
and
with
x.509
certificate.
It's
the
you
know
you
may
have
had
a
way
of
getting
an
RSA
key
that
we
don't
understand.
Then
you
tell
us.
This
is
RSA,
trust
me.
It
will
work
and
we
take
the
handle,
pass
it
down
to
the
native
layer
and
and
it
agrees
or
disagrees
as
it
sees
a
physical
exam.
A
C
C
A
B
Real
intense
I
mean
we
just
talked
about
three
very
like
different
things,
but
one
option
is
what's
or
representation
for
user
name/password.
If
we
need
them.
The
second
thing
is:
could
we
have
a
net
faction
to
represent
an
authenticated
user
or
it
means
to
authenticate
a
user,
and
then
the
third
one
is
for
giving
them
specific
technology
like
process
creation?
Can
we
just
have
an
escape
hatch
that
you
can
do
whatever
you
want,
assuming
you
have
the
hand
right
widget
which
are
not
mutually
exclusive
by
they
all
like
to
a
certain
extent,
complimentary,
I.
B
Think.
The
question
for
this
meeting
is
mostly
like:
what
do
we
do
with
the
abstraction
we
currently
have
Paul
secure
string?
Is
that
available
or
not
and
I
think
we
could,
because
I
think
we
could
make
that
decision
without
necessarily
designed
the
rest
of
these
things?
I
think
the
question
is
just
if
you
take
process
creation,
for
example,
I
think
it's
very
common
to
pass
user
name/password
site
I
mean
you
think
of
you
know
any
sort
of
command
line.
B
E
It's
scripting,
usernames
and
passwords
are
being
removed
for
scripting
going
over
to,
in
a
sense
that
we
don't.
We
don't
put
putting
my
windows
hat
on,
because
I
now
work
for
Windows.
We
are
desperately
trying
to
kill,
usernames
and
passwords,
absolutely
trying
to
kill
them,
and
we
have
mechanisms
in
place
such
that
people
will
be
able
to
use
alternative
credentials
going
forward.
Is
your
hat.
C
B
Then
I
think
my
question
would
be
because
then
maybe
I'm
just
not
versed
enough,
but
I
can't
quite
figure
out
like
it
gives
distort,
or
you
have
to
reference
some
sort
of
potential
somewhere
right
like.
How
would
you,
if
you
say
username
passwords
are
bad?
That's
fine!
So
I
write
my
script,
so
I
get.
E
One
of
the
projects
that
I'm
helping
out
with
on
Windows-
and
this
was
this
was
shown
at
ignite
and
built
a
few
months
ago-
is
there's
actually
a
secret
inside
the
machines
TPM.
If
you
have
one
that
secret
can
identify
you
as
a
user
on
the
machine
and
you're
able
to
challenge
that,
for
an
authentication,
token
you'll
get
back
basically
an
opaque
token,
and
you
can
pass
that
on.
As
an
authentication
read.
B
E
You
don't
necessarily
have
to
get
that
value
yourself.
You
can
have
the
system
automatically
flow
it
for
you
make
us,
but
that
that
value
itself,
because
it's
a
challenge
response
value
can't
be
used
like
a
password.
It's
not
just
something
that
you
can
say
here
is
my
secret.
Please
take
it
forward
it
on.
It
has
to
be
part
of
an
active
challenge
response,
but.
B
To
be
clear,
that
is
a
different
user
from
the
one
that
is
currently
running
correct.
Just
so
I
can
say:
I
want
to
execute
this
other
process.
Under
this
other
user
hos
identity
is
securely
stored
in
the
TPM
or
esidential.
So
just
just
use
the
one
that
is
stored
here,
and
so
you
basically
have
to
set
the
machine
in
such
a
way
that
it
can
authenticate
the
user
if
being
challenged.
But
there's
no
reference
in
the
script.
I
said
essentially,
the
the
the
the
authentication
mechanism
is
provided
by
configuration
Kushina,
essentially,
basically.
F
F
C
E
Then
look
like
Emma
said
earlier
that
this
conversation
is
what
do
we
do
with
secure
string?
It
sounds
like
the
only
use
case.
Any
of
us
can
identify
is
as
a
mechanism
to
former
password
based
credentials,
but
that
sounds
like
in
order
to
solve
secure
string.
You
have
to
solve
the
chanimal
credential
problem,
so.
F
B
For
similar
fix,
for
which
I
by
I
mean
honestly
like,
as
you
said,
and
the
fact
that
hope,
if
you
look
at
how
people
use
secure
string,
it's
so
insecure
that,
even
if
we
could
make
it
secure,
people
would
almost
always
abuse
it
in
the
wrong
way.
So,
like
essentially
I,
think
the
right
pattern
would
be
you
just
don't
have
a
way
of
doing
that.
The
only
way
you
have
to
you
have
this
basic
way,
because
we
go
out
of
our
way
to
not
give
you
a
PR
and
I.
B
Think
that's
if
that's
the
case
and
I
think
the
answer,
but
we
should
just
remove
secure
string,
find
a
way
to
unblock
PowerShell
on
process
or
whatever.
That
would
look
like,
and
maybe
the
right
blocker
for
them
would
be
to
make
sure
we
have
some
sort
of
API.
Is
that
kind
of
provide
the
same
functionality?
Calling
the
810.
A
B
G
C
C
A
C
C
C
F
Whatever
might
be
it
can
we
will
secure
string
to
the
process
contract
because,
basically,
you
know
like
process
component
itself.
It
has
so
many
problems
that
we
will
just
add
secured
string
to
it,
make
it
not
encrypted
and
basically
treated
as
part
of
process.
So
your
string
is
now
basically
part
of
the
process
yeah,
but.
F
C
F
A
E
E
C
We
we
can
do
two
things
we
could
potentially
like
I,
haven't
think
about
this.
How
I
should
team
I'll
talk
to
them
and
figure
out
what
channels
avenues
we
possibly
have
to
potentially
look?
They
basically
are
at
a
point
where
they're
shipping
a
version
of
the
process
library
with
our
show
today.
That's
gonna
have
this
but
post
this
time
frame
we
might,
they
might
be
able
to
consume
a
breaking
change
that
allows
them
to
move
up.
I.
Think.
B
Honestly,
that
should
be
the
first
option.
I
think
the
first
option
should
be
Kimmy
removes
the
dependency
on
secure
string
and
Kylie,
because
it
seems
like
we
did.
The
pilot
ID
is
useless,
so
we
already
in
there
in
the
category
of
what's
the
fallout.
We
just
make
it
not
sick
tech,
remove
the
encryption,
and
that
would
soft
implementation
issues
or
it
would
be
a
better
store.
It's
not
have
it
at
all.
B
It
seems
like
we,
the
only
incoming
edge
we
have
right
now
is
process,
the
only
consumer
that
we
currently
know
off,
that
uses
the
securin
string,
properties
and
methods
on
the
type
are
essentially
partial
to
which
would
be
basically
meaningful,
fixed
PowerShell.
We
can
basically
go
all
the
way
back
and
would
in
turn,
D
the
independence,
insecure
string
from
gonna
core
and
then
just
say,
yeah,
that's,
maybe
I.
That's
not
ported.
E
C
C
Well,
there
was
public
surface
we
filtered
out
on
that
Court
I
see
because
they
used
to
accept
the
securing
as
a
password
as
a
one
of
those
parameters,
but
we
filtered
that
up.
So
it
only
has
the
string
overloads,
but
in
the
implementation
detail
was
still
using
security
to
keep
it
out
of
the
process.
So.
A
E
C
B
A
Like
we
always
had
thought
they
were
secure,
string
inside
I
just
took
an
end
of
the
fifteenth
operation.
Cuz
every
character.
You
read,
we
decrypt
the
string
to
see
if
the
buffer
needs
to
grow,
possibly
grow
copy,
we
encrypt,
and
then
you
continue
your
for
each
because
you're
copying
it
out
of
the
string.
Yeah.
B
But
this
talk
makes
me
said:
alright,
so
think.
That's
pretty
much
all
for
secure
strings,
so
I
mean
as
first
follow-up
goal.
Enemy
probably
want
to
check
with
PowerShell
to
just
don't
know
what
menu
we
have
and
then
what,
with
the
very
next
question,
would
be
assuming
we
have
some
time.
What
would
the
design
look
like
on
the
fault
process
right
all?
They
have
to
provide
an
alternative
API,
which
then
again
begs
the
question.
If
we
do
it
in
the
process
contract,
what
does
it
mean
for
desktop?
B
C
B
Stuff
is
statements
like
a
majority
of
people
and
I
can
see
as
X
a
two
for
one
of
them
is
TSU.
Christine
is
not
very
usable.
We
know
that
the
other
part
that
came
up
is
a
whole
like
how
what
does
password
prompting
look
like
on
unix,
which
we
talked
about
and
one
saving
was
it's
actually
kind
of
interesting-
is
secure?
Stream
probably
needs
to
be
made
to
work,
even
if
we
cuddle
encryption
all
platform
so
backward
compatible,
it's
friendly
mutation
and
long
term
to
do
a
wave
of
it
which
race
it
talked
about.
B
C
F
A
C
F
A
D
F
G
You
can
what
is
same
as
you
use
the
privatization,
disheartening
yeah,
and
then
you
query
the
public
there's
an
API
process
that
gives
you
all
the
processes
on
the
system
right.
So
you
here
private
thing
to
creates
process.
You
get
it
kid!
You
haven't
spit
where
all
the
processes
on
the
system
using
the
public
API
find
the
process
object.
That
has
the
same
page
that
then
you
started
in
that
back.
F
A
C
B
Mean
the
other
thing
is:
commander:
people
become
hot
against
core
power.
Sure
the
existing
commanders
will
not
work
regardless,
because
they'll
compile
against
full
fabric
like
independent
of
the
script,
where
the
actual
binary
is
the
PowerShell
has
is
victims
mechanism.
And
yes,
in
that
case,
you
have
tab
unification.
Is
he
or
she
would
basically
have
to
say
the
version
that
Pasha
uses
would
have
a
different
identity
that
the
one
that
we
are
using
and
our
neck,
or
so
we
will
probably
have
to
rename
our
contract.
F
C
B
The
other
thing
is
when
I'm
sitting
was
a
partial
as
dependency
on
the
scenario
and
not
the
actual
API
is
right.
The
API
dependency
only
kicks
in
because
it's
late
in
the
game,
but
there's
not
a
reason
for
why
they
absolutely
have
to
have
the
same
shape
right.
Oh
just
techniques,
given
the
timeline
well.
C
B
A
That
we
know
I
can't
make
it
work.
Of
course,
I
just
look
because
I
mean
I'm
like
we
could
I
guess
the
problem
is
the
API
we're
calling
right
now?
It's
not
that
it's
a
there
is
breaks
in
its.
We
don't
know.
Where
is
we
call
a
function
and
it
blows
up?
We
can
either
you
know,
do
try
encrypt
everything
yeah,
it
might
have
done
something
or
yeah
I.
Just
say
we
just.
We
would
just
turn
it
off
in
core
FX
yeah.
We
actually
a
motion.
You.
A
B
Know,
gentlemen,
suppose
you
don't
want
to
all
the
platforms,
because
just
because,
if
you
don't
support,
feature
acts
right,
but
it
was
secure,
string
and
would
agree
with
you,
because
if
we
make
it
work
with
some
of
that,
Florence
I
think
we
I
think
it
looks
like
we
are
trying
to
be
secure,
which
we
already
say.
This
is
not
something
that
makes
sense
for
this
API,
so
I
think
in
that
case
it
would
be
better.
To
just
say
no
secure
string
does
not
improve
the
API
you
shouldn't
use
at
all.
A
We
can't
get
rid
of
it.
I
think
we
would
want
to
change
it
to
say
it
ends
the
memory
and
it
clears
it
when
you
call
suppose
yes,
and
that
is
the
protection
it
offers
and
if
we
care
about
passive,
like
a
heap
dump
making
it
back
to
customer
support
here,
and
they
see
that
you
had
something
in
a
secure
stream.
That
said,
you
know
I,
love,
llamas
and
that's
your
password.
F
B
B
It
actually
that
may
not
be
a
bad
idea.
My
only
concern
would
be
I,
don't
know
what
I
mean
if
the
incoming
dependencies
are
literally
just
processed,
so
we
have
to
obsolete
three.
Other
API
is
I.
Think
that
would
be
fine
by
the
thing
that
sucks
with
with
obsoleted
numbers
is,
if
you
have
to
use
them
for
compat,
and
you
literally
use
them
like
in
ten
places
in
your
code
or
15
times,
it's
okay
to
use
it
all
over
the
board
because
you
have
to
it
becomes
noise.
You
just
call
the.
F
B
F
Like
my
main
concern
is
people
using
not
our
framework
people
out
there
in
the
world
using
secure
string
and
thinking
it's
secure.
Why
is
he
so?
It
would
be
good
if
you
had
an
obsolete
message
that
kind
of
explains
and
points
people
understand
documentation
to
read
on
it
and
kind
of
so
they
understand
what
they
are
getting
into.
They
use
yeah.
B
F
D
F
I
have
to
say
it's
a
bit:
I
mean
you
know,
I'm
interested
in
your
opinion,
but
I
think
you
know
differences
in
functionality
for
things
that
are
not
dangerous
and
not
over
promise,
and
you
know
they're
fine
damp.
They
may
be
annoying.
This
one
is
kind
of
dangerous.
Like
we
are
saying
you
know,
somebody
may
use
secure
string
in
an
environment
where
election,
cribs
and
kind
of
maybe
Eli.
F
D
B
A
E
We
have
the
ability
to
run
code
before
Watson
captures
in
the
marina
like
is.
There
is
some
emergency
hook
where
you
can
execute
a
last-minute
cleanup
function
as
if
there
was
you
could
imagine
zeroing
his
secure
strings,
dude
critical,
finalize
errs
fire
before
I.
Don't
know
if
they
fire
one
that
process
crashes
off
I.
Think.
E
B
E
A
A
That
I
could
pick
up
where
somebody
can
see
the
number
three
of
them
require
that
somebody's
already
running
something
on
your
machine
at
the
fourth
of
is
that
you
consider
us
to
be
an
attacker
or
any
government
agencies
which
Miriam
and
I
that's
tied.
To
this
that's
been
a
it's
a
secret
meaning
we
have
to
because
we
have.
F
C
B
The
only
last
thing
I
want
to
say
is
it
I
got
this
awesome
shirt
here
from
one
of
the
guys
who's
on
the
call
was
the
trigger
conversation
where
we
talked
about
breaking
changes
and
he
proposed
it.
We
should
just
break
everything
and
it
says:
hey.
You
should
rename
system
then
to
something
else
and
which
he
replied
and
says.
Oh,
you
want
to
rename
sis
I
would
go
with
shiz,
to
which
I
replied
I,
just
just
my
platform
to
which
he
replied.
A
unleaded
question.
I
want
your
address.