## Unreal 4 – How to convert a delay in attack speed?

Before doing any research, I tried to deduce the formula, and I did. It's pretty simple

I distrusted so easily, but I have done many tests and I do not have secrets.

Formula (based on the 1 second time interval):

Simply divide the value of the attack speed squared.

Gameplay:

• On the left => time between each attack
• ON THE RIGHT => attack speed

After that I did a search. I thought that because it was so simple it would be included in the Riot website, but it was not, I looked.

But on the Valve website you have:

https://dota2.gamepedia.com/Attack_speed

It is not calculated in the same way as mine, but other factors fall into its formula.

I found other places with the formula, or at least one type of formula (site in Portuguese):

## Yes

Nothing in the prepared or opportunity attack rules suggests that they are mutually exclusive beyond the use of one's reaction, which is only used when the opportunity attack or prepared action is performed. Therefore, you can forego the option of using the fireball prepared to perform an attack of opportunity if you wish and circumstances permit.

Using one's reaction at the time of the attack consumes his reaction until his next turn, so the prepared action can not be taken. For prepared spells, the character will not recover the spent spell space and, technically, can maintain concentration on the prepared spell, although he will not be able to fire it without an unsuspected reaction. Any prepared action that has not been taken can not be maintained beyond the beginning of the next turn of the character, as explained in the Errata of the Player's Manual:

Ready (page 193). You have until the start of your next turn to use a prepared action.

Therefore, in practice, a character loses his prepared action when he makes an attack of opportunity, unless he has a characteristic that allows him to make an attack of opportunity without using his reaction (like the Tunnel Fighter style of Underdark UA ).

## dnd 5e: if the same attack that causes a druid to revert from Wild Shape also reduces its maximum HP, what happens?

Simultaneous effects (XGtE 77):

Most of the effects in the game happen in succession, following an established order
By the rules or the DM. In rare cases, the effects may occur at the same time.
Time, especially at the beginning or end of a creature's turn. If two or
more things happen at the same time in the turn of a character or monster,
the person at the gaming table (either player or DM) who controls that
The creature decides the order in which these things happen. For example,
If two effects occur at the end of a player's turn, the
The player decides which of the two effects occurs first.

The controller of the creature decides the order of the effects in his turn and, therefore, which of the options is correct.

Then, if this happens in the druid's turn, the druid chooses his option, otherwise, the DM or the other controller decides the order.

## Apache – unknown attack on the Linux server wordpress website

I have a WordPress site. Recently under a serious DDoS attack.

this for the WordPress site and has nginx, varnish and apache on the backend.

a part of the access record shows this:

Do you have any ideas for this attack?

## dnd 3.5e: How is the damage determined when using the Leap Attack feat?

This feat is notorious for its bad writing. The expression "+ 100%" is completely unique in D & D 3.5e, as far as I know, for example. Ultimately, I can not imagine another interpretation here than adding the subtracted number of your attack rolls again, and it has the good feature of specifying the "normal" Power Attack damage, which means that features such as the supreme power attack of the Frantic berserker who already give the hands with only one hand the returns of 2: 1 do not double to 4: 1, but it goes to the 3: 1 that would normally be expected from the multiplication rules of D & D.

But then there is the line that you have not quoted:

If you use this tactic with a two-handed weapon, you triple the extra damage of the power attack instead.

No bizarro "+ 100%" in sight! But we've also lost the useful reference to "normal" and is now multiplying "additional Power Attack damage", whatever it is for you. This is going to put us in trouble, you can tell.

So you're tripling the extra damage, not tripling the applied penalty. The problem here, well, the first problem here, is that "the additional damage of Power Attack" is "double the number subtracted from your attack rolls" when attacking with two hands. Worse still, since "the additional damage of Power Attack" is calculated as twice the penalty, but is not subject to any multiplier, it could be said that the rules of repeated multiplication do not apply, and that gives a 2 × 3 = 6 instead of 1+ (2-1) + (3-1) = 4. So instead of 2: 1 come back in Power Attack, you get 6: 1 returns in Power Attack. Or maybe you have 5: 1; It is impossible to say since it is so poorly written. Also, you know, I suspect what they wanted to do was give you a 3: 1 return, but of course they did not say that.

And that would combine quite well with, say, the supreme power attack feature of the frantic berserker, who was getting 4: 1 to start with. Now you can say that they are getting 8: 1.

On top of those issues, this is only The additional damage of Power Attack. The result is added to the rest of your damage, and that gives you your full damage … which could multiply again, for example. with valuable. This effectively multiplies your multiplier, which is exactly what the multiplication rules try to avoid, but since two different things are being multiplied, the rules of multiplication do not come into play.

So, for the example: 2d6 + 1 damage of the weapon itself, +6 for the Force, and the attack penalty of -6 to get a maximum of Power Attack results in twice the damage of +12 of Power Attack without Leap Attack. Thus, 2d6 + 19 is the baseline for all interpretations, and valuable double that for 4d6 + 38.

With 6: 1 returns, we are looking for a Power Attack bonus of +36 (six times the penalty, tripling "the additional Power Attack damage", which would have been +12). Using 5: 1 reduces that to +30, which is somewhat better, but not, you know, great, when what they probably wanted to say was +18. Keep in mind that +36 is almost what valuable I was giving all the attack before. Now with valuable, we are seeing a total of 4d6 +66-Of which, 52 comes from Power Attack.

It may not be a bad idea to try to eliminate the multiplication of a multiplier here through an internal rule, but keep in mind that the additional damage of the Power Attack is not the only case of this: the additional damage due to the Force It also has a multiplier, + 1½ ×, which is also being folded by valuable. This, unlike Leap Attack, has a strong precedent in the rules. The "solution" would be to apply the multiplication rule individually to all sources of damage, in this way:

$$begin {array} {r} 2 times (&& 2 text {d} 6 && +1 && +1 tfrac {1} {2} times 4 && +3 times 2 times 6 &) \ = && 2 times 2 text {d} 6 && + 2 times 1 && + 2 times 1 frac {1} {2} times 4 && + 2 times 3 times 2 times 6 \ = & [1 \ && +left(2-1right) \ & ] & times 2 text {d} 6 & +[1 \ && && +left(2-1right) \ && & ] & times 1 & +[1 \ && && && +left(2-1right) \ && && && +left(1frac{1}{2}-1right) \ && && & ] & times 4 & +[1 \ && && && && +left(2-1right) \ && && && && +left(3-1right) \ && && && && +left(2-1right) \ && && && & ] & times 6 \ = && 2 times 2 text {d} 6 && +2 times 1 && +2 frac {1} {2} times 4 && +5 times 6 \ = && 4 text {d} 6 && +2 && +10 && +30 \ = && &&&&&&& 4 text {d} 6 + 42 \ end {array}$$

But this is, without a doubt, an internal rule, and I am not convinced that is well (I mean good luck calculating that for each attack!), although it "imposes" the idea that you are not supposed to multiply multipliers.

## dnd 5e – Can a creature with Multiattack use it in an attack of opportunity?

No, an opportunity attack is a single melee attack.

From the Basic Rules of the Player, page 74:

TO
Make the opportunity to attack, use your reaction.
for do a melee attack against the provocation
creature.

In addition, multiattack specifies that it can not be used in this way. From the Basic Rules of DM, page 6:

A creature that can make multiple attacks on its
At the same time it has the Multiattack ability. A creature can not use
Multiple attack when making an attack of opportunity, which
It must be a single melee attack.

Multiple Attack can be used only on the creature's turn, and can not be used explicitly with opportunity attacks.

Finally, if you look at the statblock of a creature that have You can see that it appears in the Actions section of the state block. Multiple Attack is a specific action that a creature can perform, just as a player can perform the Attack action or the Use an object action. Like the additional attack of a fighter, you can not use it every time you make an attack. A Combatant can only use Extra Attack when performing the Attack action, and a creature can only use Multiple Attack when it takes the Multiple Attack action.

## hash: Is the current hashcash test system vulnerable to attack by a quantum computer?

I have been stuck in the scene of post-quantum cryptography for a while, and I understand that the RSA or ECC cryptography inherent in a cryptocurrency network can be easily broken by a sufficiently large quantum computer. I, however, have a more specific question …

Is the hashcash test of the working algorithm used by modern cryptocurrencies vulnerable to quantum attack?

## Security: Is this a collision attack or a 2nd preimage attack?

(This response is a selection of quotes from an email I received from David Harding, where he responded to my email response to the newsletter.) In the response below, the text quoted is from my email question and the text not quoted it's David Harding's answer)

I think it's actually a collision attack.

The attack it describes is based on a database of previous images and
hashes, so I would call your attack a second preimage attack (although
possibly a highly concurrent one).

This is not how I understand a second preimage (SPA) attack. The objective of
A SPA is to find an alternative message that matches. one special
digested hash This is the case of the attack described at the beginning.
of that section of the newsletter where you create a unique signature address.
For someone to steal that money, they would have to find an alternative.
Pubkey that hash to that particular address.

I would not call it a collision attack because it's a collision attack
The process of finding two different preimages with the same hash.
value, does not matter the hash value.

Oh, but that is exactly what is happening in the attack described later in
That section of the newsletter. Mallory does not care what the latter is.
the hash digest is as long as you can find two different hash messages
to that compendium.

In your attack, the attacker is looking for a specific hash set.
values. Your example with a database of 100 addresses makes it beautiful.
Of course we are dealing with a second preimage attack. It is even more
Delete if the database only contains 1 entry.

A less technical way of thinking about the difference between the collision.
Attack and the SPA is how many degrees of freedom the attacker has.
With a SPA, the attacker has a degree of freedom: his message.
With a collision attack, the attacker has two degrees of freedom, both
messages

If Mallory uses a database size of 1, 100 or something else
it does not matter for the attack classification — it's a collision attack
If she is involved in the creation of the last compendium, it is a SPA if she has
to equal a value that another person chose.

The attack described by Pieter Wuille in the email that linked to (2) is a
Pure collision attack where the attacker does not have a pre-created
Database of preimages and hashes.

Sorry, I did not want to imply in the bulletin that the attacker needed
a database before they received the victim's pubkey. Precomputing can
Just be more efficient that way.

I think the attack I describe is identical to what Wuille described.
I just went into more details. (Although Wuille was probably aware of
Accurate collision attacks on memory at the time you wrote your email. I
I was certainly aware of them when I wrote the newsletter.

See, for example, the algorithm of Ethan Heilman (3), which I do not have completely
still understood, but it's an algorithm, which does not use a database, for
Find collisions with the work order of ~ 2 ^ 80. Anthony Towns later (4)
develops an explicit algorithm to find a collision with a
Prefix and suffix chosen with approximately the same complexity.

Heilman's algorithm finds a cycle using the compendium of the previous one
The hash function as input to the next hash function. So you could finish
up with:

``````H (seed) -> 0123
H (0123) -> 4567
H (4567) -> 89ab
H (89ab) -> cdef
H (cdef) -> 0123
H (0123) -> 4567
...Forever...
``````

Heilman's algorithm breaks the loop after 2 ^ 80 attempts, assuming that
I found a cycle. If he did, then the final summary in the loop was a
member of that cycle because, once you enter a cycle, you never go out
that.

The next part of Heilman's algorithm gives you the duration of the cycle,
Allowing you to calculate the value before the beginning of the cycle.
("seed" in my example) and the value where the cycle returns
yes ("cdef" in my example).

Heilman's attack is generic against any hash function, but it can not be
is used directly to steal bitcoins because a random hash digest is not
It is probably a valid script. Towns attack fills the missing.
Details of how to apply it to the theft of bitcoins.

The remarkable part is that both attacks do consult a lot of
hashes previously generated in search of a match; they only do it in one
strange form (hash cycles) instead of looking up values ​​in a memory
database. If you think this in abstract terms, I think it's the same.
thing.

An important difference between your attack and Wuille's is that you need a
huge database to achieve complexity ~ 2 ^ 80 while Wuille does not need a
Database to reach the same complexity. You're a type of emulate
collision attack using a large number of images of the second image simultaneously
The attacks.

Well, as I mentioned in the bulletin, there are different algorithms.
With different CPU / memory compensations. With a database, you reach 50%.
possibility of success with 2 ^ 79 entries in your database and 2 ^ 79 different
pubkey tests, so 80 bits work (but a huge database). Algorithm of Heilman
he says 2 ^ 81.5, but I'm not sure he's really guaranteed to get a cycle
In 2 ^ 80 work. The claims of Towns 2 ^ 84 and seems to be more robust against
Problems finding a cycle.

## Did you buy that Trump really "suspended" an attack on Iran? How many are falling in love with their trick?

The explanation he gave is the relief of the comedy. At the last moment, he asked the military for an assessment of how many Iranians would be killed.

I think he can only bluff. Iran has a formidable army. Trump knows that any retaliation can lead Americans to die. Consequently, he also knows that, for the same reason, we now only attack weakened opponents, since the lives of US soldiers are politically valuable, especially seeking re-election.