Yup. Rand() chooses a random float value for each entry. By default I believe it’s anywhere between 0 and 1. So it may divide the first bill by .76, then the second by .23, then the third by 0.63, etc… So you’d end up with a completely garbage database because you can’t even undo it by multiplying all of the numbers by a set value.
if you’re trying to be malicious, wouldn’t it be better to multiply by Rand() instead of divide by Rand()?
assuming there are a decent number of recorded sales, you’d end up seeing many of the calls to Rand() returning values very close to 0. so, if you’re dividing by those values, you’d end see lots of sales records reporting values in the thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars. i feel like that screams “software bug” more than anything. on the other hand, seeing lots of values multiplied by values close to 0 would certainly look weird, but it wouldn’t be as immediately suspicious.
(of course a better thing would just be to use Rand() on a range other than [0,1])
Need to throw a rand() in there to make it less easy to unfuck
In the amount/2 term?
Yup. Rand() chooses a random float value for each entry. By default I believe it’s anywhere between 0 and 1. So it may divide the first bill by .76, then the second by .23, then the third by 0.63, etc… So you’d end up with a completely garbage database because you can’t even undo it by multiplying all of the numbers by a set value.
Satan?
if you’re trying to be malicious, wouldn’t it be better to multiply by
Rand()instead of divide byRand()?assuming there are a decent number of recorded sales, you’d end up seeing many of the calls to
Rand()returning values very close to0. so, if you’re dividing by those values, you’d end see lots of sales records reporting values in the thousands, millions, or even billions of dollars. i feel like that screams “software bug” more than anything. on the other hand, seeing lots of values multiplied by values close to 0 would certainly look weird, but it wouldn’t be as immediately suspicious.(of course a better thing would just be to use
Rand()on a range other than[0,1])