JAR, SWF and CGI-bin scanning by path only is fine, since there are relatively few of those. But .js scanning by path only is too broad.

One option would be to filter out by size, an information that is contained on the CDX. Let's check typical ones:Ignoring some obvious unrelated non-comms files visually we get a range of about 2732 to 3632:This ignores the obviously atypical JavaScript with SHAs from iranfootballsource, and the particularly small old menu.js from cutabovenews.com, which we embed into ../cia-2010-covert-communication-websites/cdx-post-js.sh.

The size helps a bit, but it's not insanely good unfortunately, only about 3x, these are some common JS sizes right there!

Gérard Bricogne is a prominent French scientist known for his contributions to the field of X-ray crystallography. He is particularly recognized for his work in the development of software and methodologies for the analysis of crystal structures. Bricogne has been involved in creating tools that aid researchers in obtaining and interpreting crystallographic data, which is essential for understanding the molecular structures of a wide range of substances, including biological macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids.

Insider trading can discourage investment, and cause CEOs to hide information from employees. While there have been arguments that insider trading makes share prices more quickly go to their proper value, the true solution is that if investors dislike insider trading, companies can legally declare that they will only work with those that legally agree not to trade its shares or facilitate insider trading. If someone unaffiliated with the company simply overhears or comes across insider information, this won't stop them, but even if it were illegal, it would be nearly impossible to prove such a case.

At first glance, it would seem pretty ironic for an FAQ that lambasts intellectual property rights to place restrictions on its own distribution, even if just attribution. But asking for attribution is consistent with libertarianism.

It is to prevent people passing this FAQ off as their own work, as they could get social/monetary benefits from doing so, and that should be considered fraud. Even if they don't explicitly claim to be the author when using its contents, that is likely to be assumed by most readers, so not explicitly disclaiming it should be treated as fraud.

This does not mean that anyone who doesn't provide attribution must be sued into oblivion; the punishment must be proportional to the crime, after all, and in most cases, any personal clout gained from omitting attribution will be negligible. But for the very few cases where it's not, the license facilitates the prosecution of such fraud in the current legal system.