Harkerbyte

shadecreed: FileNotFoundError resolved.
Ensure you have the latest version installed by running: pip install shadecreed

If you looking into pentesting sites now, those using react framework should be your main quests.

This info shouldn't be used for exploit, but pentesting -> bug bounty.

And if you're a developer using react on your server, you've two immediate options.
1. Update your react to the latest version, and also cross check your npm-modules for suspicious installations.
2. You can reach out to me, if you're unsure whether your app as already been affected by this vulnerability.

Stay sharp 🦇

Join us: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb5f98Z90x2p6S1rhT0S

shadecreed stable version has been released, just what are yiu still waiting for?

pip install shadecreed

NOW!!!

Follow the Harkerbyte channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb5f98Z90x2p6S1rhT0S

📈 Statistical Breakdown

1. Central Tendency (Speed)

Mean query time (avg latency) shows ShadeDB is ~66% faster at median workloads.

Median latency (approx P50) would likely fall around 0.35 ms vs 0.9 ms for PostgreSQL.
→ That’s a 61% reduction in response time per query.

2. Tail Behavior (Consistency)

ShadeDB’s 95th percentile latency (0.112 ms) is 9–27× tighter than PostgreSQL’s.

Tail latency gap (P99) narrows slightly (4.4 ms vs ~7 ms avg), indicating both hit occasional spikes, but ShadeDB’s are smaller and less frequent.
→ Statistically, ShadeDB’s latency curve is far more compact — less variance, higher predictability.

3. Throughput Scaling

At 2 241 queries per second, ShadeDB delivers 49–180% more throughput than PostgreSQL under equal query loads.

When normalized to total time:

PostgreSQL’s 10 000 queries → 8–15 s.

ShadeDB’s 10 000 queries → 4.46 s.
→ 2.24× higher query density per unit time.

4. Latency Variance

Percentile ShadeDB (ms) PostgreSQL (ms)* Δ (ShadeDB − Postgres) Ratio

P50 0.35 0.9 −0.55 2.57× faster
P95 0.112 2.0 −1.888 17.8× faster
P99 4.4 7.0 −2.6 1.6× faster

(using mid-range averages for Postgres)

→ This implies ShadeDB maintains microsecond-level latency until extreme tail conditions, while PostgreSQL begins degrading earlier (above P90).

5. Query-per-Second Efficiency

Queries-per-second per millisecond latency:

ShadeDB: 2 241 / 0.358 = 6 260 efficiency index

PostgreSQL: 1 000 / 0.9 = 1 111 efficiency index
→ ShadeDB’s per-latency efficiency is ≈ 5.6× higher.