Cppcheck Reviews

GhostMyData Reviews

1. Rocky Kathuria

   · Founder & CEO at GhostMyData · 3 months ago
   Finally a privacy service that actually removes your data from 1,500+ brokers

   I built GhostMyData because I was tired of finding my personal information — home address, phone numbers, family members — plastered across dozens of data broker sites. After trying other services, I realized most only cover a fraction of brokers and charge premium prices for basic scans. GhostMyData scans 1,500+ data broker sites, sends legally-backed CCPA deletion requests on your behalf, and tracks every removal to completion. The automated removal pipeline handles everything from opt-out form submissions to verification that your data was actually taken down. We also offer family plans so you can protect your entire household under one subscription, and our daily privacy digest keeps you informed without email overload. The whole platform is designed around transparency — you see exactly what was found, what's been removed, and what's still in progress.

   🏁 Competitors: Incogni, Delete Me, Privacy Bee, Optery, Kanary

   👍 Pros:    Scans 1,500+ data broker sites automatically|Sends legally-backed ccpa/state privacy law deletion requests|Automated opt-out form submissions for major brokers|Family plan protects up to 5 household members|Real-time removal tracking with verification|Free scan with 3 trial removals, no credit card required

   👎 Cons:    Some brokers require manual identity verification steps|Annual billing only (no monthly option yet)

Cppcheck mentions (10)

• Configuring Cppcheck, Cpplint, and JSON Lint

  I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end. - Source: dev.to / over 2 years ago

• Enforcing Memory Safety?

  Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code. Source: about 3 years ago

• Static Code analysis

  For my own projects, I used cppcheck. You can check out that tool to get a feel. Depending on what industry your in, you might need to follow a standard like Misra. Source: over 3 years ago

• How do you not shoot yourself in the foot ?

  Https://cppcheck.sourceforge.io/ (there are many other static analysis tools, I just haven't used them or didn't care for them). Source: over 3 years ago

• Linting tool for prohibiting the use of specific std types

  Sounds like something that could simply be communicated with the team that writes the tests. Unless you have dozens of such classes. In that case, you could just use e.g. Cppcheck and add a rule (regular expression) that searches for usages of the forbidden classes. Source: over 3 years ago

GhostMyData mentions (0)