yeah, that’s why i am happy to avoid the us when travelling, mainly because of reports that electeonics are bricked regulary by them, but this discussion is more about theft. like “never allow hand luggage to be checked, better miss the flight instead”:
it’s not always about travellers that could lay hands on your stuff, maybe staff “needs” a living wage too ;-)
i once had to look at a firefall appliance cluster, (discovered, it could not do any failover in its current state but somehow the decider was ok with that) but when looking at its logs, i discovered an rsh and rcp access from an ip address that belonged to a military organisation from a different continent. i had to make it a security incident. later the vendor said that this was only the cluster internal routing (over the dedicated crosslink), used for synchronisation (the thing that did not work) and was only used by a separate routing table only for clustersync and that could never be used for real traffic. but why not simply use an ip that you “own” by yourself and PTR it with a hint about what this ip is used for? instead of customers scratching their head why military still uses rcp and rsh. i guess because no company reads firewall logs anyway XD
someone elses ip? yes! becuase they’ll never find out !!1!
i really appreciate that ipv6 has things like a dedicated documentation address range and that fc00:/7 is nicely short.
ipv6 in companies… ipv6 is not hard, but for internal networking no company (really) “needs” more than rfc1918 address space. thus any decision in that direction is always “less” needed than any bonus for (da)magement personnel is crucial for the whole companies survival…
for companies services to be reachable from outside/ipv6 mostly “only” the loadbalancers/revproxies etc need to be ipv6 ready but … this i.e. also produces logs that possibly break decades old regexes that no one understands any more (as the good engineers left due to too many boni payed to damagement personnel) while other access/deny rules that could break or worse let through where they should block (remember that 192.168. could the local part of ipv6 IF sone genious used a matching mech that treats the dot “.” as a wildcard as overpayed damagement personnel made them rush too fast), could be hidden “somewhere”. altogether technical debt is a huge blocker for everything, especially company growth, and if no customer “demands” ipv6, then it stays on the damagement personnels list as “fulfilling the whishes of engineers to keep them happy” instead of on the always deleted “cleaning up technical debt caused by damagement personnel” list.
setting up firewalls for ipv6 is quite easy and if you go the finegrained “whitelisted or drop/block” approach from the beginning it might take a bit for ipv6 specials to be known to you, but the much bigger thing is IMHO the then current state of firewall rules. and who knows every existing rule? what rules should be removed already and must not be ported to ipv6? usually firewalls and their rules are a big mess due to … again too many boni payed to damagement personnel, hindering the company from the needed steps forward…
ipv6 adoption is slow for reasons that are driving huge cars that in turn speed up other problems ;-|
maybe start with an adjustable setup:
(if you want, ask for config snippets)
btw i prefer to wait for ipv8😁 before “demanding” ipv6 from services i use 🤣
a public room is public. anyone could and should be able to enter it at any moment start recording and uploading everything to $terrorist@/or$three-letter-agency or such. The idea that someone else could also get the same already public data later is not threatening, as that data is already considered public as in “everyone in the world could have it a second after the data came into existance”. and also as removing from the public is not considered possible, uploading that already intentionally published data again does not pose a greater threat than its first publication, but uses just a bit of bandwidth, not more. if you are very sensitive about visibility of who you talk with, maybe don’t enter “public” rooms in the first place.
if you join a private room, you already want to share with the other participants that you are f***ing talking to them, including when and who you exactly encrypted the data for, when, and to which servers they have to be forwarded. i expect the server of all participants to forward messages to the recipients. for this the server needs to know this type of information. Of course awareness, which data is used to make i.e. routing decisions is a good thing, but a “nightmare” would be teams zoom icq, whatsapp and similar. i am sure that messengers exist that could be less traceable for participants, but full anonymity to who you are communicating with so that even the servers know nothing about what happens in a room is imho not even a goal of matrix for the future.
Not a “nightmare”, but what a nightmare it must be to find out that a system that looked so promising did not fulfill “every” dreamexpectation one had with options that are even the opposite of ones dreamexpectation like “public rooms”. that are meant to be public! how horrible!!!(lol)
by the way -as it seems possibly noteworthy here - if you exchange emails with someones @gmail address, then google has all of your mail histories metadata, as well as the server of your provider has. just to mention, do not send emails to @gmail.com if you dislike google knowing about it. and if you share a document with edit history, then the edit history is likely also shared ;-) As “rooms” in matrix are meant to have a state that changes from the beginning sometimes possibly with every message and one can answer to a message which would reveal the existance of that message later when answered on, including at least a hint of what it was about, such information is imho meant to to be rather complete than hidden. maybe 1:1 chat solves this issue for you, as every chat with a new other person would start empty.
i might be wrong, but matrix already is one of the most robust systems when it comes to “compromised servers”. so very far away from a nightmare. that is unless you are either a true criminal bastard or a true world saving hero, then every leaked byte might be the deadly one, that is true.
So in case you are a true world saving hero: Maybe use a self build raspberry pi mesh proxy chain mounted on rooftops delivered by drones at night to proxy the signal of an in-memory-only-tasks-raspi to a free wifi, where the raspi that has its orders is using battery (like the rooftop proxy chain) but is hidden in a public transport to reach the proxy mesh by the transportations timetable. just to give a paranoic one some ideas and some work to do ;-) If you’ve build everything, then upload the code to github and designs to thingiverse so that “anyone” could have placed the proxy mesh to a free wifi on the rooftops, so you be more secure from beeing suspected ;-) lol btw a mesh system to accomplish this already exists, i think they named it b.a.t.m.a.n. (no joke) protocol, so the main struggle should be handling of solar power vs wifi signal strength, distances, humidity and windproof mount design beeing able to be deployed by manually controlled quadrocopters. good luck!
its amazing how good services can be if some just skip the corporation-obligatory adding of enshittification. i remember an article about a downloadable (but not very legal) DVD with an installer for a (worthless but very popular) OS that included heaps of expensive industry software and the installer was point-klick what you want and then all is done in background and fully usable once done. reading that article it seemed to be a better installer than ever produced by any company for any product.
however as that payed streaming service seemingly leaves huge amount of bank records and ran for such a long time, i guess it would have been easy to stop their customers from paying them. it rather might seem that the real intentions of content corporations might not truely be what they officially claim. maybe we learn in 25 years that the content corporations really were behind such services, maybe like “better get money from ALL markets!” or such.
so to answer your question: my guess is no one will.
the “news” i “know” about india is little, some historical “facts” written mostly by uncivilized brutish invaders compacted to youtube videos by part or fulltime streamers. Some other “facts” which sound often bad i sometims mostly have from official media known to promote any “nice” propaganda - that is, depicting other countries worse than the own one so that people do not hunt their own gov with garden forks just to stop the crimes. Well i really “know” nothing about India.
But beeing proud of culture usually is a good thing, but that is only if it is culture and as such does not(!) base on abuse or similar.
Maybe what you experience could be a crowd effect that protects the people from seeing what they (group, society) do wrong while at the same time it protects the worst wrongdoers from punishment or at least from getting stopped. Such as it could be a self-sustaining downwards spiral taking more and more and everything down with it slowly increaaing pace. At least what you wrote sounded a slight bit chilling like that.
It could be hormones and how culture tells you to act or not act on them, or a lack of culture about such, maybe a combination of culture to “support your group” while that support does not always protect integrity of the overall concept of what that culture was meant for. A group of people cheering to each other how good they are might not want to stop cheering for “minor reasons” because it just feels good. While doing wrong things they could “help” each other (which is supposedly a good thing but can do lot of harm too) with arguments that this wrongdoing would be ok or even "good’ in this specific moment because of <insert_bullshit_here>. alltogether spiralling downwards doing so more often every day. So all of them can go on wrongdoing while feeling well supported or even falsely feel superior in general.
however a figure (real/not real?) well known in india once said something like “it is better to calm down and just do your thing than to overreact”. (this is the shortes version i’ve ever tried to compact it to but maybe you get the idea anyway).
I know for a fact that this is not true,
i don’t know the underlying things that make it a fact, plz share.
great, thanks. i’ll try it out as i have some spare resources on my server.
🤔 maybe there is a lack of distributed fediversed search engine instances where:
then: “for software development i use linuz personal ‘devel’ collection, this way i don’t have to manually click through big G’s gigabytes of SpaMalAds they always only frustrate you with and i am not distracted with dyo stuff when searching for server administration things like ‘puppet stages howto’. for my home projects i use my friends ‘home of DYO’ collection, i get more results than i need but get new ideas as well without seeing work stuff when looking up how to build a puppet stage for my little one. 👨👧 for kids its awesome, our school provides a collection including specialized search instances that fit learning, while that collection is also peer reviewed by a company that spezialized to ensure it does to not contain search engine instances that also index any unfitting content pages.”
oh btw: no i do not have any info about duckduckgo status unfortunately, i stepped over it by myself today 🤷♀️
deleted by creator
I see only one reason, why i would want to be early at the seat. its bcs if i am not, my backpack might be placed above but multiple seats away by the crew, where it is then uneasy for me to have an eye on it whilst easy for theives to take and open them, especially on long flights there would be plenty of opportunity like when everyone is sleeping.
but for this case i use locks on the backpack anyway, so that anyone who wants to open it, either opens it where nothing of value is in it thus no lock, or at least has a much harder time than when trying the very same with other bags…
also on longer flights i usually did not have that problem, but that could also have been just luck
i think it was not the whole hull but one of the materials, the hull was made of that had expired. well, carbon fibre has its strenght when pulled, but when pushing it bends. but if one uses resin on the fibre, then it gets some strenght when pushed too. similar to steel and concrete, while steel can really be pulled a lot, concrete is way better when pushed than steel. steel is quite stable when pushed too, but thats not its main strength. i think the resin was what really held the pressure in the sub, not the carbon fibre, but with this i only have that dangerous type of half-knowledge i’ld have to bring to expert level before doing something stupid (like depending on that to be fully true without really knowing).
in general things often last longer than their expected “minimum” to be used without concern. but in practice one would have to test for damage or if its worn out (like its done with airplane parts at fixed intervals) even without using materials of bad quality. but that was AFAIK what oceangate’s management decided to explicitly NOT check the sub for - despite internal demands to do so.
i would not say its not possible to build a secure pressure hull out of carbon fibre, or out of carbon fibre of not the best quality, or a hull of a different shape than a sphere, or a hull out of different materials with different bending behaviors under pressure, or when such components are “glued” together on the edges that do the different bending, but ALL of this at the same time and without even checking at least after a new maximum depth was reached? not to mention crackling sounds after which heared one would want to double check. Even the wright brothers seemed more cautious to me.
today one would at least get some wear level statistics with unmanned vehicles in a slightly deeper than intended depth to have security margins and afterwards throughout checks for the parts that are important, single points of failures or are one of the proudly new developed.
hm you have a point that it might not have been removed completely, but the problem with that point that i personally have is that this reached me too late to just believe it was really never removed. For some reasons i would not believe blindly in “evidences” that are in control of the one that is in question and could manipulate it later for such claims and also was experienced to not be trustworthy for what they say…
saying that, there are ways to check if something was there at a time or not. the one source i know that could help here only seems to store records from 29th jun 2023 18:44:33 onwards which is too late for this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/
you are right, it does not make a difference in if they can be trusted, but it makes a difference in why not and what to expect if you do so despite the red flags or -as a gov- just let things go on. A person who by accident was speeding should maybe be treated differenrly than a person who intentionally(!) does so while risking others lifes. and what would be more proof of intention than a written statement or removed canary? thus such a statement does make a difference in terms of they just cannot handle their stuff, don’t care at all or maybe even have evil intentions.
examples:
some kids making a fire in the forest cause they don’t know the risks
vs.
some young adults making a fire in the woods cause they just don’t care despite knowing the risks
vs.
a company making fire in the woods because its cheaper to do stuff there and they lack the resouces to do it safe and someone else will pay the firefighters anyway.
vs.
a company stating to want to do so cause they like it despite they could afford doing it secure but just no one could or would sue them anyway.
while i don’t want to say google is like no.4 here, to me these examples all make huge differences, no matter if the woods actually cought fire or not.
my idea currently is to finish some projects that have priority and afterwards then look for lineage os on raspberry pi, combined with gsm modem and maybe a gps module, all powered by a slim powerbank. might make up a huge bulky phone but i almost want to start building it now. On the other hand if i wait until my other projects are finished, the whole thing might be ready made available for self assembly…
after looking at the ticket myself i think the relevant things IMHO are:
up to there that person -belonging to M$ or not (don’t know and don’t care) - behaved IMHO rather correctly, submitting a bug report for something that looked like it, beeing a bit pushy, wanting priority, trying to command, but still formally at least “asking” for help. but at that point the “bug” seemed to have been resolved to me, it looks like the person was either not reading the manual and changelog, or maybe manual or changelog lacks that information, but that was not stated later so i guess that person just did not read neither changelog nor manual.
instead - so it seems to me - that person demanded immediate and free-of-charge consulting of how exactly the switch should be used to work in that specific use case which would imply the dev looks into the example files, maybe try and error for himself just so that that person does not need to neither invest the time to learn use the software the company depends on, nor hire a consultant to do the work.
i think (intentional or not) abusing a bug tracker for demanding free-of-charge enduser consulting by a dev is a bad idea unless one wants(!) to actively waste the precious time of the dev (that high priority ticket for the highly visible already live released product relies on) or has even worse intentions like:
to me this clearly looks like a “different culture” problem. in companies where all are paid from basically the same employer, abusing an internal bug tracker for quick internal consulting would probably be seen as just normal and best practice because the dev who knows and is actually working on the code is likely to have the solution right at hand without thinking much while the other person, who is in charge of quick fixing an untested but already live to customers released product, does not have sufficient knowledge of how the thing works and neither is given the time to learn or at least read changelogs and manual nor the time to learn the basics of general upstream software culture.
in companies the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle could be a problem that imho likely leads to such situations, but this is a guess as i know nobody working there and i am not convinced that that person is in fact working for the named company, instead in that ticket shows up a name that i would assume to be a reason to not rely too much about names in the tickes system always be realnames.
the behaviour that causes the bad postings here in this lemmy thread is to me likely “just” a culture problem and that person would be advised well if told to learn to know the open source culture, netiquette etc and learn to behave differently depending on to who, where and how they communicate with, what to expect and how to interact productively to the benefit of their upstream too, which is the “real price” all so often in open source. it could be that in the company that rolled out the untested product it is seen to be best practice to immediately grab the dev who knows a software and let him help you with whatever you can’t on your own (for whatever reason) whenever you manage to encounter one =]
i assume the pushyness could likely come from their hierarchy. it is not uncommon that so called leaders just create pressure to below because they maybe have no clue of the thing and not want to gain that clue, but that i cannot know, its just a picture in my head. but in a company that seems to put pressure on releasing an untested product to customers i guess i am not too wrong with the direction of that assumption. what the company maybe should learn is that releasing untested and/or unfinished products to live is a bad habit. but i also assume that if they wanted to learn that, they maybe would have started to learn it like roundabout 2 decades ago. again, i do not know for what company that person works -or worked- for, could be just a subcontractor of the named one too. and also could be that the pushyness (telling its for m$, that its live, has impact to customers etc) was really decided by someone up the latter who would have literally no experience at all on how to handle upstream in such situations. hierarchies can be very dysfunctional sometimes and in companies saying “impact to customers” sometimes is likely the same as saying “boss says asap”.
what i would suggest their customers (those who were given a beta version as production ready) should learn is that when someone (maybe) continously delivers differently than advertised, that after some few times of experiencing this, the customer would be insane when assuming that that bad behaviour would vanish by pure hope + throwing money into hands where money maybe already didn’t help improving their habits for assumingly decades. And when feeding everhungry with money does not resolve the problems, that maybe looking towards those who do have a non-money-dependant grown-up culture could actually provide more really usable products. Evaluation of new solutions (which one would really be best for a specific usecase i.e.) or testing new versions before really rolling them out to live might be costly especially when done throughout, but can provide a lot of really high valueable stability otherwise unreachable by those who only throw money at shareholders of brands and maybe rely on pure hope for all of the rest. Especially when that brand maybe even officially anounced to remove their testing department ;+) what should a sane and educated customer expect then ? but again to note, i do not know which companies really are involved and how exactly. from the ticket i do not see which company that person directly works for, nor if the claim that m$ is involved is a fact or just a false claim in hope for quicker help (companies already too desperate to test products before live could be desperate again in need for even more help when their bad habits piled up too long and begin falling on their heads)
the xz vulnerability was done through a superflous dependency to systemd, xz was only the library that was abused to use systemd’s superflous dependency hell. sshd does not use xz, but systemd does depend on it. sshd does not need systemd, but it was attacked through its library dependency.
we should remove any pointless dependencies that can be found on a system to prevent such attacks in future by reducing dependency based attack vectors to a minimum.
also we should increase the overall level of privilege separation where systemd is a good bad example, just look at the init binary and its capability zoo.
The company who hired “the” systemd developer should IMHO start to really fix these issues !
so please hold your “$they have fixed it” back until the the root cause that made the xz dependency level attack possible in the first place has been really fixed =)
Of course pointing it out was good, but now the root cause should be fixed, not just a random symptom that happened to be the first visible atrack that used this attack vector introduced by systemd.
deleted by creator
that could come in veery handy once microsoft wants to pull some plugs. i guess we can be grateful for the backup that is 1. not 100% in m$ hands any more then and 2nd cannot be as easy destroyed as some backups at archive.org. i actually hoped for someone with enough money to create this type of security after m$ assimilated github and thought like “does nobody see the rising danger there?” but even if china’s great fork might be more reliable than m$ over time, maybe it’s better to have your own backups of all the things you actually may need in future.
btw did microsoft manage to get rid of the hackers that settled into their network for … how long??
i guess they’ll tell