We shouldn’t blame the victims that society failed to properly educate. You’re right that if people intimately understood apple the way you probably do, they’d never buy an apple product. I would argue, however, that it’s a failing of education not an informed choice to be corporately cucked.
I don’t think anyone should expect a battery replacement to be free after 10 years, but it shouldn’t cost $100,000
Just because you can’t use it doesn’t mean a hacker can’t. If someone discovered a vulnerability in the 3g handshake or encryption protocol, it could be an avenue for an RCE.
the best way to learn is by doing!
I just built my own automation around their official documentation; it’s fantastic.
https://www.wireguard.com/#conceptual-overview
vyatta and vyatta-based (edgerouter, etc) I would say are good enough for the average consumer. If we’re deep enough in the weeds to be arguing the pros and cons of wireguard raw vs talescale; I think we’re certainly passed accepting a budget consumer router as acceptably meeting these and other needs.
Also you don’t need port forwarding and ddns for internal routing. My phone and laptop both have automation in place for switching wireguard profiles based on network SSID. At home, all traffic is routed locally; outside of my network everything goes through ddns/port forwarding.
If you’re really paranoid about it, you could always skip the port-forward route, and set up a wireguard-based mesh yourself using an external vps as a relay. That way you don’t have to open anything directly, and internal traffic still routes when you don’t have an internet connection at home. It’s basically what talescale is, except in this case you control the keys and have better insight into who is using them, and you reverse the authentication paradigm from external to internal.
Talescale proper gives you an external dependency (and a lot of security risk), but the underlying technology (wireguard) does not have the same limitation. You should just deploy wireguard yourself; it’s not as scary as it sounds.
Fail2ban and containers can be tricky, because under the hood, you’ll often have container policies automatically inserting themselves above host policies in iptables. The docker documentation has a good write-up on how to solve it for their implementation
https://docs.docker.com/engine/network/packet-filtering-firewalls/
For your usecase specifically: If you’re using VMs only, you could run it within any VM that is exposing traffic, but for containers you’ll have to run fail2ban on the host itself. I’m not sure how LXC handles this, but I assume it’s probably similar to docker.
The simplest solution would be to just put something between your hypervisor and the Internet physically (a raspberry-pi-based firewall, etc)
Devil’s Advocate:
How do we know that our brains don’t work the same way?
Why would it matter that we learn differently than a program learns?
Suppose someone has a photographic memory, should it be illegal for them to consume copyrighted works?
It’s fuckin’ art though
Oracle, SAP, Redhat, all of their customer portals require it for SSO. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.
I think you go about it the other way: break data analytics and advertising off from everything else. If every unit has to be self-sufficient without reliance on data collection and first-party advertising I think you fix most of the major issues.
I’m actually working on a vector DB RAG system for my own documentation. Even in its rudimentary stages, it’s been very helpful for finding functions in my own code that I don’t remember exactly what project I implemented it in, but have a vague idea what it did.
E.g
Have I ever written a bash function that orders non-symver GitHub branches?
Yes! In your ‘webwork automation’ project, starting on line 234, you wrote a function that sorts Git branches based on WebWork’s versioning conventions.
+1 for cmk. Been using it at work for an entire data center + thousands of endpoints and I also use it for my 3 server homelab. It scales beautifully at any size.
Yes and no. In the best case, endpoints have enough cached data to get us through that process. In the worst case, that’s still a considerably smaller footprint to fix by hand before the rest of the infrastructure can fix itself.
With enough autism in your overlay configs, sure, but in my environment tat leakage is still encrypted. It’s far simpler to just accept leakage and encrypt the OS partition with a key that’s never stored anywhere. If it gets lost, you rebuild the system from pxe. (Which is fine, because it only takes about 20 minutes and no data we care about exists there) If it’s working correctly, the OS partition is still encrypted and protects any inadvertent data leakage from offline attacks.
We do this in a lot of areas with fslogix where there is heavy persistent data, it just never felt necessary to do that for endpoints where the persistent data partition is not much more than user settings and caches of convenience. Anything that is important is never stored solely on the endpoints, but it is nice to be able to reboot those servers without affecting downstream endpoints. If we had everything locally dependant on fslogix, I’d have to schedule building-wide outages for patching.
Separate persistent data and operating system partitions, ensure that every local network has small pxe servers, vpned (wireguard, etc) to a cdn with your base OS deployment images, that validate images based on CA and checksum before delivering, and give every user the ability to pxe boot and redeploy the non-data partition.
Bitlocker keys for the OS partition are irrelevant because nothing of value is stored on the OS partition, and keys for the data partition can be stored and passed via AD after the redeploy. If someone somehow deploys an image that isn’t ours, it won’t have keys to the data partition because it won’t have a trust relationship with AD.
(This is actually what I do at work)
I’ve heard anecdotally that some 911 services were down in my area, but I can’t speak to how wide that was.
The thing about rational actors, is when given the same information they should make the same choices. I would argue that they’re most likely, instead, just at the peak of mt. stupid