biscuitswalrus

joined 1 year ago
[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

You're old fashioned. :)

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

It's PKI, public key infrastructure. It's secure so it's used in many applications. Including ssh using keys.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 5 points 1 month ago

Well good news! Time to let yourself love again!

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 9 points 1 month ago

I ended up reading it on bleeping computer since the linked site looks like an auto tldr bot saved 50% of the words. The important 50% was discarded.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/18-year-old-security-flaw-in-firefox-and-chrome-exploited-in-attacks/

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

For me I want to know how much frame latency there is since I'm suspicious and I want to try things to see the effect and I just don't know how to get that information in an OSD like I can with msi afterburner.

If someone knows what can do this in Linux, please reply!

Instead I just stopped all competitive and cooperative gaming. Which is a bit of a shame. Sometimes I'll load up windows to join friends but usually by the time I've updated whatever game I've gotten over it.

Don't get me wrong, hiccups aside I'm very happy which is why I'm in Linux most of the time. But it's not always a wonderful world.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 58 points 2 months ago (9 children)

At this point we want antivirus and anticheat out of windows kernel. Microsoft killing access to it will genuinely fix Linux compatibility issues.

It couldn't be more win-win.

Microsoft is trying to test that approach. The company tested restricting kernel access to third party security vendors in the past, with Vista OS in 2006, but had to backtrack the move.

Symantec and McAfee then claimed Microsoft’s decision to shut off access to the kernel amounts to “anti-competitive behavior.”

Without kernel access, this software may struggle to perform in-depth behavioral analyses of processes and applications, to meet its objectives, said Varkey. “Blocking this access can limit the software’s ability to detect and prevent sophisticated attacks.”

They can't be trusted, kick out everyone's access to the kernel. Everyone must use API and that can be interpreted.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

This will be able to do cross site (apps) information collection within other sites (apps) in this profile. The way this works is one of many, and complicated so: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/cross-site-tracking-lets-unpack-that/

The idea of profiles is to stop this behaviour and other behaviours through isolation. Along with other practices makes up a privacy-in-depth (layered) approach. It doesn't solve everything.

For example if you are in the same house sharing an internet connection, it is possible to say "at least one outstation in this house (IP) are interested in 'x' and therefore I should target everyone in that house because people who live together are interested in similar things". Even if you isolate, you could still teach a data hoarding company like meta you like something simply by them by necessity needing your IP to communicate.

Some people try to say 'I've got a VPS with a VPN to communicate all traffic through' but that doesn't add any privacy, your exposed VPS with its IP is an IP only for you and still all collected information about you would be able to be thumbprinted to that IP across many services (eg instagram whatsapp and Facebook). A public VPN provider in this case adds a layer of obfuscation since you can change your IP rapidly and it's an IP that's shared with other unrelated users. Which is exactly why many services like reddit are banning access from them under the guise of "oh training data leaks from VPN, and we want to sell it" bs.

Anyway it's a tough world out there to be private. I'm at an age where after 10 years without Facebook and I never had instagram, everyone knows I'm contactable via sms. It's not secure, it's barely private, but I don't really "chat" except at the pub. So that's where they ask me to visit. Lol.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

Giving you an up vote instead of myself leaving a snarky comment.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 29 points 2 months ago

I keep asking the pets for their owners secrets but they don't tell me? I've tried pats, compliments and treats? Am I doing it wrong? How are you getting them to tell you about their owners?

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I checked too, it's not a valid public DNS record, so then the question is, does Oktas internal DNS resolve this. Even if it does, how does okta even sit in this? Are they the identity provider for Twitter? Surely even if it's identity, it's got nothing to do with content moderation? So many questions.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You know it's stuff like this that forces me to rewrite dns on the firewall, but that's probably not even possible if they use DNS over TLS.

[–] biscuitswalrus@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago

A software shouldn't use passwords for tls, just like before you use submit your bank password your network connection to the site has been validated and encrypted by the public key your client is using to talk to the bank server, and the bank private key to decrypt it.

The rest of the hygiene is still up for grabs for sure, IT security is built on layers. Even if one is broken it shouldn't lead to a failure overall. If it does, go add more layers.

To answer about something like a WiFi pineapple: those man in the middle attacks are thwarted by TLS. The moment an invalid certificate is offered, since the man in the middle should and can not know the private key (something that isn't used as whimsically as a password, and is validated by a trusted root authority).

If an attacker has a private key, your systems already have failed. You should immediately revoke it. You publish your revokation. Invalidating it. But even that would be egregious. You've already let someone into the vault, they already have the crown jewels. The POS system doesn't even need to be accessed.

So no matter what, the WiFi is irrelevant in a setup.

Being suspicious because of it though, I could understand. It's not a smoking gun, but you'd maybe look deeper out if suspicion.

Note I'm not security operations, I'm solutions and systems administrations. A Sec Ops would probably agree more with you than I do.

I consider things from a Swiss cheese model, and rely on 4+ layers of protection against most understood threat vendors. A failure of any one is minor non-compliance in my mind, a deep priority 3. Into the queue, but there's no rush. And given a public WiFi is basically the same as a compromised WiFi, or a 5g carrier network, a POS solution should be built with strengths to handle that by default. And then security layered on top (mfa, conditional access policies, PKI/TLS, Mdm, endpoint health policies, TPM and validation++++)

view more: ‹ prev next ›