Most people around here have idea how any of these things work beyond the marketing brochure level with pretty layer-cake diagrams. In reality, the only thing between you and "them" is a couple of integer values sitting in RAM and tons of point-in-time incomprehensible logic manipulating them.
Virtualization in no way increases security beyond what adding any other software layer could. At best, it doesn't hurt security. At worst, multiple systems can be compromised via a simple hypervisor breach. All it takes is a buggy device driver.
Decimal representation was a epic mistake in the first place. First, there are more characters to type. Second, constantly having to do base 10 to 2 conversion is a PITA. Base 16 to 2 is trivial.
Access control lists down to the atomic level along with encryption is the answer to every security problem. Neither one of these things work when the user himself is responsible for maintaining them.
Installer: Do you want to install cute bunny screensaver overriding all security measures that would otherwise prevent said installation?
User: Clicks YES button. Types in admin password.
No they can't easily "just" relicense it. They'd have to track down everyone that ever contributed to the project and ask permission for their changes to be relicensed.
The only freedom is restricts is restricting others' freedom.
Obviously the only reason you'd want to make an improvement to a piece of GPL'ed code is because it was valuable to you in some way. If it were not, then you would just go find a different piece of code that wasn't GPL'ed. So you take this valuable piece of code that you can't find an alternative for or write yourself, and you make a change to it that want to keep as secret sauce. For some reason, even though you see no problem with having this opportunity yourself, you believe your rights are being stepped on because you can't prevent others from having the very same rights you had.
But I think all this talk of personal freedom is bullshit to begin with. What you really want to be able to do is pass off others' work as your own in the form of proprietary software while charing monopoly rent prices on it.
That's exactly how our network is organized now. We treat the users as if we were just an ISP getting them internet access. They can only reach server/ports that are publicly available. Anything else requires a client VPN; we're really stingy giving that access out. It's easy to revoke, and I don't have to care if they move around from office to office.
Since you want to go down this line of reasoning, what part of your home internet connection do you own? Why do you expect your ISP not to intercept or otherwise tamper with communications you send via your ISP's network or any of the other networks that your communications traverse?
If you already have this level of control over the end users' machines, the point is moot no? You can already monitor their activities and leave such BS with the desktop support people and not kluge up your network architecture with multiple layers of surveillance equipment.
I've never understood system/network administrators that get a thrill out of restricting what users can do outside of preventing operational difficulties. I could care less what users do unless they're disrupting service in some way or another. The network is not the right place to enforce human behavior.
On a publicly funded school campus, second amendment rights apply. In California in particular, privacy laws apply. I work on a CSU campus as a network analyst. We are not permitted to keep any logs that can link any individual user to any particular destination ip address. We are not permitted to keep outbound firewall logs or any inbound logs that relate to outbound state initiation. We are certainly not permitted to intercept or block encrypted communications in anyway that would otherwise normally be allowed. This applies equally to staff, faculty and students.
This is technically inaccurate. It's the chloroplasts within the plant cells that have the smarts. There's a lot of bacteria that are also autotrophic as well. So, make of that what you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people around here have idea how any of these things work beyond the marketing brochure level with pretty layer-cake diagrams. In reality, the only thing between you and "them" is a couple of integer values sitting in RAM and tons of point-in-time incomprehensible logic manipulating them.
Virtualization in no way increases security beyond what adding any other software layer could. At best, it doesn't hurt security. At worst, multiple systems can be compromised via a simple hypervisor breach. All it takes is a buggy device driver.
Decimal representation was a epic mistake in the first place. First, there are more characters to type. Second, constantly having to do base 10 to 2 conversion is a PITA. Base 16 to 2 is trivial.
Access control lists down to the atomic level along with encryption is the answer to every security problem. Neither one of these things work when the user himself is responsible for maintaining them. Installer: Do you want to install cute bunny screensaver overriding all security measures that would otherwise prevent said installation? User: Clicks YES button. Types in admin password.
No they can't easily "just" relicense it. They'd have to track down everyone that ever contributed to the project and ask permission for their changes to be relicensed.
The only freedom is restricts is restricting others' freedom.
Obviously the only reason you'd want to make an improvement to a piece of GPL'ed code is because it was valuable to you in some way. If it were not, then you would just go find a different piece of code that wasn't GPL'ed. So you take this valuable piece of code that you can't find an alternative for or write yourself, and you make a change to it that want to keep as secret sauce. For some reason, even though you see no problem with having this opportunity yourself, you believe your rights are being stepped on because you can't prevent others from having the very same rights you had.
But I think all this talk of personal freedom is bullshit to begin with. What you really want to be able to do is pass off others' work as your own in the form of proprietary software while charing monopoly rent prices on it.
So you want to be able to leach off others' code but not let anyone leach from you?
Yep. I always love the old "It's theirs, so they are immune from criticism" argument.
Because not knowing is clearly better than knowing.
That's exactly how our network is organized now. We treat the users as if we were just an ISP getting them internet access. They can only reach server/ports that are publicly available. Anything else requires a client VPN; we're really stingy giving that access out. It's easy to revoke, and I don't have to care if they move around from office to office.
That's nothing. California spent $650 million switching the CSU system over to PeopleSoft.
I'd argue that it violates the being "secure in one's persons" part.
Rate limiting does nothing against distributed attacks which are the norm these days.
Private enterprise? Sure. Publicly funded k-12 school? Not so clear. Publicly funded university? Absolutely not.
Since you want to go down this line of reasoning, what part of your home internet connection do you own? Why do you expect your ISP not to intercept or otherwise tamper with communications you send via your ISP's network or any of the other networks that your communications traverse?
Over https no less.
Sorry, that should have been first amendment.
If you already have this level of control over the end users' machines, the point is moot no? You can already monitor their activities and leave such BS with the desktop support people and not kluge up your network architecture with multiple layers of surveillance equipment.
I've never understood system/network administrators that get a thrill out of restricting what users can do outside of preventing operational difficulties. I could care less what users do unless they're disrupting service in some way or another. The network is not the right place to enforce human behavior.
On a publicly funded school campus, second amendment rights apply. In California in particular, privacy laws apply. I work on a CSU campus as a network analyst. We are not permitted to keep any logs that can link any individual user to any particular destination ip address. We are not permitted to keep outbound firewall logs or any inbound logs that relate to outbound state initiation. We are certainly not permitted to intercept or block encrypted communications in anyway that would otherwise normally be allowed. This applies equally to staff, faculty and students.
There are no MITM attacks on TLS that don't involve PKI forging. The only way forging is going to work if you have control over the users' machines.
You've got antisocial and asocial mixed up. They're not the same thing.
This is technically inaccurate. It's the chloroplasts within the plant cells that have the smarts. There's a lot of bacteria that are also autotrophic as well. So, make of that what you will.
Not if you're using version control
I wasn't complaining. Parent was complaining. Automatic zone signing only work on dynamic zones in 9.6 AFAIK. Might be different in 9.7.
puppetlabs.com