Fail2ban is nice, I guess. I got bit by a fellow admin who set it up to never unban except by hand (it may have been a different program, but same concept)
I would say... firewall ssh! Block any access to the port that doesn't come from a short list of "bastion" IPs. That, at least, removes failure logs from your production server IP. Of course the list should have more than one entry. (then use fail2ban on the bastions:))
It also protects you from straight up vulnerabilities since, while your bastion host is still vulnerable, and could be used to jump to your real production server, it at least means that anyone getting to your prod server that way is actively doing it on purpose, which would constitute a problem thats out of scope for this particular problem.
Of course, like many who have replied, I too tend to argue that when a law can be applied in an asinine and harmful way, then it is the law that should be abolished, and not merely, applied at whim.
On the other hand, I think maybe there is sometimes a balance that can be struck. Tufts University recently placed a ban on having sex in your dorm room while your roomate is present. Part of the argument presented was, if your roomate has no problem with you having sex in front of them, then you wont be reported, and its no harm no foul.
On the other hand, if your sexual behavior is such that it causes enough problem for your roomate to want to report it, they have a rule that allows them to step in.
Now, I don't really agree with it but... maybe the law, absent the concept of mandatory reporting and absent the active search for crime, can be something of a compromise. Not that every infraction is a problem but, if an infraction gives someone else cause to complain about it... then maybe that has something to it?
There does seem to be an underlying sense in it, but, I am not sure that I agree with it.
I heard someone going on about how civilian courts have a better record of conviction and how more "terrroists" were convicted in criminal courts than military trials. This was held up as the civilian courts are better.
Though, thats only a standard of precision, not accuracy!
Yes more were convicted, but, that could easily mean the civilian courts are too quick to convict and don't have an appropriately high standard for evidence. Whats to say thats those outcomes are correct? Does nobody even care?
You place severe criminal penalties on NOT doing it, and the technical people involved will not only figure out how to do it, they will figure out how to change their process from the ground up so that it can be done more easily.
There, problem solved.
I have given this issue some thought before and I think that this would be a ripe area for some activism. If I were asked for such a sample, I would happily agree, so long as the police department, and officers involved signed an agreement that they would be jointly and separately responsible for making sure that my samples and all data about those samples would be destroyed within a specific time period, or else severe penalties would be paid to me.
Secondly, I would want papers, by the DA, granting me immunity from being prosecuted for any crime other than the one at issue, from this particular evidence.
If they plan to destroy the samples, then they should have no problem making such an agreement.
Whats interesting here is I was just, recently, reading about the concept in chemistry of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle" and can't help but think... what if there is an equilibrium reaction (or well, an analogy of one) going on.
You change the relative quantity of one variable, and the systemic equilibrium shifts to oppose that change. You take one reactant out, and more of it gets produced "to compensate". Not even because there is some force saying "this is how it must be" but simply because the presence of that reactant has implications for the rate of reactions in which it is involved, and thus, its removal is compensated by reducing the rate of reactions which it is involved in.
This is not to imply any sort of natural law or chemistry involved, just tho say that complex systems are...complex, and changing a specific variable can have results which, can't always be predicted in a simple manner.
I don't think HCN kills you that fast. From Wikipedia:
A hydrogen cyanide concentration of 300 mg/m3 in air will kill a human within about 10 minutes. It is estimated that hydrogen cyanide at a concentration of 3500 ppm (about 3200 mg/m3) will kill a human in about 1 minute. The toxicity is caused by the cyanide ion, which halts cellular respiration by inhibiting an enzyme in mitochondria called cytochrome c oxidase.
Now... thats inhaled. Stopping cellular respirations is bad, but its going to take at least a few moments for it to be dispersed throughout the body and shut down enough cellular respiration to cause death. A minute sounds reasonable with a high enough concentration, but I doubt that its going to go too much faster than that.
Somehow I doubt that you are going to concentrate HCN to that level with just yeast or even a still.
Also, its boiling point is far lower than ethanol (78 F vs 173 F) So it would be discarded in the first runoff from the still by an operator who had any clue what he was doing, long before the ethanol even started to enter the end product in any real quantity.
These things are visible nearly everywhere throughout the city (I kind of like when they are amongst trees and disguised to look like a tall oddly shaped tree, but thats usually outside the city). I would be shocked if more than one person in 20 could identify those as cell towers without any help.
Of course, most of the stories of danger are about cell phones, and most people don't associate the risk with wireless access points or other similar devices.... so my assumption is, most people will not even know what they are, and if it has ANY effect on the sale price it is not by virtue of the danger of radio waves, but how ugly of a thing these are to have to gaze upon outside your window.
Also, there can be other explanations of "kick ass". Why should we assume the apartment hunter is experienced and has looked at many places. A lot of people just have low expectations.
> Is it plugged in? yes? LIER! > It it turned on? yes? LIER! > Can you see any messeges on the screen? no? LIER!
Now now, its not always a lie. Often its an omission.
I was a desktop tech in the same hospital that my mother worked at. One day, the lead help desk tech calls me "I just spent an hour on the phone with your mother". "You did, what happened?" "Apparently they moved their desktop machine, I was just trying to get her to plug the network wire back into the wall, it was painful. In the end I had to dispatch a tech." "Really? Did she tell you that shes nearly blind? Can't see worth shit, only one eye even works, and that ones nearly useless." "What!?!?... your shitting me" "Nope".
You are assuming that any other potential buyers even notice the cell towers. I garauntee about 90% of them see that they have full bars on their phone and think no further of it.
I guess that depends on why you fee it should be legal. I tend to come down on the side of not believing that this level of proscriptive social engineering is an appropriate use of government power.
Also there are some serious gaps in the logic. I think it really comes down to how you ask the questions. Maybe a lot of people don't favor legalization, but, a measure to make posession of under an oz punishable by nothing more than a $100 civil fine passed with about 70% voting in favor in MA.
Thats not quite legalization, but shows a really strange "its ok to be a user of it, but not produce or sell it" head in the sand sort of policy that you get from going directly to the people. Frankly, the majority of people didn't support the ending miscogeny laws, but, now, how many would think of bringing them back?
Its just an asinine policy, I don't see why we should wait for anything else to happen to end it.
Its ok though, because the real risk is being taken by the consumer.
Take me for example. I missed previous stories on this, and so, didn't know that Assassins Creed 2 saved my save games on someone elses server. That means, of course, that I have played though the game, finished it, loved it btw, and set it down...expecting to be able to pick it up again, at any point in the future, load my save games, and play...or start a new game even.
Now... should Ubisoft go out of business, be hacked, suffer a catastrophic system failure, have a disgruntled employee, or suffer any number of harsh fates, I, along with everyone else who bought and played there game in good faith, with every expectation that our save games were being saved locally on our machines, WE are all the ones whose data is now at risk.
Thanks Ubisoft. To think, I was looking forward to the next one, when in reality, I am looking forward to a day when I can't even toss the game in and play it anymore. Not even just a possible loss of my save games, that was always a possibility... but... loss of even the ability to make new ones, even with a perfectly good disk!
Someone had pointed out to me a while back that human sexual maturity seems to be regulated by body fat. Feed a female enough fat in her diet, and reaching puberty by age 10 is not uncommon at all. 5 is probably an outlier in any case, I doubt that more than a small fraction of human females can reach puberty by 5.
Then again, I know one who didn't reach it until 19.
I didn't even know all that was under DHS. So... in that case I totally stick by statements that I have made in the past that they should be defunded and disbanded!
Well...if you need a predictable stream, then maybe you should capture a single stream, and keep feeding that into the program? Then you can feed the same sequence every time.
Certainly you are right but... with a very small amount of work (a facility for switching out the randomness source), you can work around it easily.
There are plenty of applications where, a strong source of randomness is needed, and reproducibility is not needed at all.
Actually Bruce only has a 50% chance of getting the answer in 0.019 seconds. Chuck Norris however just hits the researcher with a round house so hard that his grandmother spits out the answer, 100% of the time.
Well, we all also do illegal things, but you best be extra perfect in front of a cop. All you need to do is one illegal thing in front of a cop, and he will gladly do his job and process you into the system for punishment. Why should hey get a break when he gets caught slipping?
Of course, you do know, I used the term 1%er liberally, which specifically is meant to A) refer to criminal outlaw bikers and B) illustrate that 99% of riders are NOT criminal outlaw bikers
Actually I meant 15%er as a joke more like.... MAYBE if 15% of the riding community were criminal bikers, then you might have a leg to stand on claiming that criminal bikers are a real concern for your family. As stated by others, the real percentage is lower than that (probably lower than 1% even... though... the number of gang members when added to hangers on etc is estimated to approach nearly 5 million which is around 1% of the general US population.... so maybe...)
Long story short: A while back an article was run about how most motorcycle riders are average joes and law abiding citizens. In said article, it said that the "bad guys" were, at most, 1% of the community, and not representative of the average biker.
As such, outlaw biker gangs responded by taking the label "1%" to denote themselves as the bad ass bikers. As such, 1% has become a common tatoo amongst that crowd, along with 1% patches on leather jackets and the term "one percenter"
Wiki has a short writeup on it. I have seen it in articles myself and, had the story told to me by my wife's leather wearing, bike riding non-1%er grandfather.
Ok, I am going to fucking shut up now.... I got p0wn3d:
"I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me and are running a candidate against me," he said on ABC TV's Good Game.
Wow...um.... so if you live in Australia...do worry about the biker gang party.... holy shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Fail2ban is nice, I guess. I got bit by a fellow admin who set it up to never unban except by hand (it may have been a different program, but same concept)
I would say... firewall ssh! Block any access to the port that doesn't come from a short list of "bastion" IPs. That, at least, removes failure logs from your production server IP. Of course the list should have more than one entry. (then use fail2ban on the bastions :))
It also protects you from straight up vulnerabilities since, while your bastion host is still vulnerable, and could be used to jump to your real production server, it at least means that anyone getting to your prod server that way is actively doing it on purpose, which would constitute a problem thats out of scope for this particular problem.
-Steve
Fundamentally, I tend to agree with you.
Of course, like many who have replied, I too tend to argue that when a law can be applied in an asinine and harmful way, then it is the law that should be abolished, and not merely, applied at whim.
On the other hand, I think maybe there is sometimes a balance that can be struck. Tufts University recently placed a ban on having sex in your dorm room while your roomate is present. Part of the argument presented was, if your roomate has no problem with you having sex in front of them, then you wont be reported, and its no harm no foul.
On the other hand, if your sexual behavior is such that it causes enough problem for your roomate to want to report it, they have a rule that allows them to step in.
Now, I don't really agree with it but... maybe the law, absent the concept of mandatory reporting and absent the active search for crime, can be something of a compromise. Not that every infraction is a problem but, if an infraction gives someone else cause to complain about it... then maybe that has something to it?
There does seem to be an underlying sense in it, but, I am not sure that I agree with it.
-Steve
Thats very true.
I heard someone going on about how civilian courts have a better record of conviction and how more "terrroists" were convicted in criminal courts than military trials. This was held up as the civilian courts are better.
Though, thats only a standard of precision, not accuracy!
Yes more were convicted, but, that could easily mean the civilian courts are too quick to convict and don't have an appropriately high standard for evidence. Whats to say thats those outcomes are correct? Does nobody even care?
-Steve
Actually its quite easy to do exactly that....
You place severe criminal penalties on NOT doing it, and the technical people involved will not only figure out how to do it, they will figure out how to change their process from the ground up so that it can be done more easily.
There, problem solved.
I have given this issue some thought before and I think that this would be a ripe area for some activism. If I were asked for such a sample, I would happily agree, so long as the police department, and officers involved signed an agreement that they would be jointly and separately responsible for making sure that my samples and all data about those samples would be destroyed within a specific time period, or else severe penalties would be paid to me.
Secondly, I would want papers, by the DA, granting me immunity from being prosecuted for any crime other than the one at issue, from this particular evidence.
If they plan to destroy the samples, then they should have no problem making such an agreement.
Whats interesting here is I was just, recently, reading about the concept in chemistry of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle" and can't help but think... what if there is an equilibrium reaction (or well, an analogy of one) going on.
You change the relative quantity of one variable, and the systemic equilibrium shifts to oppose that change. You take one reactant out, and more of it gets produced "to compensate". Not even because there is some force saying "this is how it must be" but simply because the presence of that reactant has implications for the rate of reactions in which it is involved, and thus, its removal is compensated by reducing the rate of reactions which it is involved in.
This is not to imply any sort of natural law or chemistry involved, just tho say that complex systems are...complex, and changing a specific variable can have results which, can't always be predicted in a simple manner.
I don't think HCN kills you that fast. From Wikipedia:
Now... thats inhaled. Stopping cellular respirations is bad, but its going to take at least a few moments for it to be dispersed throughout the body and shut down enough cellular respiration to cause death. A minute sounds reasonable with a high enough concentration, but I doubt that its going to go too much faster than that.
Somehow I doubt that you are going to concentrate HCN to that level with just yeast or even a still.
Also, its boiling point is far lower than ethanol (78 F vs 173 F) So it would be discarded in the first runoff from the still by an operator who had any clue what he was doing, long before the ethanol even started to enter the end product in any real quantity.
-Steve
Why would you assume that 50% of the people who look at the apartment even know what a cell tower looks like?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=cell+tower&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=
These things are visible nearly everywhere throughout the city (I kind of like when they are amongst trees and disguised to look like a tall oddly shaped tree, but thats usually outside the city). I would be shocked if more than one person in 20 could identify those as cell towers without any help.
Of course, most of the stories of danger are about cell phones, and most people don't associate the risk with wireless access points or other similar devices.... so my assumption is, most people will not even know what they are, and if it has ANY effect on the sale price it is not by virtue of the danger of radio waves, but how ugly of a thing these are to have to gaze upon outside your window.
Also, there can be other explanations of "kick ass". Why should we assume the apartment hunter is experienced and has looked at many places. A lot of people just have low expectations.
-Steve
> Is it plugged in? yes? LIER!
> It it turned on? yes? LIER!
> Can you see any messeges on the screen? no? LIER!
Now now, its not always a lie. Often its an omission.
I was a desktop tech in the same hospital that my mother worked at. One day, the lead help desk tech calls me "I just spent an hour on the phone with your mother".
"You did, what happened?"
"Apparently they moved their desktop machine, I was just trying to get her to plug the network wire back into the wall, it was painful. In the end I had to dispatch a tech."
"Really? Did she tell you that shes nearly blind? Can't see worth shit, only one eye even works, and that ones nearly useless."
"What!?!?... your shitting me"
"Nope".
-Steve
You are assuming that any other potential buyers even notice the cell towers. I garauntee about 90% of them see that they have full bars on their phone and think no further of it.
-Steve
I guess that depends on why you fee it should be legal. I tend to come down on the side of not believing that this level of proscriptive social engineering is an appropriate use of government power.
Also there are some serious gaps in the logic. I think it really comes down to how you ask the questions. Maybe a lot of people don't favor legalization, but, a measure to make posession of under an oz punishable by nothing more than a $100 civil fine passed with about 70% voting in favor in MA.
Thats not quite legalization, but shows a really strange "its ok to be a user of it, but not produce or sell it" head in the sand sort of policy that you get from going directly to the people. Frankly, the majority of people didn't support the ending miscogeny laws, but, now, how many would think of bringing them back?
Its just an asinine policy, I don't see why we should wait for anything else to happen to end it.
-Steve
Its ok though, because the real risk is being taken by the consumer.
Take me for example. I missed previous stories on this, and so, didn't know that Assassins Creed 2 saved my save games on someone elses server. That means, of course, that I have played though the game, finished it, loved it btw, and set it down...expecting to be able to pick it up again, at any point in the future, load my save games, and play...or start a new game even.
Now... should Ubisoft go out of business, be hacked, suffer a catastrophic system failure, have a disgruntled employee, or suffer any number of harsh fates, I, along with everyone else who bought and played there game in good faith, with every expectation that our save games were being saved locally on our machines, WE are all the ones whose data is now at risk.
Thanks Ubisoft. To think, I was looking forward to the next one, when in reality, I am looking forward to a day when I can't even toss the game in and play it anymore. Not even just a possible loss of my save games, that was always a possibility... but... loss of even the ability to make new ones, even with a perfectly good disk!
-Steve
Fudge packers have civil rights? Shit... when did they get them? Think that means everyone else wil get civil rights soon too?
Someone had pointed out to me a while back that human sexual maturity seems to be regulated by body fat. Feed a female enough fat in her diet, and reaching puberty by age 10 is not uncommon at all. 5 is probably an outlier in any case, I doubt that more than a small fraction of human females can reach puberty by 5.
Then again, I know one who didn't reach it until 19.
-Steve
I know not seems. It depends entirely on the person.
You just don't ever hear about the people who educate themselves and experiment out of curiosity and exhibit care.
Well you do.... you just don't hear about them because of their drug use.
-Steve
I didn't even know all that was under DHS. So... in that case I totally stick by statements that I have made in the past that they should be defunded and disbanded!
Well...if you need a predictable stream, then maybe you should capture a single stream, and keep feeding that into the program? Then you can feed the same sequence every time.
Certainly you are right but... with a very small amount of work (a facility for switching out the randomness source), you can work around it easily.
There are plenty of applications where, a strong source of randomness is needed, and reproducibility is not needed at all.
-Steve
Actually Bruce only has a 50% chance of getting the answer in 0.019 seconds. Chuck Norris however just hits the researcher with a round house so hard that his grandmother spits out the answer, 100% of the time.
He never said what the encoding was
Still? Damn, my mother can't even do that anymore. I don't even want to think about my 87 year old grandmother giving it a try.
Of course, what configuration will your face assume when Chuck Norris round house kicks your face into the sun?
I am pretty sure that the end result of that match is Acting: 0 Roundhouse: 1
Well, we all also do illegal things, but you best be extra perfect in front of a cop. All you need to do is one illegal thing in front of a cop, and he will gladly do his job and process you into the system for punishment. Why should hey get a break when he gets caught slipping?
-Steve
Of course, you do know, I used the term 1%er liberally, which specifically is meant to A) refer to criminal outlaw bikers and B) illustrate that 99% of riders are NOT criminal outlaw bikers
Actually I meant 15%er as a joke more like.... MAYBE if 15% of the riding community were criminal bikers, then you might have a leg to stand on claiming that criminal bikers are a real concern for your family. As stated by others, the real percentage is lower than that (probably lower than 1% even... though... the number of gang members when added to hangers on etc is estimated to approach nearly 5 million which is around 1% of the general US population.... so maybe...)
-Steve
Obviously, you don't know too many bikers. :)
Long story short: A while back an article was run about how most motorcycle riders are average joes and law abiding citizens. In said article, it said that the "bad guys" were, at most, 1% of the community, and not representative of the average biker.
As such, outlaw biker gangs responded by taking the label "1%" to denote themselves as the bad ass bikers. As such, 1% has become a common tatoo amongst that crowd, along with 1% patches on leather jackets and the term "one percenter"
Wiki has a short writeup on it. I have seen it in articles myself and, had the story told to me by my wife's leather wearing, bike riding non-1%er grandfather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club#One_Percenters
-Steve
Ok, I am going to fucking shut up now.... I got p0wn3d:
Wow...um.... so if you live in Australia...do worry about the biker gang party.... holy shit.
-Steve