Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)EF
Elvith Ma'for @ elvith @feddit.org
Posts
1
Comments
384
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • I'm currently experimenting if I can convert my stack to rootless podman.

    I found in my notes, that

    A user-mode networking tool for unprivileged network namespaces must be installed on the machine in order for Podman to run in a rootless environment.

    Podman supports two rootless networking tools: pasta (provided by passt) and slirp4netns.

    Could this be your problem?

    Taken from https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/docs/tutorials/rootless_tutorial.md

  • Very verbose and communicative? Check

    A constant stream of checks for skill in persuasion, deception, intimidation, perception, insight and investigation? Check

    Rolling dices? Uhm.... Maybe?

  • If done correctly, those may only be open from the internet, but not from the local network. While SSH may only be available from your local network - or maybe only by the fixed IP of your PC. Other services may only be reachable, when coming from the correct VLAN (assuming you did segment your home network). Maybe your server can only access the internet, but not to the home network, so that an attacker has a harder time spreading into your home network (note: that's only really meaningful, if it's not a software firewall on that same server...)

  • Instead of thinking with layers, you should use think of Swiss cheese. Each slice of cheese has some holes - think of weaknesses in the defense (or intentional holes as you need a way to connect to the target legitimately). Putting several slices back to back (in random order and orientation) means that the way to penetrate all layers is not a simple straight way, but that you need to work around each layer.

  • Remember, they're talking about efficiency all day long, but they're not mentioning effectivity with a single word.

    Efficiency is how fast/cheap/ressource-less you can get something done. Effectivity is if you're even doing the right thing at all.

    You can be super efficient, but still not be effective by doing something, so....

  • truex

    Jump
  • They're pronounced differently (although there's a difference between British English and American English but for these that difference is quite consistent and you just omit the r):

    horse [hɔːs]/[hɔːrs] - worse [wɜːs]/[wɜːrs]

    cord [kɔ:d]/[kɔːrd] - word [wɜːd]/[wɜːrd]

  • truex

    Jump
  • There are a few of them. There's also

    Phoney Phonetics.

    One reason why I cannot spell,
    Although I learned the rules quite well
    Is that some words like coup and through
    Sound just like threw and flue and Who;
    When oo is never spelled the same,
    The duice becomes a guessing game;
    And then I ponder over though,
    Is it spelled so, or throw, or beau,
    And bough is never bow, it's bow,
    I mean the bow that sounds like plow,
    And not the bow that sounds like row -
    The row that is pronounced like roe.
    I wonder, too, why rough and tough,
    That sound the same as gruff and muff,
    Are spelled like bough and though, for they
    Are both pronounced a different way.
    And why can't I spell trough and cough
    The same as I do scoff and golf?
    Why isn't drought spelled just like route,
    or doubt or pout or sauerkraut?
    When words all sound so much the same
    To change the spelling seems a shame.
    There is no sense - see sound like cents -
    in making such a difference
    Between the sight and sound of words;
    Each spelling rule that undergirds
    The way a word should look will fail
    And often prove to no avail
    Because exceptions will negate
    The truth of what the rule may state;
    So though I try, I still despair
    And moan and mutter "It's not fair
    That I'm held up to ridicule
    And made to look like such a fool
    When it's the spelling that's at fault.
    Let's call this nonsense to a halt."

    Attributed to Vivian Buchan, 1966

  • We do have a defined standard to send IP packets with avian carriers. It was even adapted for IPv6.

    According to Wikipedia:

    IPoAC has been successfully implemented, but for only nine packets of data, with a packet loss ratio of 55% (due to operator error), and a response time ranging from 3,000 seconds (50 min) to over 6,000 seconds (100 min). Thus, this technology suffers from extremely high latency.

    On 28 April 2001, IPoAC was implemented by the Bergen Linux user group, under the name CPIP (for Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol). They sent nine packets over a distance of approximately 5 km (3 mi), each carried by an individual pigeon and containing one ping (ICMP echo request), and received four responses.

     
            Script started on Sat Apr 28 11:24:09 2001
         $ /sbin/ifconfig tun0
         tun0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
                  inet addr:10.0.3.2  P-t-P:10.0.3.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
                  UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:150  Metric:1
             RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
             TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
             collisions:0
             RX bytes:88 (88.0 b)  TX bytes:168 (168.0 b)
    
        $ ping -c 9 -i 900 10.0.3.1
        PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=6165731.1 ms
        64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=3211900.8 ms
        64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=5124922.8 ms
        64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=6388671.9 ms
    
        --- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics ---
        9 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 55% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max = 3211900.8/5222806.6/6388671.9 ms
    
        Script done on Sat Apr 28 14:14:28 2001
    
      
  • truex

    Jump
  • When the English tongue we speak.
    Why is break not rhymed with freak?
    Will you tell me why it's true
    We say sew but likewise few?
    And the maker of the verse,
    Cannot rhyme his horse with worse?
    Beard is not the same as heard
    Cord is different from word.
    Cow is cow but low is low
    Shoe is never rhymed with foe.
    Think of hose, dose,and lose
    And think of goose and yet with choose
    Think of comb, tomb and bomb,
    Doll and roll or home and some.
    Since pay is rhymed with say
    Why not paid with said I pray?
    Think of blood, food and good.
    Mould is not pronounced like could.
    Wherefore done, but gone and lone -
    Is there any reason known?
    To sum up all, it seems to me
    Sound and letters don't agree.

    Lord Cromer, 1902