I think it's most likely a little of both. It seems like the fact most systems failed at around the same time suggests that this was the default automatic upgrade /deployment option.
So, for sure the default option should have had upgrades staggered within an organisation. But at the same time organisations should have been ensuring they aren't upgrading everything at once.
As it is, the way the upgrade was deployed made the software a single point of failure that completely negated redundancies and in many cases hobbled disaster recovery plans.
I think there's a good argument for bitlocker on laptops.
It's much less of a sell for servers and workstations in what should be secure locations.
Having said that, where I work they just enabled enforced windows hello pin with only numeric pins with minimum 6 digits. Seems like a pretty good way to entirely negate the protection bitlocker provides. But hey ho.
It might not even be that. A lot of places have many servers (and even more virtual servers) running crowdstrike. Some places also seem to have it on endpoints too.
I've not seen that. I have seen all the boxes except legit interest unticked. So I untick all and "save" preferences (I mean, technically how can they save my preferences if I reject all cookies?) and they're all back next time, but just the legit interest ones.
In terms of percentage, the lib dems made a smaller gain than labour. I'd also suggest that while maybe some of those votes came from wavering labour voters, I expect that at least a similar number would have also come from the tories. I don't think the lib dems split the vote any more than they normally do.
Reform, while not new, last time round they did not compete against the tories. This time, they did and the result is clear.
I think that is indeed the best you can hope for with new labour in control over the tories. Slightly less backhanders and tax breaks for the already stupidly rich.
I don't expect anything far left of centre. I say this as someone that is somewhat centre left (UK centre left to be clear, USAans don't judge me on your political compass), I don't really think I resonate too much with the current labour party.
I think the thing that terrifies me, is that the tory party we had, that pushed through a no-deal brexit (when there were many other less disruptive ways to leave the union available), that has wet dreams about planes flying immigrants to Rwanda weren't right wing enough for our population.
What is the tory party's solution to this going to be? I doubt it will be returning to the centre right position they occupied in the Cameron era. They either accept their death, or move further right. I suspect we'll see the latter. When we find out their new leader, I suspect it will cement their direction for us all to see.
That's what I originally thought would be the case. But, just statistically (looking at voter share here):
2019: Cons: 43.6% Lab: 32.1% LD: 11.6% SNP: 3.9%
2024: Lab: 33.7% Cons: 23.7% Reform: 14.3% LD: 12.2% (Weirdly, wikipedia has yet to include reform in their share ranking had to use BBC)
Labour picked up less than 2% more of the vote share. Reform took the vast majority of the tory lead away.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the tories are out. But, it's mostly because reform split the vote and Labour were second place in most constituencies. This is important to bear in mind while the conservatives sort themselves out to decide how they deal with not being right wing enough..
I think it's important to note that the primary reason the conservative party lost many of their seats is because their vote was split between them, and an even more right wing party led by Nigel Farage. It wasn't because of a huge shift to the left (or at least the centre left position the labour party occupy right now).
In my constituency for example, if you put the conservative + reform votes together, they would have beaten the nearest competitor by a country mile.
Well good news. Because ipv6 has a thing called privacy extensions which has been switched on by default on every device I've used.
That generates random ipv6 addresses (which are regularly rotated) that are used for outgoing connections. Your router should block incoming connections to those ips but the os will too. The proper permanent ip address isn't used for outgoing connections and the address space allocated to each user makes a brute force scan more prohibitive than scanning the whole Ipv4 Internet.
So I'm going to say that using routable ipv6 addresses with privacy extensions is more secure than a single Ipv4 Nat address with dnat.
I think people's experience with PLE will always be subjective. In the old flat we were in, where I needed it. It would drop connection all the time, it was unusable.
But I've had them run totally fine in other places. Noisy power supplies that aren't even in your place can cause problems. Any kind of impulse noise (bad contacts on an old style thermostat for example) and all kinds of other things can and will interfere with it.
Wifi is always a compromise too. But, I guess if wiring direct is not an option, the OP needs to choose their compromise.
r00ty @ r00ty @kbin.life Posts 2Comments 1,266Joined 2 yr. ago
I think it's most likely a little of both. It seems like the fact most systems failed at around the same time suggests that this was the default automatic upgrade /deployment option.
So, for sure the default option should have had upgrades staggered within an organisation. But at the same time organisations should have been ensuring they aren't upgrading everything at once.
As it is, the way the upgrade was deployed made the software a single point of failure that completely negated redundancies and in many cases hobbled disaster recovery plans.