commandersaki

I recently changed the USB port of my Fairphone 4 and it was just unscrewing and screwing.

why are you changing a USB port on a phone?

Yeah, Linksys made a killing from this and the WRT54GS 2.0 because of OpenWRT.

Reminds me of the time when Joseph Touch (I think his name was) proposed the NULL cipher in TLS. "It's just a proposal."

Any suggestions for online program / distance learning (I'm in Australia)? I want a proper challenge not a walk in the park.

Is this the tool that blasted away all the wiki pages for Azure in the repos?

Ah just realised no iOS release, that's a non-starter.

Let me put it this way: using my car's console controls are more distracting than using CarPlay with siri/voice control. If I'm uncomfortable though I would be in a worse shape driving, hence there's a need to set climate.

How does it handle browser autofill. What if you have to fill in a box that has a non-standard label? These are things I rely on with 1Password.

I don't know about Rivian, but I'm generally less distracted on the road with CarPlay due to Siri & Voice Control. I wish I could extend it to my native car controls such as climate control etc.

If said videos or media are doing that, there would be a corpus of samples by now. I'm very sceptical of this.

I'm guessing none to be honest. It sounds plausible but in practice it's probably too difficult to do anything useful compared to other tried and true vectors.

Everyone goes to the extremes when it comes to these theories and throws out all aspects of pragmatism.

How many victims are known to be exploited by video codecs? Compare that with the wider landscape of how victims are being exploited.

Looking at the comments from the previous thread at least on Android looks like you need to root the device. I'm not sure that is still required.

E2EE done properly is why. See 1Password security whitepaper for how.

OP was making the case that CGNAT adds to the latency in some significant way. Yes it adds latency, but it is of negligible concern.

You do realise that mobile usage is a subset of the Internet and the Internet is not just about end user connectivity.

But you still haven't addressed my original point, how has IPv6 averted the impending (at the time) IP exhaustion problem? As I remember it, we were running out of IP addresses, then we did run out, and CGNAT helped extend the life of the Internet for people on IP, while v6 still remains an island that is optional and doesn't help alleviate any of the pain.

TL;DR: v6 is not fit for purpose.

20 years too late.

NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point.

Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around.

As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest. When people talk about averting address exhaustion, they're not talking about internal addressing of networks, different problem altogether.

It was also predicted that the address exhaustion problem would be averted, in fact that was the purpose of v6. It failed to deliver.

Considerably simpler? There's two ways (maybe more?) to autoconfigure v6 addresses on a host, I'll never know or remember which to use. In v4 there's DHCP, that's all you need to know (nobody uses BOOTP). These endless choices go on and on with v6 with umpteen transition technologies to work with v4.

Which is which?

We are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligible at best, or at worst let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).

Sparing a few hundred microseconds of latency is tangibly a better experience?

Still not fit for purpose.

With crypto publicly available tests come in form of KATs (Known Answer Tests), it ensures that the implementation works for certain inputs and thus it'll probably work for the whole domain, but it does not protect from subtle forms of weaknesses such as side channels.

The short version is that absolutely no-one should ever use this.

Ditto.

So what has the reception been like with IETF?

I'm sceptical of verifying or generating ZKPs due to the cost of running a RISC-V program. But I guess if we have LLM inference in protocols, this might be acceptable. I'm not sure how it's fully used in the protocol and whether it sits on a critical path.

I know internally they use an IPsec implementation written by Rust (I think in the iCloud infra). Heard this from an ex-Apple engineer Ben (forgot his last name) that did a wonderful presentation of Rust from first principles. He said that it was hard to get people in on Rust when most would argue for Swift.

Edit: This is the guy: https://rustcurious.com/course/

Heaps excited about this because there's a dearth of work in application crypto as the mindshare is dominated by PQC or Crapto.

I am a little sceptical of this because of the need for ZKP and running a RISC-V program for protocol interactions (I only had a cursory glance). But if we can do LLM inference as standard in protocols these days then this probably has a chance.

I was interested in Nix because it could automate setup and configuration of macOS features. But all it does is usually run defaults or some intermediatary. In the end I stuck with brew and wrote an idempotent setupmac() function in my bash_profile (I use bash 5) with the aid of chatgpt since it knows all the cool defaults commands, and it’s pretty much solved setting up a new account or mac (alongside a Brewfile I maintain in my dotfiles). I don’t need any of those highfalutin tools.