mjg59

58 ms·

871.
by mjg59 5y ago
A series of unlikely events resulted in me spending the mid-late 90s using an A3500, the prototype for the A3000T. The motherboard was laid out slightly differently (eg, there was no on-board audio input header for CD drives, and there was
872.
PKI Certificates for SSH(github.com)
3 points by mjg59 5y ago|0 comments
873.
by mjg59 5y ago
My recollection is that they don't - the content that includes your gmail data is served to you by Google, not by Newsweek.
874.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Can a TPM be shared by two operating systems? Yes. > Is any sort of deconfliction required No.
875.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Why can't there be an external body that signs these, including those for Microsoft? There can be, and I strongly suspect Microsoft would prefer there to be - reviewing and signing all the UEFI drivers consumes significant resou
876.
by mjg59 5y ago
> nothing we can do can currently avoid this. Unless you scope "sophisticated" as "can compromise hardware we currently believe is secure", we can get to the point where the only mechanism is a hardware keylogger (whi
877.
by mjg59 5y ago
> there's really no recourse for it in the spec There's not only a recourse for it, modern firmware implements it. You just use the IOMMU to restrict Thunderbolt devices to being able to access their own buffers.
878.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Try writing a device driver for recent versions of Windows and getting it to work without signing it... Disable secure boot and disable integrity checks with bcdedit?
879.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Never mind that nothing of the sort happened and you can still run whatever you want on your PC To be fair, that was largely because of significant public pushback on early versions of the Microsoft requirements (which didn't requ
880.
by mjg59 5y ago
> "Knowing that all Windows 11 computers will have a TPM allows them to enforce that all Windows 11 hardware only runs software Microsoft has signed" This seems… wrong? Or, at least, one does not directly follow from the other.
881.
by mjg59 5y ago
My recollection is that's just because logins to Google bounce through any domains where they may need to update cookies
882.
by mjg59 5y ago
I was explaining why there's potentially a difference between natural immunity and vaccine-mediated immunity, and why one of these may well be preferable if the goal is to generate maximum immunity to a widespread virus. But that'
883.
by mjg59 5y ago
If you want to optimise for targeting a specific virus, then yes, narrowly targeting the most stable functional element of that virus is preferable to targeting other elements of that virus. If you want to optimise for having a broad respon
884.
by mjg59 5y ago
I've got a PhD in genetics.
885.
by mjg59 5y ago
The vaccine either contains or triggers the production of a specific protein that is (fairly) stable across variants - so there's only one thing for the immune system to key off. The concern around natural immunity is that your immune
886.
by mjg59 5y ago
This doesn't seem like a surprising result, but it's nice to see it demonstrated. It's also a clear demonstration that avoiding untrusted chargers isn't just a matter of avoiding plugging your phone into random USB socke
887.
by mjg59 5y ago
> The cylindrical wheel decision is closely related to the decision to use Indian/broad gauge My recollection is that this was also related to running (relatively) high-speed trains on elevated tracks in windy areas, and so wanting
888.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Their customers have a right to receive a copy of the source. But the company is not obliged to host an online accessible version of it. While true, this is misleading - if distributing under the "Written offer" term (rather
889.
by mjg59 5y ago
The T1 had zero impact whatsoever on getting Linux running. The T2 did, but only because Apple's NVMe implementation wasn't quite spec compliant. The trouble we've had with Apple hardware other than that is that Apple have ma
890.
by mjg59 5y ago
Things that would mitigate this to some extent: 1) Requiring an additional factor for disk encryption in addition to the TPM data. You want the TPM to be involved in order to be able to detect whether the boot environment has been modified
891.
by mjg59 5y ago
Yes, this is a (rare) case where fTPM has better security properties. For context: fTPM refers to a software-based implementation of a TPM running in an execution environment the OS has no direct access to. On Intel hardware, this is on the
892.
by mjg59 5y ago
Using a password with a per-filesystem salt and a modern key derivation function will be just fine here - the key derivation is expensive enough that brute forcing the key isn't practical, even assuming relatively weak passwords.
893.
by mjg59 5y ago
TPMs aren't fast enough to do disk encryption at anywhere near the speed of modern storage, so a TPM-based FDE key is simply something that the TPM decrypts and hands back to the OS.
894.
by mjg59 5y ago
Thalidomide isn't a vaccine.
895.
by mjg59 5y ago
Google remains the copyright holder of the submitted patch. There's nothing special in this from the project's perspective - in the absence of copyright assignment as a required part of patch submission, the default is that the su
896.
by mjg59 5y ago
Having tried this at $MEGACORP on this specific issue, can confirm it's less true.
897.
by mjg59 5y ago
If you're in the US, Google claims that they own it (even in California, where local law means they can only do so if it "Relate[s] at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's busines
898.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Ever heard of Aaron Swartz? He was charged under the CFAA and with grand larceny, among other things. He was charged with unauthorised access to a network (he wasn't affiliated with MIT), and with violating JSTOR's explicit t
899.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Well, fair use is an exemption to copyright. If you do something under fair use, it does not matter if you agree to a EULA or not; if your use is under fair use, you can do it. Period. No. A contract can involve me agreeing not to do s
900.
by mjg59 5y ago
> Yeah, you do. Every time you access a file share, you request explicit authorisation to copy any of the files in that share? I think you'd have trouble finding any court who accepted that this was the intended outcome. > Then t

More ›