raesene6

50 ms·

181.
by raesene6 10y ago
To me a more useful model is the one implemented by keybase, where a number of proofs are provided, tying a specific key to the user's online identity (e.g. github profile/HN profile). Many times I want to "communicate with t
182.
by raesene6 10y ago
The thing is with security, default matter. Many people will not change default settings (especially in complex products like Kubernetes), that's why I suggested that people thinking about using Kubernetes should read and be aware of
183.
by raesene6 10y ago
Electron is the short answer to that. From what I've seen pretty much all the "new wave" cross platform chat apps are based on electron and a lot of the companies are emulating slack. In combination that leads to a lot very
184.
by raesene6 10y ago
Whilst for major upgrades that might make sense, what about instances like a high risk security fix where upgrade speed is important... People don't want to be re-building from scratch in that kind of setup...
185.
by raesene6 10y ago
I think Kubernetes is a really interesting product and obviously has a lot of momentum. That said for something thats seeing wide adoption it still has a lot of rough edges and things that need fleshed out. One I ran across recently was th
186.
by raesene6 10y ago
I didn't see any mention of quality in GP's post... For me Docker swarm is a simpler implementation than Kubernetes and likely more suitable for simpler deployments. Kubernetes whilst a cool product still has a lot of rough edges
187.
by raesene6 10y ago
I used to work in banking security and I can understand the bank's concerns. If they allow a 3rd party access to customer data and that customer data is subsequently leaked and used for fraud, who's liable? If a law could codify
188.
by raesene6 10y ago
In the case of the main example (fidget cube) that's pretty much what's happening, from what I've seen. As their kickstarter campaign went viral, several clones started being offered on aliexpress and the like. They are flat
189.
by raesene6 10y ago
I know corps need to do that, and they get to handle the trade-offs that it generates (although I'd argue that HTTPS interception doesn't in any way provide a panacea for the internal security issues you've mentioned). The ad
190.
by raesene6 10y ago
The issues I've mentioned (problems dealing with self-signed certs, Cert pinning and EV-SSL) don't have much to do with the client being compromised. They're examples of how SSL MITM (even assuming no implementation flaws) c
191.
by raesene6 10y ago
The thing is most anti-malware products cause perf. issues, but it seems to be the 3rd party ones that actually make your security worse with poorly implemented and secured features. It seems bizarre to me that commercial paid for security
192.
by raesene6 10y ago
Actually I don't think they could. A-V products inevitably insist on running with very high privileges on target machines, restricting the OS' ability to mitigate any vulnerabilities. A-V products also have been shown be research
193.
by raesene6 10y ago
Easy, you don't tamper with HTTPS traffic, it's innately a very bad idea. Consider the goals that are trying to be achieved. You're attempting to stop the user either downloading malicious content or perhaps getting hit wi
194.
by raesene6 10y ago
So to do that it's going to stop the users browsing session, redirect them to a local web page and then present something to let them make a decision about carrying on? not the best user experience in the world.. But remember like I sa
195.
by raesene6 10y ago
It actually is worse. The problem comes "what does the interception do when it encounters an invalid certificate"? So for example a self-signed cert. does it a) create a "valid" cert itself, hiding the error from the us
196.
by raesene6 10y ago
I guess it's the problem of unprecedented events, that there are no systems in place to deal with them, which leads to a bad fit as people try to make the event fit existing options. At the moment, I just can't get past the fact t
197.
by raesene6 10y ago
I entirely agree the 2 year timeline is massively unrealistic (downside to something being written in a treaty agreement with no intention of it ever being excercised) The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'ca
198.
by raesene6 10y ago
Ah well any discussion of morals and politics (as practiced in most countries) is unlikely to go well ;o) The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will a
199.
by raesene6 10y ago
I note that I'm afraid you didn't even attempt to answer my extremely straightforward question. See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious
200.
by raesene6 10y ago
quite possibly, but of course that is, and always has been an impossiblity (the EU were never going to budge on what is a fundamental freedom)
201.
by raesene6 10y ago
oh no I'm not suggesting that people knew what they were getting into in full, but then given that this is entirely unchartered territory I don't see how that could have worked really. This has never been done before and therefor
202.
by raesene6 10y ago
Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that control of immigration wasn't a key reason that people voted for the leave campaign?
203.
by raesene6 10y ago
Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?
204.
by raesene6 10y ago
no as should be clear I'm suggesting that the government is implementing one of the key elements of the leave campaign, which the UK voted in favour of. To deliver that, the UK has to leave the single market.
205.
by raesene6 10y ago
it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign, so unless you were watching some other referendum campaign the suggestion that border control had nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best. In case anyone wants to argue that immigratio
206.
by raesene6 10y ago
but the implementation of "control the borders" (a key brexit tenet) requires leaving the single market, the EU has made it crystal clear that you can't remove the right to freedom of movement whilst remaining in the union. E
207.
by raesene6 10y ago
Clear mandate to achieve the aims campaigned on. A large part of the the brexit campaign revolved around control of immigration. Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of
208.
by raesene6 10y ago
I would suggest that a large percentage of that 52% voted based on "control the borders" rhetoric. That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to sat
209.
by raesene6 10y ago
However the majority of the people who voted (and remember here that the turnout was higher than most UK elections) voted to exit which clearly included border controls. Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market
210.
by raesene6 10y ago
To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and is (partially) free of the baggage of party alliegance. Given the percentage o

More ›