ruthmarx

18 ms·

211.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> It gets even better if you're willing to privsep the torrent program, though that could take some refactoring. Now you're talking about modifying the code substantially which is out of scope of the thought experiment. Pledge
212.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> I would say you are the person that is often factually wrong, like your sandbox irritation ;) lol, and what is it you think I'm factually wrong about in that friend? Can you even understand the discussion? Most interactions I&#x27
213.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> But ruth i am factually correct here, or do you have problems reading too? Why do you think being factually correct is an excuse for your behavior? It doesn't matter. Maybe you are, maybe you're not, but I've seen you in
214.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
The user you are responding to seems to make a habit of being aggressive, especially in cases where he has been factually wrong but is unwilling to even consider the possibility.
215.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
I gave examples at the end of my previous reply.
216.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> There are a lot of resources that tend to be needed to set up a program. There tend to be very few needed once the program is running. I think this is true for simple programs, and less true the more complex a program is. What about pr
217.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
No, I suppose not, but then, is there really an advantage to doing so? I'm much more concerned with blocking write and execute access than I am about a potential hacker being able to read the config files of the program they leveraged
218.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Interesting, thank you. I don't use git that much and my own searching turned up creating a patch that seemed like it required git to apply.
219.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Science isn't faith based for rejecting an absurd premise on its face.
220.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Until such questions are answered, a God is still quite reasonable. Agree to disagree. God as a theory, specifically a god from a manmade religion and not as an abstract concept, continues to be absurd.
221.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
I mean I don't see anywhere I can download the patches to apply them to a source tree locally.
222.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> The "idea" I'm talking about is privilege dropping. OK. But privilege dropping alone does not a sandbox make. > seccomp-bpf and pledge are both tools used to implement sandboxes in browsers.[1][2] Maybe you don't
223.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
OpenPaX looks great, but I can't find a patch anywhere, just an already patched forked kernel tree.
224.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> In either case, you just need root to update targeted binaries. My understanding is that the difference is you would need to boot with a kernel with veriexec disabled to replace binaries and regenerate hashes. Root alone isn't suf
225.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Of the three, pledge and unveil are the least horrible execution of the same idea I don't think they are the same idea though. pledge and unveil are significantly more limited in scope. > Obviously it's not a "run
226.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> which started with specifically the question of OpenBSD applying the protection in question to its own base system. Agreed, my answers did quickly go beyond the original point being claimed. > I think that pledge and unveil are a ty
227.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
By monitoring and intercepting what the program is doing?
228.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Those are two different kinds of sandboxing. I'm arguing that only one example is sandboxing, the other is imposing limitations but doesn't meet the definition of sandboxing.
229.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
Honestly I don't recall exactly because it's been so long since I set it up. I think I did something to make it hard to export/convert to doc/docx, and maybe even prevent or make it hard to copy test for certain blocks.
230.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> An externally imposed sandboxing feature can be useful for namespacing, but is necessarily less restrictive than pledge and unveil. An externally imposed sandboxing feature isn't necessarily less restrictive than pledge and unveil
231.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Sandboxing™ Writing it like this is kind of funny, hoenstly, but not for the reasons you probably think. > give you that pledge+unveil doesn't? Not requiring the cooperation of developers to opt-in, for starters. You really thi
232.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
I've never needed an html version honestly. I do have it setup to produce a text version for copying and pasting into job applications that don't support file upload. Or worse, that want you to paste the same information and then
233.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
I thought that might be the case. So not actually sandboxing at all.
234.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
That checklist is interesting. In what sense does OpenBSD have most of the base OS sandboxed? I'm kind of skeptical of that, but wondering if I missed something. What any BSD needs to have a merit to a claim to security, in 2024, is so
235.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
I've been using LaTeX for mine for years and never looked back. I have it setup in such a way that I just comment or uncomment a few lins at the start and can easily include or exclude, or adjust, types of skills, work experience, leng
236.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
10% more vulnerable than normal is open to interpretation. You don't need to lie or put anyone on a list, it's just an attempt to foster persona relations between a team, the idea being with a little empathy and knowledge of each
237.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> And the designer of the iPhone regrets turning us into zombies - that was not an intended effect. People were already zombies. They just swapped out television for smart phones.
238.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> I don't like his attempts to push his political opinions with Notepad++, but that's his software, his rights. His opinions are pretty much just ethical stances, so I have no issues.
239.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
NPP style sessions and color themes are all I would really need to add in. One of these days...
240.
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> Apple has been caught sabotaging third-party repair multiple times and this sort of design is totally in line with that strategy. Making the design overly complex and fragile (and spending extra $$$ in the process), just to make it har

More ›