teacup50

79 ms·

721.
by teacup50 13y ago
I don't get your concern at all . We run local e-mail and IM servers; the only thing that protects user communications on company owned infrastructure is our company policy . How is this any different? What I find far more alarming -
722.
by teacup50 13y ago
Why do you care? If you ran the chat server locally, you'd have the ability to snoop already. Atlassian themselves could snoop on your traffic; the only thing stopping them is their terms of service. All you have to do to protect your
723.
by teacup50 13y ago
You also control the routers, the email server, any other form of digital communications, and possibly even the software in their desktop. What's the difference? Just because an employer can snoop -- and might be legally obligated
724.
by teacup50 13y ago
I'm not convinced a web insider was the right choice. The web desperately needs some new thinking -- people that don't believe the technology clock stopped in 1995 with the big hand stuck on "JavaScript" and little han
725.
by teacup50 13y ago
FIPS is actively harmful to security by virtue of being an empty and ill-conceived certification. Removing FIPS from an otherwise best available option is to the benefit of the industry at large. By comparison, glossy marketing of a securit
726.
by teacup50 13y ago
Not in this case. There's an implied duty when you represent your work as being suitable for critical uses such as securing the world's communications.
727.
by teacup50 13y ago
> There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Yes, and most of it is awful because they shouldn't . I hate manually configuring SSL certificates for OpenSSL-using Windows software. Write a
728.
by teacup50 13y ago
Most (all?) native Windows applications shouldn't use OpenSSL. They should use the operating system-shipped APIs, along with the OS-shipped certificate stores. That means SChannel and CryptoAPIs in native code.
729.
by teacup50 13y ago
I've found similar across the board; I think it boils down to different philosophies/development cultures.
730.
by teacup50 13y ago
> I don't think I could ever so narrowly define "how people actually behave," personally. Really? I can. They behave messily and almost always with a keen eye towards advancing their own position, whatever it may be, rat
731.
by teacup50 13y ago
It's much closer to how people actually behave.
732.
by teacup50 13y ago
I have no qualms with profanity, but I admit I had a negative reaction when I saw "fuck" so prominently leveraged in a blog post about company culture. For someone who wants to have a certain level of professional decorum at wo
733.
by teacup50 13y ago
The BSDs are far more approachable, and I recommend starting there for anyone interested in kernel development. There are books, such as The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System (by McKusick): http://www.amaz
734.
by teacup50 13y ago
Why should it be copyleft? If people want to overpay for acquihire teams that add very little value, licensing doesn't seem like the problem.
735.
by teacup50 13y ago
I'm not sure where grandparent's OpenVPN concern is coming from; OpenVPN has had good security track record: http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-3278/...
736.
by teacup50 13y ago
Unfortunately, what it works at isnt presenting complex technical information in a way that allows engineers to concretely evaluate the implementation and claims. Quite the opposite: bereft implementations and retread ideas are pasted ove
737.
by teacup50 13y ago
California did a trial run of no-file taxes. They simply sent a copy of your return, and if it was accurate, you didn't have to do anything. The government already has the information to do most people's taxes for them. They don
738.
by teacup50 13y ago
There isn't anywhere near enough information to ascertain whether neighbors noticed. I have no idea who my neighbors are. If they weren't actually here, in the building, I'd have no way to contact them whatsoever. That doesn&
739.
by teacup50 13y ago
> This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates. I don't see there being a solu
740.
by teacup50 13y ago
How does that conclusion make even the smallest bit of sense to you?
741.
by teacup50 13y ago
The author couldn't be more off-base is his understanding of how devops came to be, and his attitude is exactly the kind of cost-ineffective developer behavior that led to the partial unification of development and operations to begin
742.
by teacup50 13y ago
> To do that Apache needs some form of internal IPC to communicate its TLS sessions to the forked process. Maybe that's more complex than forking and doing IPC at the PKCS#11 driver level? Don't know. Yes. Also, bear in mind
743.
by teacup50 13y ago
> I'm happy to learn. But all I am saying is that you're adding a PKCS#11 step to the call stack when you can just fork and use the existing code. That's a simple assertion, is it wrong? Yes, that's wrong. What exis
744.
by teacup50 13y ago
Of course. If you can run code as the user, then solutions intended to protect against arbitrary memory read bugs don't apply. That doesn't mean that the solution is worthless. It simply means that it doesn't cover an unrel
745.
by teacup50 13y ago
After reading your responses and claims of complexity and architecture, I don't think you understand PKCS#11, the problem domain, or the architectural constraints to a level that is commiserate with your expressed level of certainty. I
746.
by teacup50 13y ago
A PKCS#11 driver can simply fork() itself to operate out-of-process, without implementing some sort of heavyweight daemon. Apache could ship a fall-back PKCS#11 driver implementation that did this, transparently.
747.
by teacup50 13y ago
> No substantial discussion of invoicing issues, no discussion of how governance could be changed to address these issues, no discussion of how contributors and users could get involved to fix things, no discussion of what the Gnome Fou
748.
by teacup50 13y ago
The keychain operates out-of-process.
749.
by teacup50 13y ago
Which also will not, in most circumstances, illicit a useful response. Could Apple-enamored newbies please stop trying to tell multi-decade Apple developers how to deal with Apple?
750.
by teacup50 13y ago
> And the GPL only affects people who want to write proprietary software. A GPL-incompatible license isn't proprietary. > How is the GPL somehow more evil than proprietary software in your worldview? In the same way that comm

More ›