BuoyantCitrus

joined 2 years ago
[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

One thing that would be useful to understand is the distinction between CMR and SMR

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I got a nice deal on the x280 and am happy with it, was also looking at the various X1 carbon. Two criteria I had were I wanted USB-C charging (since I have those chargers around and they can handle these laptops) and a single battery (eg. the T470s I have from work is nice but it has two small capacity batteries that each cost the same to replace as the full size single ones in the carbon and x280). One thing to keep in mind is some of the earlier X1 carbon don't support NVME SSD (I think it started with 5th gen?)

Edit: another thing to consider is soldered RAM. Part of why my x280 was cheap was it's only 8gb and can't be upgraded. Since you're looking at lighter weight things and using FOSS (and perhaps open to tinkering with things like ZRAM) that might be a useful aspect to focus on because there is probably a glut of such machines given how memory inefficient things are lately with every trivial app running a whole browser engine. OTOH, depending how many tabs you tend to have open and how many electron apps you tend to keep floating around, 8gb might start to feel cramped. Especially if you think you might want some VMs around.

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Next time I look for a small laptop to have handy one thing I'm going to be sure to prioritise is: how much battery does it use while suspended? I'd really like to not need to have it switch to hibernate after 30m of sleep or w/e and ideally just plug it in overnight like a phone.

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Big fan of that one, been using it for years.

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

They published this in Popular Mechanics in 1912, we've been ignoring this for a long time:

The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year,” the article reads. “When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&dq=carbon+climate&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=carbon%20climate&f=false

Also, this Wikipedia article has a good summary on the overall arc of our understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The app, in the scenario where we're trusting the author/store, is only part of the surface to the extent it's exposed to a potentially malicious payload. eg. a trusted solitaire game using a vulnerable API doesn't exacerbate that vulnerability because it doesn't expose it to untrusted input whereas a PDF viewer would because the PDF could be coming from anywhere...

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Really appreciate you taking the time to write that. I have a sense of most of that ("defense in depth" and "threat model" are good lenses to think about such things through for sure!) but what I was trying to get a better grasp on was how much risk from automated attack was a normal person without worries of an "advanced persistent threat" taking on by using a device past EOL. Like you say, "Quantifying how much of a difference it makes is not trivial" so I feel less conflicted to know that you're comfortable with your dad taking that risk.

I would think that the main thing at stake for a typical user isn't just browsing history or email though but rather identity theft since a successful attacker can use the device to get through 2FA.

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t think they are things that can be fixed on the app level?

Indeed not. So I'm trying to better understand how vulnerabilities at the system level are exploited. It seems like the attack surface is limited to RF (bluetooth/wifi can be turned off if one is willing to make that compromise), app install (many just use a small selection of well-trusted apps), and messaging/browser which are regularly updated if the device is properly configured.

Based on this thread I'm beginning to form the opinion that it is not unreasonably foolhardy for someone to continue to use an unsupported device if they are willing to make the compromises necessary to limit their attack surface.

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Thanks, that's encouraging and very relevant. Looks like it was introduced in Android 10 and aside from "Project Mainline" is referred to as "modular system components": https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/modular-system

Can you shed more light on what someone would be risking by continuing to use an EOL device? You say you don't advise it, but it'd be helpful to elaborate on why.

It seems like the increased vulnerability would be relatively limited: I presume the browser and messaging are by far the most common vectors and those would be as up to date as ever but I can see how exploiting an unpatched vuln there on an unsupported device could have more impact as it would give more options for privilege escalation.

Otherwise it'd be something RF based. Aside from widely publicised things like BlueBorne (that we should be keeping an eye out for anyway), is it a reasonable concern that there are identify theft rings employing people with modified hardware wandering around subway systems trying to exfiltrate credentials from devices with specific vulnerable basebands? Seems like Android also offers some defence in depth there that'd make it unlikely enough to ensure it wouldn't be worth their while?

There are a few technologically disinterested people in my life that I advise (as is no doubt the case for many here) and I don't know how strongly to push for them to get new devices once theirs fall out of support. Most of them are quite content with what they're using and are not in the habit of installing apps (and will reliably ask me first) so they really would be replacing the device solely for the updates. In some cases it's not only the time and effort to decide on a replacement and get things transferred over but the expense can also be a burden. So I don't want to raise the alarm lightly.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/1926125

Too many perfectly usable phones are put into a questionable security situation by lack of vendor support for keeping key software up to date.

But what's the actual risk of using an Android phone on a stock ROM without updates? What's the attack surface?

It seems like most things that'd contact potentially malicious software are web and messaging software, but that's all done by apps which continue to receive updates (at least until the android version is entirely unsupported) eg. Webview, Firefox, Signal, etc.

So are the main avenues for attack then sketchy apps and wifi points? If one is careful to use a minimal set of widely scrutinised apps and avoid connecting to wifi/bluetooth/etc. devices of questionable provenance is it really taking that much of a risk to continue using a device past EOL?

Or do browsers rely on system libraries that have plausible attack vectors? Perhaps images, video, font etc. rendering could be compromised? At this point though, that stack must be quite hardened and mature, it'd be major news for libjpg/ffmpeg to have a code-execution vulnerability? Plus it seems unlikely that they wouldn't just include this in webview/Firefox as there must surely be millions of devices in this situation so why not take the easy step of distributing a bit more in the APK?

I'm not at all an Android developer though, perhaps this is very naive and I'm missing something major?

 

Too many perfectly usable phones are put into a questionable security situation by lack of vendor support for keeping key software up to date.

But what's the actual risk of using an Android phone on a stock ROM without updates? What's the attack surface?

It seems like most things that'd contact potentially malicious software are web and messaging software, but that's all done by apps which continue to receive updates (at least until the android version is entirely unsupported) eg. Webview, Firefox, Signal, etc.

So are the main avenues for attack then sketchy apps and wifi points? If one is careful to use a minimal set of widely scrutinised apps and avoid connecting to wifi/bluetooth/etc. devices of questionable provenance is it really taking that much of a risk to continue using a device past EOL?

Or do browsers rely on system libraries that have plausible attack vectors? Perhaps images, video, font etc. rendering could be compromised? At this point though, that stack must be quite hardened and mature, it'd be major news for libjpg/ffmpeg to have a code-execution vulnerability? Plus it seems unlikely that they wouldn't just include this in webview/Firefox as there must surely be millions of devices in this situation so why not take the easy step of distributing a bit more in the APK?

I'm not at all an Android developer though, perhaps this is very naive and I'm missing something major?

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Aren't you sorta trusting whoever wrote any package you install with root? I mean, you should have that attitude anyhow as packages have a huge attack surface so privilege escalation bugs are way more common than remote execution but still, flatpak and snap at least offer a bit of a sandbox which might improve...

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/653849

I'm trying to follow conventional wisdom and have more and more of our portfolio as straight up VGRO but want some more US exposure (though I am aware there are arguments in favour of a home-country bias). I was also interested in picking a USD fund as not only do they tend to have a lower MER but also get an extra boost from witholding tax exemption if I hold them in an RRSP.

An S&P 500 fund seems the way to go, but it seems awfully slanted towards giant tech megacaps. Apple alone is over 7% of VOO. With a P/E over 31 it's hard for me to feel like there's not extra risk with the concentration here--is it really such a safe bet to think the largest company in the world has that much more growth ahead of it? And VGRO already has a solid chunk of cap-weighted exposure.

And so, after my inexpert research failed to dissuade me, I'm probably going to use an equal-weight ETF like RSP or EUSA for this portion---there are no penny stocks on the S&P 500 and it doesn't seem to perform much worse (and indeed better depending how far back you test). At this point I'm more comfortable with either of those than VOO and will probably do this just for the irrational psychology, but I do wish there was something that combines an equal weighting with a screen for quality (something like SPHQ) as a big drawback seems like for as much concentration risk as it avoids it also keeps rebalancing more and more into failing companies as they crash and burn.

Anyone else subscribe to a similar reasoning and incorporate an equal weight fund into the passive portion of your portfolio? Which one did you go with?

 

Allied Properties sale of their data centre portfolio to KDDI includes 151 Front Street W., the site of TorIX which is the main Internet Exchange Point for the country. While that's not necessarily an issue, I kinda figured it was at least a little bit notable but I've not seen it mentioned aside from an investment context.

Unfortunately, it seems like it's less consequential than it should be because Bell Canada apparently still refuses to peer at TorIX and only connects to other ISPs through the US which means that eg. if I'm on Rogers in Toronto and you're on Bell, any communications between our computers have to flow through American controlled systems even though we're in the same city because that's how Bell chooses to have things set up.

Whereas, for pretty much everything else in Toronto, it'd move between networks via TorIX. Which is now in a building owned by a Japanese company instead of a Canadian REIT.

[–] BuoyantCitrus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Good. This law is ridiculous and I'm glad it won't give the result they intended. Being able to link to things freely is a very basic part of the web, we really shouldn't mess with that. And Facebook is a ridiculous place to get news from so it may have ancillary benefits as well in terms of maybe slightly improving public discourse and encouraging people onto other platforms with more transparency around their content weighting and data use practices.

 

Could be worth making an extra effort if you're expecting a refund, especially with interest rates higher these days.

view more: next ›