chiisana

Launch was cancelled minutes before go.

Shodan also has a lot of fun searches.

They have all the info, so this shouldn’t even be necessary. They should be able to just send me a tax bill/refund with the break down automatically. If I want to dispute it, then I’d have to pay the big bucks to get fancy accountants to dispute. Otherwise it should just be one less thing vast majority of the people would ever have to worry about.

So just because they don’t know technology like you do, they should be left behind the times instead of taking advantage of advancements? A bit elitist and gate keeping there, don’t you think?

Everyone have their own choices to make, and for most, they’ve already decided they’d rather benefit from advancements than care about what you care about.

And here’s the reason why layman should not: they’re much more likely to make that one wrong move and suffer irrecoverable data loss than some faceless corporation selling their data.

At the end of the day, those of us who are technical enough will take the risk and learn, but for vast majority of the people, it is and will continue to remain as a non starter for the foreseeable future.

I think from a purely technical point of view, you’re not going to get FaceID kind of accuracy on theft prevention systems. Primarily because FaceID uses IR array scanning within arm’s reach from the user, whereas theft prevention is usually scanned from much further away. The distance makes it much harder to get the fidelity of data required for an accurate reading.

If it goes from $100 to $1, there’s not much left to go before bankruptcy/delisting. Say hello to swaths of BBBY bag holders… oh wait, no bags left there!

This is really just best practice for any arbitrary sort of external access; even if you’re using some sort of VPN (wireguard, tailscale doesn’t matter) to get back into your network, as long as there’s an external way into your network, you want to drop that into its own isolated area so in the event a malicious attacker gets through, they’re sandboxed to the area you allow them to.

They were contacted in April. Any company can fire their clients they don’t like without having to go through a month of song and dance.

WOW, 5 digits! You’ve got me beat! Not doxing myself because full name and all used for work; but I was a 6 digits UIN starting with 2 here.

Geopolitics aside, the technical architecture implementation of this mechanism is really interesting for me. I think over all, having extra ability to disable these systems would prevent US launching attacks against the plants — which could cause spill over local civilian injuries — but there’s just so many more things to consider.

Is it a dead-man switch style of setup, where if it doesn’t get authorization from HQ after some time, it will stop working? Or is it a kill switch style of setup, where they can remotely issue a command to stop operation? Because different vectors then come up depending on the securing method. For example: Dead-man switch might be tricked/overcame by turning back the clock, whereas kill switch might be circumvented by severing the network connection before the command could be issued (literally cut the underwater cables before they start the invasion).

How is the mechanism itself secured? If it is certificate based like everything else, then we’d have to worry about the certificate signing authority getting pressured into signing certificates by state backed actors.

Would really love to learn about the setup one day after all these is over, to learn about the thinkings that’s been done on such an important piece of … “infrastructure”?