- 3 Posts
- 59 Comments
Sigh, clickbait at its finest, why else would we click
I would look at CISA’s Logging Made Easy project, which is based on Wazuh and Elastic with Kibana for visualization and dashboards.
Curious if this is so broadly true without bundled resources; obviously screens are higher DPI, so even buttons are now designed for at least 8K resolutions, even if most consumers are still on 1080p.
Orders of magnitude beyond 640x480 or pre Windows 3.1 resolutions.
Explain your thought process here, how did you arrive at the larger bottle being 90% more detergent? It’s EXPLICITLY clear that the concentration is higher in the smaller bottle.
You could complain about the form factor or lack of precision in dosing loads using the higher concentration, but “detergent” is mostly water, which they clearly said they reduced by 75% (same solute, with less water/solvent = higher concentration).
Quick search and going by what it says on the label, the cost per load has not significantly changed, a little more than half a penny’s difference:
Ultra Concentrated (left) $15/60 loads = $0.25/load https://mrsmeyers.com/collections/laundry/products/ultra-concentrated-laundry-detergent-rain-water?variant=50673207640338
Standard (right) $18/74 loads = $0.2432/load https://mrsmeyers.com/collections/laundry/products/ultra-concentrated-laundry-detergent-rain-water?variant=50673207640338
You definitely should bump it up the list, especially if you can handle ray tracing, though the raster lighting is also good.
BE WARNED. These extensions are a prime target for purchase and/or hijacking by malicious threat actors, who then use them to gain persistence on your browsers and steal data. There is no reason to increase your browser attack surface for this feature when better alternatives have been posted in this thread.
There are dozens of these articles dating back the last five years or so.
Shouldn’t be this hard to find out the attack vector.
Buried deep, deep in their writeup:
RocketMQ servers
- CVE-2021-4043 (Polkit)
- CVE-2023-33246
I’m sure if you’re running other insecure, public facing web servers with bad configs, the actor could exploit that too, but they didn’t provide any evidence of this happening in the wild (no threat group TTPs for initial access), so pure FUD to try to sell their security product.
Unfortunately, Ars mostly just restated verbatim what was provided by the security vendor Aqua Nautilus.
Only the cyber truck. Model S and 3 refreshes are still on the legacy platform, with a lithium ion 12V.
This server, maintained by Internet carrier Cogent Communications
Found the problem!
So the article repeats, several times, “waymo relies on remote operators”. I don’t think the author knows what “self-driving” means.
For encryption, the client and server need to share their private keys.
This is incorrect, for asymmetric (public-private) encryption. You never, ever share the private key, hence the name.
The private key is only used on your system for local decryption (someone sent a message encrypted with your public key) or for digital signature (you sign a document with your private key, which can be validated by anyone with your public key).
For the server, they are signing their handshake request with a certificate issued by a known certificate authority (aka, CA, a trusted third party). This prevents a man-in-the-middle attack, as long as you trust the CA.
The current gap is in inconsistent implementation of Organization Validation/Extended Validation (OV/EV), where an issuer will first validate that domains are legitimate for a registered business. This is to help prevent phishing domains, who will be operating with TLS, but on a near-name match domain (www.app1e.com or www.apple.zip instead of www.apple.com). Even this isn’t perfect, as business names are typically only unique within the country/province/state that issues the business license, or needed to be enforced by trademark, so at the end of the day, you still need to put some trust in the CA.
deleted by creator
So if ISPs are once again Title II common carriers, how can they enforce the TikTok ban? 🤔
I believe this is already the case; domain reputation is weighted pretty heavily by Gmail and others, so it will take some months before you’ve established enough rep. Following SPF/DMARC/DKIM is crucial, followed with time your domain has been registered and typical outbound volume from your domain.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That’s the benefit of a custom domain, I suppose; you can always change he provider without changing your email.
deleted by creator
What’s worrying about this report is that it’s coming from Google itself.
Google just bought Mandiant, one of the leading cybersecurity and threat intelligence firms. Therefore, Google is one of the leading cybersecurity and threat intelligence firms.
It’s now expected that Google would release this kind of report, seeing as they sell this as an enterprise service.
Mandiant has previously released this type of report regularly; for instance, they were the firm that disclosed the SolarWinds hack.
This isn’t directly due to industrial air pollution, but rather is the much harder to solve downstream impact of climate change.