moonpiedumplings

joined 2 years ago
[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

In my opinion, you are starting too big. It's better to start smaller. Many locations have a "Linux User Group" or "hackerspace" or a "Computing Club". (Those are exact keywords you can try searching for).

And often times, those organizations host their own small set of services for their members. For example, when I was searching for help on how to set up something with Kubernetes, I came across this blog, where the blog author hosts services for their "Chaos Computing Club", like proxmox, nextcloud (has a calendar app), matrix, and forgejo.

Instead of trying to spin up a set of services for the whole "FOSS Community" start smaller and just host for your local groups. Maybe your local hackerspace already hosts these services.

To find local meetups, I checked out https://meetup.com/, which has a lot.

As for me personally, I am trying to put together services for my Cybersecurity club at my school, right now I have centralized identity, and virtual machine hosting for members to access and play with, but I want to also host extra services like the stuff you mentioned, because the reasons why you want them are good.

On my blog, I discuss my plans and steps: https://moonpiedumplings.github.io/projects/build-server-6/

I think creating a "FOSS hub" overall is a really really big challenge because all of these groups that make up the FOSS world have a heterogeneous set of overall interests, and an even more heterogeneous set of users.

A simple example is the language barrier. Fun fact: There exist alternatives to apps that primarily have English as their first language, but in other languages first, centering around the communities those languages are used in. For example, the opendesk docs are in German first. Of course, there are English docs for things like engagement, but the problem is that —

For something like a FOSS hub, user engagement is critical, and one of the best ways to have engaged users is dogfooding, where users contribute back to this software they use. But with software that treats one language or another as a first class citizen, there is becomes a bump, when users want to dogfood.

The other problem is that the users themselves have different needs and wants. One user or set of users hates email and never wants to touch it. Another wants to exclusively use plain email for everything, including as an alternative to code forges, discussion platforms, and scheduling systems. One set of users prefers discord, the others prefer irc. They meet in the middle on matrix, but this other set of users hates matrix due to being VC funded and it's just a clusterfuck.

You cannot make both groups of users happy. When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody.

What you can do, however, is catch the needs of your local groups and slowly expand from there. I think a FOSS Hub is possible, but I think trying to start it as a foss hub is bound for failure because the scope is too large.

I think the closest thing right now is disroot, which hosts a lot of services, but again Disroot uses XMPP whereas some people may prefer Matrix for this usecase, and plenty of other nitpicks.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 0 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Canonical's snap use a proprietary backend, and comes at a risk of vendor lock in to their ecosystem.

The bash installer is fully open source.

You can make the bad decision of locking yourself into a closed ecosystem, but many sensible people recognize that snap is "of the devil" for a good reason.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 0 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

I've tried snap, juju, and Canonical's suite. They were uniquely frustrating and I'm not interested in interacting with them again.

The future of installing system components like k3s on generic distros is probably systemd sysexts, which are extension images that can be overlayed onto a base system. It's designed for immutable distros, but it can be used on any standard enough distro.

There is a k3s sysext, but it's still in the "bakery". Plus sysext isn't in stable release distros anyways.

Until it's out and stable, I'll stick to the one time bash script to install Suse k3s.

I find this comparison unfair becuase k3s is a much more batteries included distro than the others, coming with an ingress controller (traefik) and a few other services not in talos or k0s.

But I do think Talos will end up the lighest overall because Talos is not just a k8s distro, but also a extremely stripped down linux distro. They don’t use systemd to start k8s, they have their own tiny init system.

It should be noted that Sidero Labs is the creator of Talos Linux, which another commenter pointed out.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I find this comparison unfair becuase k3s is a much more batteries included distro than the others, coming with an ingress controller (traefik) and a few other services not in talos or k0s.

But I do think Talos will end up the lighest overall because Talos is not just a k8s distro, but also a extremely stripped down linux distro. They don't use systemd to start k8s, they have their own tiny init system.

It should be noted that Sidero Labs is the creator of Talos Linux.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Apologies for the second comment, but I do want to clarify that I find curl | bash okay when they are used to install a package manager or platform that can install more software. (in more than one programming language, though).

I find that acceptable because:

  1. Such installation methods are made by the package maintainers who maintain the "distro" of Nix, rather than developers.
  2. The package managers (nix, brew, etc) can be used to install software that would otherwise be obtained with curl | bash.

There are very few software of these exceptions, however.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If the answers aren’t “yes” and “no”, respectively, your app belongs in the garbage. Do not pass Go.

Please see my comment about this issue. Signal does not pass this test due to not having (working) reproducible builds.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

So Soatok advocates for signal as pretty much the "gold standard" of e2ee apps, but it has a pretty big problem.

  1. Having signal be the distributor of the app, sorta breaks the threat model where you trust the app to encrypt data and hide it from the sever

  2. Signal is hostile to third parties packaging and distributing signal

The combination of these problems is supposed to be fixed with reproducible builds, where you can ensure that any user who builds the code will get the same binaries and outputs. Soatok mentions reproducible builds and the problems they solve on another blogpost

But signal's reproducible builds are broken.

The problem is that the answer to Soatok's second question "Can you accidentally/maliciously turn it off" is YES if you are using packages directly from the developer without signing to verify their identity and reproducible builds. They could put a backdoor in there, and you would have no way to tell. It's not fair to pretend that signal doesn't have that flaw, while dissing OMEMO

To understand why this is true, you only need check whether OMEMO is on by default (it isn’t), or whether OMEMO can be turned off even if your client supports it (it can)

(Although there is an argument to be made that having e2ee always on by default would minimize user error in improperly configuring it).

Now, I still think signal is a great software choice for many things. It's basically the best choice as a replacement to text messaging, universally.

But some people need something more secure than that, if you're seriously concerned about certain entities compromising the signal project, than you must have the ability to install clients from third party distributors and developers, even though they can have security issues, which Soatok notes in a post about Matrix (see the heading "Wasn’t libolm deprecated in May 2022?").

I thought the whole point of choosing Matrix over something like Signal is to be federated, and run your own third-party clients?

Yes Soatok. Depending on your threat model you may need to be able to choose from more than client implementation, even if all of them are trash except for 3. (Although I wouldn't recommend Matrix as a private messeger due to metadata like users/groups being public, but it's shaping up to be a great discord clone with PM feature. Is the crytography as secure as signals? No. But it checks the box of "Discord but doesn't sell my data" (yet ofc, Matrix is VC funded).).

Anyway, it's frustrating how he seems to have become more of a hardliner about this. It used to be that these were the bar to clear to become a signal competitor. Now these standards are the bar to clear to be recommended entirely (see the main section about "How do experts recommend secure messaging apps"), even though Signal itself doesn't clear them.

dev can keep using bash

I don't want "devs to keep using bash". My security problems are with the developer distributions of these softwares themselves, rather than bash. Even if developers offered a rust binary as an installer (or a setup.exe), I would still be miffed and disappointed with them for doing things like vendoring CVE's into their software!

Simply having this discussion brings attention to the issue, and to alternatives for getting packages onto the users machine, thereby increasing their security. There's a reason why it's a hot topic whenever it's brought up.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

I think that distributing general software via curl | sh is pretty bad for all the reasons that curl sh is bad and frustrating.

But I do make an exception for "platforms" and package managers. The question I ask myself is: "Does this software enable me to install more software from a variety of programming languages?"

If the answer to that question is yes, which is is for k3s, then I think it's an acceptable exception. curl | sh is okay for bootstrapping things like Nix on non Nix systems, because then you get a package manager to install various versions of tools that would normally try to get you to install themselves with curl | bash but then you can use Nix instead.

K3s is pretty similar, because Kubernetes is a whole platform, with it's own package manager (helm), and applications you can install. It's especially difficult to get the latest versions of Kubernetes on stable release distros, as they don't package it at all, so getting it from the developers is kinda the only way to get it installed.

Relevant discussion on another thread: https://programming.dev/post/33626778/18025432

One of my frustrations that I express in the linked discussion is that it's "developers" who are making bash scripts to install. But k3s is not just developers, it's made by Suse who has their own distro, OpenSuse, using OpenSuse tooling. It's "packagers" making k3s and it's install script, and that's another reason why I find it more acceptable.

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

don’t understand why you treat it as all or nothing problem. It’s clearly not

There are clear alternatives to using developer install scripts to install software though: package managers

And they are not using package managers because clearly they don’t meet their needs.

Developers incorrectly believe that they need to vendor dependencies or control the way software is installed, which package managers of distros do not offer them. So they don't mention the way that their software (deno, rust) is packaged in nixpkgs, and instead mention the install script. Actually Deno mentions nixpkgs, and Rust mentions apt on their less immediately visible docs, but the first recommendation is to use the install script.

The core problem mentioned here is one of packager control vs developer control. With an install script that downloads a binary (usually vendored) the developer has control over things like: the version of the software, how it is installed, and what libraries it uses. They like this for a variety of reasons, but it often comes to the detriment of user security for the reasons I have mentioned above. Please, please read the blog post about static linking or look into my cargo audit. Developers are not security experts and should not be allowed to install software, even though they want to and continue to do this.

One the other hand, with package maintainers, they value the security of users more than things like getting a new version out. With package maintainers however, they take control over how packages are installed, often using older versions to dodge new security vulnerabilities, at the cost of keeping the same set of non-security related bugs, and sometimes the developers whine about this, like when the Bottles devs tried to get unofficial versions of bottles taken down. Bottles even intentionally broke non-flatpak builds.

But I don't care about developer control. I don't care about the newest version. I don't care about the latest features. I don't care about the non-security bugs not getting ironed out until the next stable release. Developers care about these things.

But I care only about the security of the users. And that means stable release. That means package managers. That means developers not installing software.

 

I couldn't get any of the OS images to load on any of the browsers I tested, but they loaded for other people I tested it with. I think I'm just unlucky.

Linux emulation isn't too polished.

 

According to the archwiki article on a swapfile on btrfs: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Btrfs#Swap_file

Tip: Consider creating the subvolume directly below the top-level subvolume, e.g. @swap. Then, make sure the subvolume is mounted to /swap (or any other accessible location).

But... why? I've been researching for a bit now, and I still don't understand the benefit of a subvolume directly below the top level subvolume, as opposed to a nested subvolume.

At first I thought this might be because nested subvolumes are included in snapshots, but that doesn't seem to be the case, according to a reddit post... but I can't find anything about this on the arch wiki, gentoo wiki, or the btrfs readthedocs page.

Any ideas? I feel like the tip wouldn't just be there just because.

 

I've recently done some talks for my schools cybersecurity club, and now I want to edit them.

My actual video editing needs are very simple, I just need to clip parts of the video out, which basically every editor can do, as per my understanding.

However, my videos were recorded from my phone, and I don't have a presentation mic or anything of the sort, meaning background noise, including people talking has slipped in. From my understanding, it's trivial to filter out general noise from audio, as human voices have a specific frequency, even "live", like during recording or during a game, but filtering voices is harder.

However, it seems that AI can do this:

https://scribe.rip/axinc-ai/voicefilter-targeted-voice-separation-model-6fe6f85309ea

Although, it seems to only work on .wav audio files, meaning I would need to separate out the audio track first, convert it to wav, and then re merge it back in.

Before I go learning how to do this, I'm wondering if there is already an existing FOSS video editor, or plugin to an editor that lets me filter the video itself, or a similar software that works on the audio of videos.

 

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/6822168

I was watching a twitch streamer play the game pogostuck (A game similar in frustration and difficulty to Getting over it with Bennett Foddy — Don't Fall!).

They were also reading chat at the same time (usually out loud, as well). Multitasking.

Lots of sources (here's one) say that true multitasking is impossible. Rather, it's very fast switching, where there is a degradation of performance.

Knowing this, I naturally made it my mission to trip the streamer up with seemingly benign messages.

I was sharing some actual information about another streamer who beat another game, but a made a typo something like:

I remember a streamer beat the game a game ...

And I noticed how much more the streamer struggled to read this compared to previous, accidental typos (missing spaces, extra spaces, etc.). He spent a good 5 seconds on this message, and during the process, he fell really far. 😈

So I decided to do some testing. Inserting words, swapping them around, and whatnot, to see what tripped him up the most. Most typos didn't affect him.

There was one typo that tripped him again, where I said something like:

If it wasn't for a for

So it seems to be repetition? But I couldn't always replicate this with other forms of repetition.

Later on, I copied the two guards riddle, with an alteration:

One of the guards always lies and the other always lies as wekk. You don't know which one is the truth-teller or the liar either. However both guards know each other

Sadly, I didn't cut the part about "don't know which is truth teller or liar" out.

The streamer spent a good 5 minutes interpreting this puzzle, and eventually interpreting it as the original puzzle. Then, he was trying to solve a riddle, game, and read chat all at once.

He was stuck on the bottom until he gave up on the riddle (I revealed that I meant what I said when I said both guards lie). 😈

Anyway, that was a bit off topic but still relevant.

I'm wondering if any studies have been done on this? I know studies have been done on human's ability to read words with the letters partially scrambled, but what about typos?

How can I improve my distraction game (with plausible deniability of course)?

 

I was watching a twitch streamer play the game pogostuck (A game similar in frustration and difficulty to Getting over it with Bennett Foddy — Don't Fall!).

They were also reading chat at the same time (usually out loud, as well). Multitasking.

Lots of sources (here's one) say that true multitasking is impossible. Rather, it's very fast switching, where there is a degradation of performance.

Knowing this, I naturally made it my mission to trip the streamer up with seemingly benign messages.

I was sharing some actual information about another streamer who beat another game, but a made a typo something like:

I remember a streamer beat the game a game ...

And I noticed how much more the streamer struggled to read this compared to previous, accidental typos (missing spaces, extra spaces, etc.). He spent a good 5 seconds on this message, and during the process, he fell really far. 😈

So I decided to do some testing. Inserting words, swapping them around, and whatnot, to see what tripped him up the most. Most typos didn't affect him.

There was one typo that tripped him again, where I said something like:

If it wasn't for a for

So it seems to be repetition? But I couldn't always replicate this with other forms of repetition.

Later on, I copied the two guards riddle, with an alteration:

One of the guards always lies and the other always lies as wekk. You don't know which one is the truth-teller or the liar either. However both guards know each other

Sadly, I didn't cut the part about "don't know which is truth teller or liar" out.

The streamer spent a good 5 minutes interpreting this puzzle, and eventually interpreting it as the original puzzle. Then, he was trying to solve a riddle, game, and read chat all at once.

He was stuck on the bottom until he gave up on the riddle (I revealed that I meant what I said when I said both guards lie). 😈

Anyway, that was a bit off topic but still relevant.

I'm wondering if any studies have been done on this? I know studies have been done on human's ability to read words with the letters partially scrambled, but what about typos?

How can I improve my distraction game (with plausible deniability of course)?

 

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/5669401

docker-tcp-switchboard is pretty good, but it has two problems for me:

  • Doesn't support non-ssh connections
  • Containers, not virtual machines

I am setting up a simple CTF for my college's cybersecurity club, and I want each competitor to be isolated to their own virtual machine. Normally I'd use containers, but they don't really work for this, because it's a container escape ctf...

My idea is to deploy linuxserver/webtop, as the entry point for the CTF, (with the insecure option enabled, if you know what I mean), but but it only supports one user at a time, if multiple users attempt to connect, they all see the same X session.

I don't have too much time, so I don't want to write a custom solution. If worst comes to worst, then I will just put a virtual machine on each of the desktops in the shared lab.

Any ideas?

 

docker-tcp-switchboard is pretty good, but it has two problems for me:

  • Doesn't support non-ssh connections
  • Containers, not virtual machines

I am setting up a simple CTF for my college's cybersecurity club, and I want each competitor to be isolated to their own virtual machine. Normally I'd use containers, but they don't really work for this, because it's a container escape ctf...

My idea is to deploy linuxserver/webtop, as the entry point for the CTF, (with the insecure option enabled, if you know what I mean), but but it only supports one user at a time, if multiple users attempt to connect, they all see the same X session.

I don't have too much time, so I don't want to write a custom solution. If worst comes to worst, then I will just put a virtual machine on each of the desktops in the shared lab.

Any ideas?

 

So basically, my setup has everything encrypted except /boot/efi. This means that /boot/grub is encrypted, along with my kernels.

I am now attempting to get secure boot setup, to lock some stuff, down, but I encountered this issue: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=282076

Now I could sign the font files... but I don't want to. Font files and grub config are located under /boot/grub, and therefore encrypted. An attacker doing something like removing my hard drive would not be able to modify them.

I don't want to go through the effort of encrypting font files, does anyone know if there is a version of grub that doesn't do this?

Actually, preferably, I would like a version of grub that doesn't verify ANYTHING. Since everything but grub's efi file is encrypted, it would be so much simpler to only do secure boot for that.

And yes, I do understand there are security benefits to being able to prevent an attacker that has gained some level of running access to do something like replacing your kernel. But I'm less concerned about that vector of attack, I would simply like to make it so that my laptops aren't affected by evil maid attacks, without losing benefits from timeshift or whatnot.

I found the specific commit where grub enforces verification of font files: https://github.com/rhboot/grub2/commit/539662956ad787fffa662720a67c98c217d78128

But I don't really feel interested in creating and maintaining my own fork of grub, and I am wondering if someone has already done that.

 

I'm having trouble with networking on linux. I am renting a vps with only one NIC, one ipv4 address, and a /64 range of ipv6 ones. I want to deploy openstack neutron to this vps, but openstack neutron is designed to be ran on machines with two NIC's, one for normal network access, and entirely dedicated to virtualized networking, like in my case, giving an openstack virtual machine a public ipv6 address. I want to create a virtual NIC, which can get it's own public ipv6 addresses, for the vm's, without losing functionality of the main NIC, and I also want the vm's to have ipv4 connectivity. I know this setup is possible, as the openstack docs say so, but they didnt' cover how to do so.

Docs: https://docs.openstack.org/kolla-ansible/latest/reference/networking/neutron.html#example-shared-interface

There is an overview of what you need to do here, but I don't understand how to turn this into a usable setup. In addition to that, it seems you would need to give vm's public ipv4 addresses, in order for them to have internet connectivity. I would need to create a NAT type network that routes through the main working interface, and then put the neutron interface partially behind that, in order for ipv4 connectivity to happen.

I've been searching around for a bit, so I know this exact setup is possible: https://jamielinux.com/docs/libvirt-networking-handbook/multiple-networks.html#example-2 (last updated in 2016, outdated)

But I haven't found an updated guide on how to do it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›