This is fundamentally true. However it is possible to limit the bandwidth of data the employee can exfiltrate.

Assuming a privileged employee suddenly becomes a bad actor. Private-keys/certs are compromised, any kind of shared password/login is compromised.

In my case I have a legit access to my company’s web-certs as well as service account ssh-key’s, etc. If I were determined to undermine my company, I could absolutely get access to our HSM-stored software signing keys too. Or more accurately I’d be able to use that key to compile and sign an arbitrary binary at least once.

But I couldn’t for example download our entire customer database, I could get a specific record, I could maybe social engineer access to all the records of a specific customer, but there is no way I’d be able to extract all of our customers via an analog loophole or any standard way. The data set is too big.

I also wouldn’t be able to download our companies software source code in it’s entirety. Obviously I could intelligently pick a few key modules etc, but the whole thing would be impossible.

And this is what you are trying to limit. If you trust your employees (some you have to), you can’t stop them from copying the keys to the kingdom, but you can limit the damage that they can do, and also ensure they can’t copy ALL the crown jewels.

You are disappointed because it doesn’t have to be this way.

Don’t listen to this guy at all.

I’m a network engineer and I run ipv6 natively in all of our datacenters. There are even a handful of end systems that have ipv6 native networking stacks with ipv4 sockets for our non-ipv6 compatible applications. IPv6 issues are basically self-inflicted at this point by companies that see their IT systems as cost centers, or by basilisk directors who’s knowledge stopped in the 90’s.

Seems novel. But from a security aspect, if OpenSSH has security vulnerability that allows an unauthenticated user to login, via whatever means, once you are in the system as a non-privileged user, you are now free to use the same vulnerability to get root.

Basically this exercise is like using two locks that have the same key to open them. If the same key opens them, then a weakness in one, is now a weakness in the other so why bother with two identical locks?

The first 3 are why I can’t get any work done anymore. The last 3 I would absolutely love to have more time to do.

It’s actually a great game. But it’s Eurojank to the extereme. If you want a superior experience, play Gothic 2. But it’s still janky, just not as bad as Gothic 1. Gothic 3 I didn’t like at all.

hahaah. Ok sure you win. Linux TTY’s are absolutely not terminals. Sure they are called terminals, they are for all intents and purposes modern-day terminals with a long and storied history that directly links them to terminals from the 70’s but since they aren’t a physical piece of hardware that electro-mechanically connects to a mainframe, obviously they aren’t really terminals and they should be be called something else.

Do you know what a terminal is?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I wasn’t able to get past the donate to Obama phase.

When my calculator app in windows is suspended, but has locked 29 threads and is using 60megs of ram. Not that those two values are significant, but why is my caluclator-app “suspended” when I closed it a few days ago since the last time I used it? Shouldn’t it just be closed and not showing up at all.

The length of time an empire existed isn’t really important in the study of history. You need to describe the contextual existence of the empire within history, and you do that by specifying the start and end dates (in whatever calendar system you want to use). Using your example, if you say that empire existed for 101 years, why is that significant? It’s not. But if I say that empire existed in the middle east during the time of Christ and Roman occupation of Palestine, THAT provides the important historical context for why that empire was significant, and what kind of importance it may have had.

But you are missing the point,. There is no reason to ever start a calendar at year zero. The starting point can be zero, fine, but once the first day goes by, you are in the first day of year 1, not year zero and that is logical and has nothing to do with smart astronomers etc, “not understanding the number zero.”

At this point I’d say the only person who doesn’t understand zero is you.

this is absolutely wrong.

“They,” i.e. the catholic church, or whoever was tasked with coming up with a calendar, absolutely understood the concept of zero in the 1500’s. Yes, Zero took a bit longer to formalize and enter the zeitgeist of the public consciousness, but this myth of zero being some kind of unknowable thing for thousands of millennia is naive.

I’d go so far as to say that a year zero in a calendar is useless. There should be a starting point of course, but calling it yero zero instead of year 1 is dumb.