I have full IPv6, none of my ports that I haven’t explicitly whitelisted in the firewall can be accessed from the Internet. I can open a host completely, but it’s not default. This is on the most common brand of consumer routers here.

Just because it’s not NATted doesn’t mean there’s no firewall in place.

I worked in software certification under Common Criteria, and while I do know that it creates a lot of work, there were cases where security has been improved measurably - in the hardware department, it even happened that a developer / manufacturer had a breach that affected almost the whole company really badly (design files etc stolen by a probably state sponsored attacker), but not the CC certified part because the attackers used a vector of attack that was caught there and rectified.

It seemingly was not fixed everywhere for whatever reason… but it’s not that CC certification is just some academic exercise that gives you nothing but a lot of work.

Is it the right approach for every product? Probably not because of the huge overhead power certified version. But for important pillars of a security model, it makes sense in my opinion.

Though it needs to be said that the scheme under which I certified is very thorough and strict, so YMMV.

My router will still block all ports not explicitly allowed for the hosts regardless of protocol, it’s a firewall after all and not just NAT. Just because the host addressable doesn’t mean its ports are reachable.

Testing is actually mandatory, what’s not mandatory though is to do it before deploying.

what’s feurking

An optional step in the développement process

Emacs? When there’s ed? Talk about bloat…

Personally I’d love to see more wider usage of S/MIME and/or PGP.

I’d rather see less. https://www.latacora.com/blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem/ is a good summary about the issue and they have a shorter follow-up post about why encrypting mail in general is bad at https://www.latacora.com/blog/2020/02/19/stop-using-encrypted/

What I take issue with actalis, is that they don’t just sign your private key but you actually get the private key from them. It then depends on how much you trust the issuer.

By definition, that key can no longer be considered “private”.

Could be the kernel itself

Wouldn’t make sense to me because the thread says GNU/Linux and others, though this could relate to Android or distros not using any GNU.

gnupg

Usually not exposed to the network though, but it’s generally a mess so wouldn’t be too surprising

Another candidate I have in mind is ntpd, but again that is usually not easily accessible from outside and not used everywhere, as stuff like systemd-timesyncd exists.

Just want to stress that I’m not sure about it being OpenSSH, it was more supposed to be a fun guess than a certain prediction

Since this affects Linux and others, I’m guessing this is about OpenSSH. But I’m not very certain. Just can’t think of another candidate.

But holy sh, if your software has been running on everything for the last 20 years

This doesn’t sound like glibc as someone in the thread guessed.

Yes

systemd config is inspired by INI, with section headers and key-value pairs. It doesn’t get much flatter than that. It doesn’t compare to YAML or JSON.

Which part of systemd’s config is not text-based? The only “database” it uses for configuration is the filesystem

Really? They might use some GNU programs, but I’m sure the default user land for OpenBSD is all theirs. Just because you know cp etc. as GNU utils doesn’t mean the BSDs use the same ones. They are just part of the operating system. https://github.com/dcantrell/bsdutils tried to collect various BSD implementations for example

I was also with a provider that didn’t offer API access for the longest time. When they then increased prices, I switched, now paying a third of their asking price per year at a very good provider.

I guess migrating is difficult if the provider doesn’t offer a mechanism to either dump the DNS to a file or perform a zone transfer (the later being part of the standard).

Can only recommend INWX for domains, though my personal requirements aren’t the highest.

Not true, I also enjoy stuff not created by workers, like mountains, forests or the sea.

On the other hand, I hate a lot of stuff capitalism created.

A lot of paid cert providers were not so great before LE put the spotlight on the issue; it was more of a scheme to extract money from operators who couldn’t afford to not offer TLS / SSL. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959 was a famous post that made fun of / criticized the system before LE. This hurt security, and if not free, LE wouldn’t have worked.

Also wildcard certificates are more difficult to do automated with let’s encrypt.

They are trivial with a non-garbage domain provider.

If you want EV certificates (where the cert company actually calls you up and verifies you’re the company you claim to be) you also need to go the paid route

The process however isn’t as secure as one might think: https://cyberscoop.com/easy-fake-extended-validation-certificates-research-shows/

In my experience trustworthyness of certs is not an issue with LE. I sometimes check websites certs and of I see they’re LE I’m more like “Good for them”

Basically, am LE cert says “we were able to verify that the operator of this service you’re attempting to use controls (parts of) the domain it claims to be part of”. Nothing more or less. Which in most cases is enough so that you can secure the connection. It’s possibly even a stronger guarantee than some sketchy cert providers provided in the past which was like “we were able to verify that someone sent us money”.

Open source firmware doesn’t mean anything as long as tivoization is happening.

Which I don’t know whether it’s the case, but legislature might make this a requirement.

I, a systems guy, have a better time learning go than nix packages.

Go is a simple and elegant imperative language (that does come with its downsides); Nix the DSL is a functional language which requires a different way of thinking. Systems usually are operated imperatively, so it’s normal that you’d find it easier.

It’s not an easy language at all and one might ask if another one wouldn’t do the job better, which is what Guix System kind of explores, but its (nix) design goals make a lot of sense.

NTSYNC is one example, I don’t know what the current progress is https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240124004028.16826-1-zfigura@codeweavers.com/

It was supposed to be in 6.10, I don’t know if that actually happened