sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] uzay@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I see. That is a valid concern. Though it feels unfair to say that headscale is 'made by a tailscale employee'. From what I understand, one of the main contributors of headscale was hired by tailscale, though he is not the only maintainer and does not own the repo from what I can tell. Still, Tailscale could decide to cede all support of headscale and that would likely hurt the project a lot. In the same way however nebula could decide to switch to proprietary licenses and discontinue their open source offerings.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What made you choose Nebula over Tailscale? I'm running it through a self-hosted Headscale server and it's working well so far. I haven't looked into Nebula too much.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago

Your arguments read like you believe a DRM-protected ebook file is a verbatim copy that can be freely distributed and used. I just want to clarify that it is not, not even on a technical level. The form of DRM that libraries use is not just a license you agree to. It is an ecryption that turns that ebook into a garbled mess for anyone but the person who borrowed the ebook, during a set timeframe. After that period expires it cannot be decrypted anymore and stays a garbled mess forever, irrevocably ceasing to be a copy.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago
[-] uzay@infosec.pub 4 points 2 weeks ago

Huh thanks,, I guess it's based on a misunderstanding of the word kebab then. Correctly it would have to be called şiş/shish case then, but that certainly has less of a ring to it.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago

Snake case or kebab case I guess. But why is it called kebab case?

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago

I started self-hosting a music server locally on a Raspberry Pi long before I switched careers to go into IT. I actually learned a lot that way.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago

If you restrict it, then it isn't public. I'm not saying that encrypted group chats are useless. But if it is public and anyone can join anyway, then encryption adds no secrecy.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 14 points 2 weeks ago

I'm sorry you're having a bad day

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 9 points 2 weeks ago

There is no point in encrypting a public group chat since anyone can join and decrypt it anyway.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago

Which does not give them their own window and icon though.

[-] uzay@infosec.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago

Another approach to webapps in Firefox is to create separate browser profiles and create shortcuts for them.

view more: next ›

uzay

joined 1 year ago