chronic sudo abuser (nic williams)

I believe likes are a lot more general than “train the algorithm to show me this”

Likes can show support, be used to save posts, and even generate vitality of other user content

But it would be nice to toggle th capability to map them to the same I think

A screenshot highlighting the “show more like this” button

all in an honest day’s work 🥶

The candidate rightly pushed back on the request, and rather than my organization view it as extortion its seen as an unwilling candidate.

I am not sure I’m ready to be in the meat shield of management. That's wild 😭😵‍💫

The geniuses at my organization decided a candidate’s willingness to share slides after a discussion is an indicator of their teamwork aptitude.

For this candidate, the slides included IP from their personal business, for which we are a (bigger competitor).

No praying mantis were harmed in the making of this video

Poor lady probably has PTSD now watching a plant destroyed with a column of fire sounding like a jet engine

It is once again time for hacker summer camp. Headed to #BlackhatUSA tomorrow 😎

Above average concert recording quality 🤣

mamdanitimes.com

Really interesting, poked around a bit. Redacted registrations in Iceland, hosting across US AWS and Cloudflare… some strange AI scraping related domains all registered in the last week.

Hmm. Can't make sense of some of the related file IOCs but uh yeah safe to say, user beware… up to no good!

This is such a good reply 😤✊

that perversion isn't welcome here 🇬🇧🇳🇿🇦🇺

jk 🤣

best current practice slide citing main pillars of device, resolver, auth server

There's a draft best current practice to provide more comprehensive controls to protect IOT devices.

The question asker cites DOT/H lack of support as a privacy problem may actually be a feature. The device makers likely don't believe these devices have a right to privacy in the same way user data does

Even forcing these devices to use DOT, the device class can be inferred by packet size

First question: what type of devices were being looked at in experiments? From smart plugs to smart TVs (low to high cost)

Some run an off the shelf embedded linux, so the guidance for a laptop would likely follow

For a really small and specific device there's a restricted DNS implementation

Lacking EDNS0 capabilities, limited IPv6 DNS64 capabilities etc

These are significant findings but were unable to find specific governing bodies in relation to IOT and protecting them based on DNS capabilities

The researchers changed the response sizes, expected query responses, set abnormally large TTLs, and fingerprint devices to 98% accuracy just based off startup behavior of what domains they query

The devices don't honor any caching, despite giving a #DNS server in DHCP not honoring them

If an attacker has access to a resolver where replies can be crafted, and what vulnerabilities can be identified via DNS queries it is seen that there aren't many supports for security considerations: ID randomization, source port randomization, support for DOT/Q

a slide showing the guidelines in the realms of behavior, regulatory framework, security, and why they are needed

IOT devices have quite predictable DNS queries which leads them to be prone to targeted attacks. Guides to manufacturers that are looking for implementation assistance this may reduce nation state ORB-like capabilities as well as removing amplification and redirection attacks

slide title: iot DNS security and privacy guidelines

Does #IOT need #DNS guidelines for #cybersecurity and #privacy?

vocal chip erasure

Getting to the end of my #IETF123 Madrid experience, second to last day. These early afternoon WG discussions revolve around #IOT. One of my friends is presenting today, which I'm looking forward to today!

#technology #DNS #standards #cybersecurity #ProtectiveDNS so let's see what it's all about...

I ended up speaking up regarding my organization and my customers. If you listen to the recording you may find me near the end 😎

There are a lot of downstream benefits of using TCP instead of UDP in not participating in amplification attacks etc and others if UDP

If the providers did some work on shared credential discovery with one another perhaps this a way to enforce group adoption

Flashback: DNSSEC adoption is so low because the business case is hard to make (higher costs lower benefit) which ADOT/ADOQ may fall into the same pitfall

Let's Encrypt mention that an outsized impact of the top 10 authoritative resolvers (Cloudflare and others) about getting it supported as LE will be able to enforce encrypted transport if the domain is know to be hosted on a nameserver provider that supports DOT

Discoverability mechanism... hmm

PCH are actively looking at this, and are offering and authoritative DOT service. Clients are requesting a timeline for it, they are currently evaluating measurements on capabilities from a performance perspective. Tips between implementers to mitigate as much as possible need to be prioritized

There is more appetite for collaboration with trusted partners for experiments which may lead to public service deployment over time

Prior to enabling, many groups experimenting need to deploy their numbers

Chicken and egg problem: businesses won't prioritize developing capabilities of DOT as adoption is low, and as a result the adoption is low as most commercial organizations don't support it

Quad9's experiments over the last year were in a small group of POPs but as of today rolled out to more places. The problem is while rolling out to more POPs, very few adopted the capabilities. Facebook and a CDN are the top consumers of DOT, B root of course allow for it

Google, Quad9, IBM, and others are enabling probing. Google's most recent publications on this were nearly 6% of egress traffic utilizing opportunistic signal to upgrade to encrypted. If the stars align groups may try and co-op launch a public trial end of this year