Just your normal everyday casual software dev. Nothing to see here.

People can share differing opinions without immediately being on the reverse side. Avoid looking at things as black and white. You can like both waffles and pancakes, just like you can hate both waffles and pancakes.

  • 0 Posts
  • 403 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle


  • while docker does have a non-root installer, the default installer for docker is docker as root, containers as non-root, but since in order to manage docker as a whole it would need access to the socket, if docker has root the container by extension has root.

    Even so, if docker was installed in a root-less environment then a compromised manager container would still compromise everything on that docker system, as a core requirement for these types of containers are access to the docker socket which still isn’t great but is still better than full root access.

    To answer the question: No it doesn’t require it to function, but the default configuration is root, and even in rootless environment a compromise of the management container that is meant to control other containers will result in full compromise of the docker environment.


  • man, arcane looks amazing, I ended up deciding off it though as their pull requests look like they use copilot for a lot of code for new features. Not that I personally have an issue with this but, I’ve seen enough issues where copilot or various AI agents add security vulnerabilities by mistake and they aren’t caught, so I would rather stray away from those types of projects at least until that issue becomes less common/frequent.

    For something as detrimental as a management console to a program that runs as root on most systems, and would provide access to potentially high secure locations, I would not want such a program having security vulnerabilities.





  • I don’t agree with this. While they have stated its against their stores policies to use permanent identifiers instead of your IDFA, I haven’t seen any stories of them actually enforcing said restriction. I’ve seen a lot of /them/ saying that they will and do, but I’ve never seen a story of a company saying they were disabled for it.

    On top of that, they didn’t forbid companies from using workarounds like a unique device fingerprint using your current device configuration for it either, so many apps just did that instead, which brought everyone back to square one again, they just switched to using a third party to identify the device instead of using apple’s first party solution.

    Privacy advocates actually warned that apples way of marketing this feature would do exactly what is occurring here. Giving users a false sense of privacy when really very little has changed.






  • I have to disagree to be honest. Not because I think that they should allow a naked guy with a young girl(gross), but because in the time that it took for steam to review the game and give a verdict, they had already changed it on their own to be a different model.

    For them to refuse re-submission of the game is pretty dumb, considering that the offending content(if that is what it was) had already been fixed in the release build and steam was operating under old information.

    If they haden’t already changed it for the release candidate I would be fully on board, but clearly they saw wrong in it as well which was why they had changed it prior to steams decision.

    Steam forced an early release build of the game way earlier than they normally asked for, which meant it was exactly that, a pre-release build, meaning it had not gone through the proper channels for vetting or checking to make sure that what they wanted to publish was a final product. Then when requested for a review of the actual final build, steam refused. This combined with the fact that the only storefront that blocked the release was steam, I definitely think steam is the bad guy here.

    BEING SAID, this might not be the reason anyway, reading the struggles of this games development process, steam had already posted concern about the live action portions of the game, so I’m expecting it might have been a combination of the nudity aspect of the game (even if not intended to arouse) and the live action portions. I assume steam was already looking for a reason to block this release, and when they were given one they just went with it.