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
  • 412 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • those arbitration clauses generally only cover class action, but regardless in this case going through arbitration would be cheaper for them anyway since it’s very likely the third party will side with them. Additionally, I’m fairly certain if they went through the AG it becomes a criminal case not a civil due to them violating consumer protection laws, which would likely make the arbitration clause obsolete anyway as a consumer contract or agreement can not override law.





  • I would describe windows Office as a combination Spyware Malware. It actively collects data on you using obscure means, in an attempt to prevent you from knowing how it’s collecting it. It will also actively change your settings without your knowledge. With recent updates I would even classify it as potentially adware as well, since they mentioned adding advertisements to the start menu and explorer. since they hard push their office products.

    Honestly, with the fact that it also now force installs software against the users will on updates, the argument could be made that it’s slipping into trojan territory as well, it’s just lacking the backdoor access, but since they are hard pushing MS account authorization for login, I guess you don’t really need a backdoor when if you wanted to you could just force a password change and be able to login via the native login system.

    edit: I thought this post was based off MAS as in to activate windows, I just now realized it was MAS for office activation. I still think that the same applies, just not the trojan aspect. I have edited it to reflect it.


  • I’ve never rebuilt a container, but I also don’t have any containers that are deprecated status either. I swap off to alternatives when a project hits deprecation or abandonware status.

    My only deprecated container I currently have is filebrowser, I’m still seeking alternatives and have been for awhile now but strangely enough it doesn’t seem there are many web UI file management containers.

    As such though ever since I learned that the project was abandoned on life support(the maintainer has said they are doing security patches only, and that while they are doing more on the project currently, that could change), the container remains off, only activating it when i need to use it.







  • 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.