• 0 Posts
  • 50 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • I don’t know that a newer drive cloner will necessarily be faster. Personally, if I’d successfully used the one I already have and wasn’t concerned about it having been damaged (mainly due to heat or moisture) then I would use it instead. If it might be damaged or had given me issues, I’d get a new one.

    After replacing all of the drives there is something you’ll need to do to tell it to use their full capacity. From reading an answer to this post, it looks like what you’ll need to do is to select “Change RAID Mode,” then keep RAID 1 selected, keep the same disks, and then on the next screen move the slider to use the drives’ full capacities.


  • upper capacity

    There may be an upper limit, but on Amazon there is a 72 TB version that would have to come with at least 18 TB drives. If 18 TB is fine, 20 TB is also probably fine, but I couldn’t find any reports by people saying they’d loaded 20 TB drives into theirs without issue.

    procedure

    You could also clone them yourself, but you’d want to put the NAS into read only mode or take it offline first.

    I think cloning drives is generally faster than rebuilding them in RAID, as well as easier on the drives, but my personal experience with RAID is very limited.

    Basically, what I’d do is:

    1. Take the NAS offline or make it read-only.
    2. Pull drive 0 from the array
    3. Clone it
    4. Replace drive 0 with your clone
    5. Pull drive 2 (from the other mirrored pair) from the array
    6. Clone it
    7. Replace drive 2 with your clone
    8. Clone drive 0 again, then replace drive 1 with your clone
    9. Clone drive 2 again, then replace drive 3 with your clone
    10. Put the NAS back online or make it read-write again.

    In terms of timing… I have a Sabrent offline cloning hub (about $50 on Amazon), and it copies data at 60 Mbps, meaning it’d take about 9 hours per clone. Startech makes a similar device ($96 on Amazon, that allegedly clones data at 466 Mbps (28 GB per minute), meaning each clone would take 2.5 hours… but people report it being just as slow as the Sabrent.

    Also, if you bought two offline cloning devices, you could do steps 1-3 and 4-6 simultaneously, and do the same again with steps 7-8.

    I’m not sure how long it would take RAID to rebuild a pulled drive, but my understanding is that it’s going to be fastest with RAID 1. And if you don’t want to make the NAS read-only while you clone the drives, it’s probably your only option, anyway.





  • What exactly are you trusting a cert provider with and what are the security implications?

    End users trust the cert provider. The cert provider has a process that they use to determine if they can trust you.

    What attack vectors do you open yourself up to when trusting a certificate authority with your websites’ certificates?

    You’re not really trusting them with your certificates. You don’t give them your private key or anything like that, and the certs are visible to anyone navigating to your website.

    Your new vulnerabilities are basically limited to what you do for them - any changes you make to your domain’s DNS config, or anything you host, etc. - and depend on that introducing a vulnerability of its own. You also open a new phishing attack vector, where someone might contact you, posing as the certificate authority, and ask you to make a change that would introduce a vulnerability.

    In what way could it benefit security and/or privacy to utilize a paid service?

    For most use cases, as far as I know, it doesn’t.

    LetsEncrypt doesn’t offer EV or OV certificates, which you may need for your use case. However, these are mostly relevant at the enterprise level. Maybe you have a storefront and want an EV cert?

    LetsEncrypt also only offers community support, and if you set something up wrong you could be less secure.

    Other CAs may offer services that enhance privacy and security, as well, like scanning your site to confirm your config is sound… but the core offering isn’t really going to be different (aside from LE having intentionally short renewal periods), and theoretically you could get those same services from a different vendor.










  • Reverse proxies aren’t DNS servers.

    The DNS server will be configured to know that your domain, e.g., example.com or *.example.com, is a particular IP, and when someone navigates to that URL it tells them the IP, which they then send a request to.

    The reverse proxy runs on that IP; it intercepts and analyzes the request. This can be as simple as transparently forwarding jellyfin.example.com to the specific IP (could even be an internal IP address on the same machine - I use Traefik to expose Docker network IPs that aren’t exposed at the host level) and port, but they can also inspect and rewrite headers and other request properties and they can have different logic depending on the various values.

    Your router is likely handling the .local “domain” resolution and that’s what you’ll need to be concerned with when configuring AdGuard.


  • It isn’t, because their business practices violate the four FOSS essential freedoms:

    1. The freedom to run the program for any purpose
    2. The freedom to study and modify the program
    3. The freedom to redistribute copies of the original or modified program
    4. The freedom to distribute modified versions of the program

    Specifically, freedom 4 is violated, because you are not permitted to distribute a modified version of the program that connects to the Signal servers (even if all your modified version does is to remove Google Play Services or something similar).


  • This particular scenario involves the MacOS desktop app, not the phone app. The link is showing just an image for me - I think it’s supposed to be to https://stackdiary.com/signal-under-fire-for-storing-encryption-keys-in-plaintext/

    That said, let’s compare how it works on the phone to how it could work on MacOS and how it actually works on MacOS. In each scenario, we’ll suppose you installed an app that has hidden malware - we’ll call it X (just as a placeholder name) - and compare how much data that app has access to. Access to session data allows the app to spoof your client and send+receive messages

    On the phone, your data is sandboxed. X cannot access your Signal messages or session data. ✅ Signal may also encrypt the data and store an encryption key in the database, but this wouldn’t improve security except in very specific circumstances (basically it would mean that if exploits were being used to access your data, you’d need more exploits if the key were in the keychain). Downside: On iOS at least, you also don’t have access to this data.

    On MacOS, it could be implemented using sandboxed data. Then, X would not be able to access your Signal messages or spoof your session unless you explicitly allowed it to (it could request access to it and you would be shown a modal). ✅ Downside: the UX to upload attachments is worse.

    It could also be implemented by storing the encryption key in the keychain instead of in plaintext on disk. Then, X would not be able to access your Signal messages and session data. It might be able to request access - I’m not sure. As a user, you can access the keychain but you have to re-authenticate. ✅ Downside: None.

    It’s actually implemented by storing the encryption key in plaintext, collocated with the encrypted database file. X can access your messages and session data. ❌

    Is it foolproof? No, of course not. But it’s an easy step that would probably take an hour of dev time to refactor. They’re even already storing a key, just not one that’s used for this. And this has been a known issue that they’ve refused to fix for several years. Because of their hostile behavior towards forks, the FOSS community also cannot distribute a hardened version that fixes this issue.



  • I haven’t worked with Scribus but I’ve heard good things about it, so I don’t think you’d be making a wrong choice by going with it. For this use case, the main reasons I can think of for why LaTeX would be preferable would be:

    • if you preferred working with it, or with a particular LaTeX tool
    • if you want to learn one tool or the other
    • if being able to write a script to create the output is something you want to do and the equivalent is not possible in Scribus

  • Are you familiar with LaTeX? You can use plugins that generate PDFs that follow the PDF/X1-a standard and send the resulting PDFs to professional printers.

    TeXStudio is a FOSS LaTeX editor that looks well-suited for your use-case.

    Since LaTeX documents are just text and your images are already sorted and so on, you could even write a script to construct the first draft of your doc with the pictures arranged consistently, based off the files in your file system, then edit it to tweak it to perfection. You could also/alternatively create or use some reusable LaTeX patterns.