That being said, some providers let you tweak everything independently. I know Gandi does [1], there are probably others.
(I don't use them, no idea what their cloud service is worth, I'm just showing the sliders)
2,587 karma · joined May 16, 2011
That being said, some providers let you tweak everything independently. I know Gandi does [1], there are probably others.
(I don't use them, no idea what their cloud service is worth, I'm just showing the sliders)
As it is, it provides a clear and easy to follow path to a minimally viable setup, but only mentions many additional security parameters (tls-auth, running as unpriviledged user, chroot, increasing key size) under "Hardening OpenVPN Security", very far down the page, where people probably miss it. And this, even though some of these elements vastly increase the security with little to no downside.
[0] https://openvpn.net/index.php/open-source/documentation/howt...
Either I have a part of my standard stack that reverts it to bash (but I have no idea what could be doing that), or it could be my provider (OVH) doing that by default when they install Ubuntu.
Oh well, sorry for the noise.
(say, 300Mb+ connections with 30ms+ latency)
Are their image file servers getting hammered? Weird.
So even if I don't have a firewall, you would probably need to physically plug yourself directly on the WAN port of my NAT box for your static route to work.
Not to say the firewall is useless, but even by itself, the combination NAT + private IP space prevents a lot of attacks. That's very different from what happens when you have no NAT and no firewall, where you are basically reachable by any kid on the other side of the earth.
Put "DROP all packets with destination 192.168.0.0/16 coming from the external interface", and a few other boilerplate rules of the same kind, and poof: you just secured 99.9% of the NAT-ed networks. No configuration required.
To do the same without a NAT, you need at the very least to adapt the rules to the IP addresses of the machines behind the firewall, which add complexity and increase the likelihood someone will screw up the configuration.
And, hu, please don't open ports by default. That's just a recipe for disaster. If apps really want to open a globally accessible port, make them explicitly signal that to the firewall so it opens access.
It is documented, and all you have to do is install additional packages to enable it, but still, that's not automatic.
I use both AWS and Hetzner. Both have very different offerings aimed at different use cases. AWS gives you simplicity, but everything is crazy expensive. Hetzner and friends give you much more powerful hardware, but you have to setup things yourself.
Yes, if I search for "Windows 7 NAT", dropping the NAT keyword returns more results. But none of them will give me the information I'm looking for.
What I would guess from the homepage is that it hooks itself somewhere in the DirectX stack, and is able to extract the model from there. It probably monitors DirectX calls and pulls the data about the geometry, textures, etc from there. If it does that, it avoids the data format issue since it only has to understand the native DirectX API calls and memory structures.
Learning just enough of a language or a framework to patch up a solution to a specific problem doesn't take very long. It takes a bit of experience, but it doesn't take a mythical hyper-productive hacker. The solution might not be pretty, and it probably won't scale to millions of users or stay solid for decades, but it will solve the problem. And in many cases, it's all that matters.
My experience with these systems is that you don't find anything really dirty in the cars, but you tend to find empty bottles and things like that in them. Not a deal breaker if you just want to get somewhere, but not very family-friendly either.
I took a random tweet on my timeline, and the JSON representation, with added metadata, weighs 8740 bytes.
With this figure, you would "only" need 500 tweets/sec to get 400GB a day.
There's a lot of people on Twitter, and a lot of bots, so that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I had higher expectations from the BBC.
[0] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Buildbot/Talos/Tests#TART.2FCART
Being a victim doesn't give you any particular rights to publish this information. But the law says nothing about merely telling it to all your friends. And if you're walking the line between these two, it's probably better to talk to a lawyer before speaking.
[0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Y-1.5/page-45.html#h...
I tried many, cloud apps, desktop apps, wikis. But in the end, I was never comfortable with putting all my thoughts in documents in a weird format (at best) or in the cloud (at worst). And most apps didn't offer any huge advantage to compensate for that.
I have backups of my notes folder. I can grep through it when I'm looking for something. I can edit it from any computer. And I know it will still be readable in 10 years.
On the other hand, non-technical users are happily torrenting shows and movies, playing 3D-intensive games on Steam, making somewhat decent-looking documents with Word, making gifs with a pirate copy of Photoshop, etc.
A Chromebook offers (generally inferior) alternatives for some of these tasks, but not even all of them.