137 karma · joined June 20, 2018
We should see the right number of valid ICMP packets put on the wire and whatever response we get back will be telling
Stretched layer 2 is almost always a mistake.
Regardless, liminal warfare will continue to give rise to this kind of scenario so we should try not to outsmart ourselves in a desperate bid to be right
Edited for clarity
Instead, when it comes to these kinds of traits they should only be considered as possibilities after observing what a person does rather than what they say. Actions rather than words.
If they are using words good chance they are forgoing the actions. Otherwise why would they need to be telling you what they are?
But most of all, if you’ve worked anywhere even remotely resembling a professional organisation in the last 10 years then it should be obvious just how bad things are inside Optus for this to have even happened. Something is deeply wrong there. This kind of breach should have thousands of things standing in the way of it being possible
Also if they aren’t able to accept other characters, I wonder what happens when you try?
I’ve worked “across” core payments(not banking) systems with the card schemes, westpac, St George etc. So I would say I’ve seen how bad things can get but your bank sounds like something next level.
No of course, that’s a completely logical story arc. Good thing it makes so much sense otherwise I’d be skeptical you were leaving some information out.
Does anyone know if there any other tools providing similar or partly similar functionality? Even something self hosted or a combination of complimentary open source apps would suffice.
I’m less concerned about the chat functionality.
Much better to build relationships which enable you to get things done by virtue of others wanting to look after you.
You may be interested to know that some time in the last decade the Russians clearly signalled they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in Europe. Brilliant play since they know the US sentiment around preparedness to enter another conflict that isn’t theirs.
By simply signalling they forced the US to consider other options hence the decisions to deploy tactical nuclear capabilities not subject to the same rules as strategic nuclear weapons. And last I heard they were deploying these tactical capabilities to a sub class also responsible for SSG.
I’m very curious to understand whether Russian simply signalling in the way that they did has caused the US to strategically compromise their second strike guarantee. That would mean that by simply introducing the idea they have let the US take the mutually assured destruction elements off the table that made it so risky to begin with.