moonpiedumplings

Try translated Chinese web serials.

Try 40 milenniums of cultivation. It's half fantasy though, with it's own magic system. Actually, most web serials I read are fantasy, I haven't seen much sci fi.

There are also actual novels though, like the 3 body problem, which was popular enough to get adapted to a netflix series but I only really care about web serials.

The mitre cve database is more like that big block just below what's being pointed too.

But it does look like they have a backup plan: https://www.thecvefoundation.org/

I thought you were going to link to this.

Joysticks on the bottom again... whyyyyy...

My hands find that setup so uncomfortable, I wish they would put them on the top.

All these people explaining that server side anti cheat is "easier". Let me explain to you the real reason why games use client side anti cheat:

1. It used to be, gamers could self host servers. These servers, would almost always have an active moderator who would instantly ban any cheater. I've watched quite a few cheaters get instabanned on games like this.
2. But then, companies decided to deny gamers the control and ability to self host their own server which they could moderate. They decided to force everyone to play on one server — their server.
3. However, they quickly realized that they were unable, or unwilling to spend money on moderators to ensure a high quality experience.
4. Ergo — client side anti cheat. In addition to continuing their control over servers, now they also gain a degree of control over clients.

I've heard one rebuttal to this: Not all cheaters can be spotted by a human, sometimes they pretend to be a really good player.

To be blunt: I don't really care. I don't really understand why people care about that kind of cheater either. The point of kicking cheaters is to keep the game fun by not having everybody get crushed. But if the cheater is just like another good player, then they're just another good player to me.

I used to play this browser game, https://krunker.io/. It's a browser based FPS game, and due to being browser based it was really, really easy to write cheats. The devs gave up after like a month, and simply stopped updating the anti-cheat, opting for a different system instead — deputization. Players would become "krunker police", and while playing, if a cheater was reported, then they would anonymously, and silently watch, and then take action.

It worked pretty well, then krunker got bought by a mobile gaming company and the game lost a lot of members. But I think the original io browser game is still under full creative control by the devs though, it's just the discord, facebook, and mobile versions of the game that are enshittified.

Anyway, when I was playing a few months ago, I encountered a cheater in one of our lobbies. They were trolling, while advertising cheats. But there were like 5 good players in the lobby, it was a cracked lobby, and we stomped them. They couldn't even make it to top 4/8 people.

Imagine aimbotting, advertising those aimbots, and still getting stomped. We called them out on that, and they just left. And that moment was a shit ton of fun.

But anyway, in the comments, I see some of this same sentiment that companies parrot: That cheaters are inherently bad, and need to be stopped because cheating is bad. This frustrates me because cheaters are not the only entity which can make a game unfun, there are also other toxic elements which should be moderated, but are often not, because of the focus on cheaters.

Play with cheaters, or play without DRM/Kernel level anti-cheat, pick one

Like this snipped from one of the comments below.

But people do cheat with DRM/Kernel level anti-cheat? I can think of 3 ways to do it off the top of my head:

• Undetected virtual machine
• Physical device that uses DMA to modify memory
• Editing of device drivers that have DMA access

And I especially hate this particular dichotomy because, by assuming DRM/Kernel level anti-cheat is invincible, it creates a sort of "blindspot", where when someone does cheat, they may not get noticed because it's assumed they are unable to cheat in the game, which is not the case.

I don't think so, now. You'll have to do those yourself.

Which means my distro-morphing idea should work in theory with OpenStack

I also don't recommend doing a manual install though, as it's extremely complex compared to automated deployment solutions like kolla-ansible (openstack in docker containers), openstack-ansible (host os/lxc containers), or openstack-helm/genestack/atmosphere (openstack on kubernetes). They make the install much more simpler and less time consuming, while still being intensely configurable.

Personally, I think Proxmox is somewhat unsecure too.

Proxmox is unique from other projects, in it's much more hacky, and much of the stack is custom rather than standards. Like for example: For networking, they maintain a fork of the Linux's older networking stack, called ifupdown2, whereas similar projects, like openstack, or Incus, use either the standard Linux kernel networking, or a project called openvswitch.

I think Proxmox is definitely secure enough, but I don't know if I would really trust it for higher value usecases due to some of their stack being custom, rather than standard and mantained by the wider community.

If I end up wanting to run Proxmox, I’ll install Debian, distro-morph it to Kicksecure

If you're interested in deploying a hypervisor on top of an existing operating system, I recommend looking into Incus or Openstack. They have packages/deployments than can be done on Debian or Red Hat distros, and I would argue that they are designed in a more secure manner (since they include multi tenancy) than Proxmox. In addition to that, they also use standard tooling for networking, like both can use Linux Bridge (in-kernel networking) for networking operations.

I would trust Openstack the most when it comes to security, because it is designed to be used as a public cloud, like having your own AWS, and it is deployed with components publicly accessible in the real world.

Again, this is distracting from the original argument to make some kind of tertiary argument unrelated to the original one: Is ssh secure to expose to the internet?

You said no. That is the argument being contested.

This is moving the goal posts. You went from "ssh is not fine to expose" to "VPN's add security". While the second is true, it's not what was being argued.

Never expose your SSH port on the public web,

Linux was designed as a multi user system. My college, Cal State Northridge, has an ssh server you can connect to, and put your site up. Many colleges continue to have a similar setup, and by putting stuff in your homedir you can have a website at no cost.

There are plenty of usecases which involve exposing ssh to the public internet.

And when it comes to raw vulnerabilities, ssh has had vastly less than stuff like apache httpd, which powers wordpress sites everywhere but has had so many path traversal and RCE vulns over the years.

Firstly, Xen is considered by secure by Qubes — but that's mainly the security of the hypervisor and virtualization system itself. They make a very compelling argument that escaping a Xen based virtual machine is going to be more difficult than a KVM virtual machine.

But threat model matters a lot. Qubes aims to be the most secure OS ever, for use cases like high profile journalists or other people who absolutely need security, because they will literally get killed without it.

Amazon moved to KVM because, despite the security trade off's, it's "good enough" for their usecase, and KVM is easier to manage because it's in the Linux kernel itself, meaning you get it if you install Linux on a machine.

In addition to that, security is about more than just the hypervisor. You noted that Promox is Debian, and XCP-NG is Centos or a RHEL rebuild similar to Rocky/Alma, I think. I'll get to this later.

Xen (and by extension XCP-NG) was better known for security whilst KVM (and thus Proxmox)

I did some research on this, and was planning to make a blogpost and never got around to making it. But I still have the draft saved.

The short version is: it depends, and they can fluctuate slightly on certain tasks, but they are mostly the same in performance.

default PROXMOX and XCP-NG installations.

What do you mean by hardening? If you are talking about hardening the management operating system (Proxmox's Debian or XCP's RHEL-like), or the hypervisor itself?

I agree with the other poster about CIS hardening and generally hardening the base operating system used. But I will note that XCP-NG is more designed to be an "appliance" and you're not really supposed to touch it. I wouldn't be suprised if it's immutable nowadays.

For the hypervisor itself, it depends on how secure you want things, but I've heard that at Microsoft Azure datacenters, they disable hyperthreading because it becomes a security risk. In fact, Spectre/Meltdown can be mitigated by disabling hyper threading. Of course, their are other ways to mitigate those two vulnerabilities, but by disabling hyper threading, you can eliminate that entire class of vulnerabilities — at the cost of performance.

Their license is not a free software/content license, as it has a non-commercial clause.

I'm frustrated with non-commercial as a clause because it feels difficult to define. Even though selling the content is pretty clear cut, there are so many ways to reuse content that indirectly make money, in a society where everything is business. If I use this content on my resume and then that gets me a job, was it a commercial usecase?