• 1 Post
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • It’s not directly related to the torrent or its content no. It’s more related to the potential bugs in Transmission that might be exploited to propagate viruses.

    Since Transmission has to exchange data with un-trusted parties, before knowing whether the data is relevant to the torrent you are downloading, anyone could exploit bugs that exist in the parsing of these messages.

    So running Transmission as a dedicated user limits what an attacker may have access to once they take control of Transmission through the exploit of known or unknown bugs.

    Obviously, this user need to have many restriction in place as to prevent the attacker from installing malware permanently on the machine. And when you copy over data that has been downloaded by Transmission, you’d have to make sure it has not been tampered with by the attacker in an attempt to get access to the data available to your real account.

    If you just use transmission occasionally, not on a server, I would not bother with it. Either use the flatpak version for some sandboxing and similar security guarantees as having a dedicated user running Transmission, or use an up to date version (the one from your distro should be fine) and don’t leave it running when you do not need to.


  • the common practice is to relax the dependencies

    I found this a bit disturbing

    I find that funny that, since this is rust, this is now an issue.

    I have not dwelved in packaging in a long while, but I remember that this was already the case for C programs. You need to link against libfoo? It better work with the one the distribution ship with. What do you mean you have not tested all distributions? You better have some tests to catch those elusive ABI/API breakage. And then, you have to rely on user reported errors to figure out that there is an issue.

    On one hand, the package maintainer tend to take full ownership and will investigate issues that look like integration issue themselves. On the other hand, your program is in a buggy or non-working state until that’s sorted.

    And the usual solutions are frown upon. Vendoring the dependencies or static linking? Are you crazy? You’re not the one paying for bandwidth and storage. Which is a valid concern, but that just mean we reached a stalemate.

    Which is now being broken by

    • slower moving C/C++ projects (though the newer C++ standards did some waves a few years back) which means that even Debian is likely to have a “recent” enough version of your dependencies.
    • flatpack and the likes, which are vendoring everything and the kitchen sink
    • newer languages that static link by default (and some distributions being OK with it)

    In other words, we never figured out a proper solution for C projects that will link with a different minor than the one the developer tested.

    Well, /rant I guess. The point I’m raising does not seem to be the only one, and maybe far from the main one, for which bcachefs-tools is now orphaned. But I’ve seen very dubious arguments to try and push back against rust adoption. I feel like people have forgotten where we came from. And while there is no reason to go back per say, any new language that integrate this deep into the system will face similar challenges.



  • making the place less equal, more of a broadcast medium, and less accessible to unconnected individuals and small groups.

    I do not think it is a very good analogy. I do not see how this would turn into a broadcast medium. Though I do agree it can feel less accessible and there is a risk of building echo chambers.

    How does an instance get into one of these archipelagos if they use allowlists?

    By reaching out, I would say. It’s most likely a death sentence for one-persone instances. Which is not ideal. On the other hand, I’ve seen people managing their own instance give up on the idea when they realized how little control they have over what gets replicated on their instance and how much work is required to moderate replies and such. In short, the tooling is not quite there.


  • I think both models (i.e. allowlist/blocklist) have their own perks and drawbacks and are all necessary for a healthy and enjoyable internet.

    I would tend to agree. I think both methods have their merits. Though ideally I’d rather have most instances use a blocklist model. This is less cumbersome to the average user and this achieves (in my opinion) one of fediverse goal of having an online identity not tied to an instance, an online identity you can easily migrate (including comments, follow, DMs, …) if needed.

    But the blocklist model is too hard to maintain at this time. There are various initiative to try and make it work, such as fediseer, and it might be good enough for most. But I think it’s a trap we should not fall into. On the fediverse, “good enough for most” is not good enough.

    Now that people are fleeing to the Fediverse, we’re just gathering our tribe - and this is a natural phenomenon.

    I think there is indeed something of that effect going on as well, this is true. But I do not think this warrants a move to allowlist by itself.

    I think the move to allowlist is mandated by the fact that building a safe space for “minorities” is hard. The tools to alleviate issues such as harassment and bigotry are not sufficient at this time to keep those communities fully open.

    Which is a shame as I think the best way to fight those issues, as a society, is to have people express themselves and have healthy conversation on issues that are rarely brought up.

    But we are not entirely giving that up by moving to an archipelago model. It just means that individuals would have multiple accounts, on different archipelago. The downside is that it makes the fediverse less approachable to the average person.


  • I think the current technical limitations push us toward this archipelago model.

    The thing is, bigotry and racism, to name only two, will exist on any social media, any platform where anyone is free to post something. And since those are societal issue, I don’t think it is up to the fediverse to solve. Not all by itself by any means.

    What the fediverse can solve however, is to allow instances to protect themselves and their members from such phenomenon. And my limited understanding, as a simple user, is that’s it’s not possible right now. Not on lemmy nor on Mastodon, if I trust the recent communications around moderation and instance blocking. Not without resorting to allow list.

    This is annoying to admit because it goes against the spirit of the fediverse. But the archipelago model is the only sane solution short term IMO. And it will stay that way until the moderation tools make a leap and allow some way to share the load between instances and even between users.



  • Enable permissions for KMS capture.

    Warning

    Capture of most Wayland-based desktop environments will fail unless this step is performed.

    Note

    cap_sys_admin may as well be root, except you don’t need to be root to run it. It is necessary to allow Sunshine to use KMS capture.

    Enable

       sudo setcap cap_sys_admin+p $(readlink -f $(which sunshine))
    

    Disable (for Xorg/X11 only)

       sudo setcap -r $(readlink -f $(which sunshine))
    

    Their install instruction are pretty clear to me. The actual instruction is to run

    sudo setcap cap_sys_admin+p $(readlink -f $(which sunshine))

    This is vaguely equivalent to setting the setuid bit on programs such as sudo which allows you to run as root. Except that the program does not need to be owned by root. There are also some other subtleties, but as they say, it might as well be the same as running the program directly as root. For the exact details, see here: https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/capabilities.7.html and look for CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

    In other words, the commands gives all powers to the binary. Which is why it can capture everything.

    Using KMS capture seems way overkill for the task I would say. But maybe the wayland protocol was not there yet when this came around or they need every bit of performance they can gain. Seeing the project description, I would guess on the later as a cloud provider would dedicate a machine per user and would then wipe and re-install between two sessions.