1.  

    As exciting as this is, I’m wary about dependency in GNU tools, even though I understand providing an opembsd-culture-friendly implementation would require extra work and could be a nightmare maintainance, with two different codebases for shell scripts, but perhaps gmake could be replaced with something portable.

    1. 10

      This version of Wireguard was written in go, which means it can run on exactly 2 (amd64, i386) of the 13 platforms supported by OpenBSD.

      The original Wireguard implementation written in C is a Linux kernel module.

      A dependency on gmake is the least of all portability worries in this situation.

      1. 17

        While it’s unfortunate that Go on OpenBSD only supports 386 and amd64, Go does support more architectures that are also supported by OpenBSD, specifically arm64 (I wrote the port), arm, mips, power, mips. I have also implemented Go support for sparc64, but for various reasons this wasn’t integrated upstream.

        Go also supports power, and it used to run on the power machines supported by OpenBSD, but sadly now it only runs on more modern power machines, which I believe are not supported by OpenBSD. However, it would be easy to revert the changes that require more modern power machines. There’s nothing fundamental about them, just that the IBM maintainer refused to support such old machines.

        Since Go support both OpenBSD and the architectures mentioned, adding support in Go for OpenBSD+$GOARCH is about a few hours of work, so if there is interest there would not be any problem implementing this.

        I can help and offer advice if anyone is willing to do the work.

        1.  

          Thanks for your response! I didn’t know that go supports so many platforms.

          Go support for sparc64, but for various reasons this wasn’t integrated

          Let me guess: Nobody wanted to pay the steep electricity bill required to keep a beefy sparc64 machine running?

          1. 19

            No, that wasn’t the problem. The problem was that my contract with Oracle (who paid me for the port) had simply run out of time before we had a chance to integrate.

            Development took longer then expected (because SPARC is like that). In fact it took about three times longer than developing the arm64 port. The lower level bits of the Go implementation have been under a constant churn which prevented us from merging the port because we were never quite synced up with upstream. We were playing a whack’a’mole game with upstream. As soon as we merged the latest changes, upstream had diverged again. In the end my contract with Oracle had finished before we were able to merge.

            This could all have been preventable if Google had let us have a dev.sparc64 branch, but because Google is Google, only Google is allowed to have upstream branches. All other development must happen at tip (impossible for big projects like this, also disallowed by internal Go rules), or in forks that then have to keep up.

            The Go team uses automated refactoring tools, or sometimes even basic scripts to do large scale refactoring. As we didn’t have access to any of these tools, we had to do the equivalent changes on our side manually, which took a lot of time and effort. If we had an upstream branch, whoever did these refactorings could have simply used the same tools on our code and we would have been good.

            I estimate we spent more effort trying to keep up with upstream than actually developing the sparc support.

            As for paying for electricity, Oracle donated one of the first production SPARC S7-2 machines (serial number less than 100) to the Go project. Google refused to pay for hosting this machine (that’s why it’s still sitting next to me as I type this).

            In my opinion after being involved with Go since the day of the public release, I’d say the Go team at Google is unfortunately very unsympathetic to large scale work done by non-Google people. Not actively hostile. They thanked me for the arm64 port, and I’m sure they are happy somebody did that work, but indirectly hostile in the sense that the way the Go team operates is not compatible with large scale outside contributions.

            1.  

              Having to manually follow automated tools has to suck. I’d be overwhelmed by the tedium or get side-tracked trying to develop my own or something. Has anyone attempted a Go-to-C compiler developed to attempt to side-step all these problems? I originally thought something like that would be useful just to accelerate all the networking stuff being done in Go.

              1.  

                There is gccgo, which is a frontend for gcc. Not quite a transpiler but it does support more architectures than the official compiler.

                1.  

                  Yeah, that sounds good. It might have a chance of performing better, too. The thing working against that is the Go compiler is designed for optimizing that language with the gccgo just being coopted. Might be interesting to see if any of the servers or whatever perform better with gccgo. I’d lean toward LLVM, though, given it seems more optimization research goes into it.

                2.  

                  The Go team wrote such a (limited) transpiler to convert the Go compiler itself from C to Go.

                  edit: sorry, I misread your comment - you asked for Go 2 C, not the other way around.

              2.  

                But these people are probably more than comfortable with cryptocurrency mining 🙃

              3.  

                Go also supports power, and it used to run on the power machines supported by OpenBSD, but sadly now it only runs on more modern power machines, which I believe are not supported by OpenBSD. However, it would be easy to revert the changes that require more modern power machines. There’s nothing fundamental about them, just that the IBM maintainer refused to support such old machines.

                The really stupid part is that Go since 1.9 requires POWER8…. even on big endian systems, which is very pointless because most running big endian PPC is doing it on pre-POWER8 systems (there’s still a lot!) or a big endian only OS. (AIX and OS/400) You tell upstream, but they just shrug at you.

                1.  

                  I fought against that change, but lost.

                2.  

                  However, it would be easy to revert the changes that require more modern power machines.

                  Do you have a link to a revision number or source tree which has the code to revert? I still use a macppc (32 bit) that I’d love to use Go on.

                  1.  

                    See issue #19074. Apparently someone from Debian already maintains a POWER5 branch.

                    Unfortunately that won’t help you though. Sorry for speaking too soon. We only ever supported 64 bit power. If macppc is a 32-bit port, this won’t work for you, sorry.

                    1.  

                      OpenBSD/macppc is indeed 32-bit.

                      I kinda wonder if say, an OpenBSD/power port is feasible; fast-ish POWER6 hardware is getting cheap (like 200$) used and not hard to find. (and again, all pre-P8 POWER HW in 64-bit mode is big endian only) It all depends on developer interest…

                      1.  

                        Not to mention that one Talos board was closer to two grand than eight or ten. Someone could even sponsor the OpenBSD port by buying some dev’s the base model.

                        1.  

                          Yeah, thankfully you can still run ppc64be stuff on >=P8 :)

                3.  

                  This version of Wireguard was written in go, which means it can run on exactly 2 (amd64, i386)

                  That and syspatch make me regret of buying EdgeRouter Lite instead of saving up for an apu2.

                4.  

                  I’m a bit off with the dependency of bash on all platforms. Can’t this be achieved with a more portable script instead (POSIX-sh)?

                  1.  

                    You don’t have to use wg-quick(8) – the thing that uses bash. You can instead set things up manually (which is really easy; wireguard is very simple after all), and just use wg(8) which only depends on libc.

                    1.  

                      I think the same as you, I’m sure it is possibe to achieve same results using portable scripts. I’m aware of the conviniences bash offers, but it is big, slow, and prompt to bugs.

                  1. 14

                    They in fact dont chase fads. Others they ignored included virtualization, a desktop experience, and a business model like Red Hat’s supporting the developers. They always do their own thing. Whether that’s better or not varies a lot. ;)

                    1. 3

                      Hey, not sure if this post was sarcasm, but OpenBSD does have virtualization now, called vmm. And it’s actually known for having pretty good desktop experience relative to other BSDs, they even have mocked up enough systemd stuff to get gnome3 running.

                      1. 1

                        They ignored it for a long time with the kind of mockery you see here. It’s one of few times they reversed their position with them building a hypervisor.

                        Far as desktop, you can install a 3rd party desktop. You used to be able to do that for MS-DOS, too, but we wouldn’t call it a “Microsoft” desktop. I think an OpenBSD-focused project would be pretty different than vanilla Gnome. It could even be just an standardized integration of select components like individual developers probably already do. Note that there have been attempts to build OpenBSD distros for things like LiveCD’s. Idk if they were project members, though.

                        1. 1

                          I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that in order for OpenBSD to be considered not ignoring the desktop experience they have to build their own desktop environment? Why do that if they can leverage what already exists and works?

                          1. 3

                            Why do that if they can leverage what already exists and works?

                            That’s not how OpenBSD project does things haha. You’re talking like a Linux user now now with Gnome itself coming from those kind of people. ;) Same crowd was behind most desktop environments that could go mainstream with lay people. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen with OpenBSD’s work since they don’t target such people. They mostly seem to use terminals with a preference for the base system to focus on terminal use. Some are content with 3rd party stuff on OpenBSD for this purpose. Some are on Mac’s which were a great answer to usable desktop with UNIX’s power underneath.

                            To further illustrate the point, OpenBSD people like to build their own stuff consistent with their philosophy of doing things with a focus on a specific, technical audience (esp themselves: the main users). They have a part of the site where they highlight a lot of “OpenBSD’s” contributions to software. Those are their things that they’re proud of. They certainly can and do use third party software on an individual basis. That’s not the default experience of OpenBSD, though, which is a narrower set of software done in a specific way.

                            I did try to imagine an OpenBSD desktop when looking for potential business models they could use to get more support. If they built one, I predicted it would be lightweight, consistent, well-documented, use their custom libraries, and work with their security mitigations. It would also be the default, graphical environment you get after installing OpenBSD. It would probably be an option in the installer given many will use terminals. Major apps would have packages that installed them into this environment automatically setting up any configurations, functional and security, that were necessary. That would use their internal tooling as well to reduce crud. It would be tested or certified on a small set of high-quality hardware their developers were able to build good drivers for. That would be a desktop deserving the OpenBSD branding that might also sell commercially.

                            Gnome on OpenBSD isn’t an OpenBSD desktop. It’s a Linux desktop experience running on a terminal- and server-focused BSD. Totally different.

                            1. 4

                              OpenBSD actually comes with Calm Window Manager, some developers use it but not all of us. If I had to hand wave what’s popular among developers I would say: i3, cwm, fvwm, ratpoison, dwm, xfce4 - in no particular order.

                              I think both of you are right to a degree. @apy is correct that OpenBSD can be deployed as perfectly fine desktop and m:tier proved that by providing Gnome based workstations for corporations. When @apy says:

                              And it’s actually known for having pretty good desktop experience relative to other BSDs

                              I think he has in mind the pretty good situation with OpenBSD on laptops (suspend/hibernate, wifi, many things working out of the box), which is a result of many developers running the system as daily drivers on their main machines.

                              That said, you are correct that the project goals are not focused on providing a mainstream desktop. If desktop became a big focus for the project I still believe it would not be any different to the work already done with cwm, OpenBSD doesn’t cater to mainstream needs, if you dog food your software - you tend to make what you like to eat.

                              OpenBSD works for me as a desktop, I use it for gaming, work and every other computer related task. It runs on 3 of my laptops and on my server. If it doesn’t work for you yet, and you’re the type of person that wants to put the work required to make that happen - you will find a supportive community. However if you only want a working desktop without putting in any effort, you are better of picking up a mainstream operating system.

                              1. 2

                                I appreciate your reply. I forgot about CWM. It’s not quite a full, desktop environment but it does address the most important functionality. Interestingly, its description matches some of my predictions for what one would look like on OpenBSD. I should probably try using it at some point since it’s keyboard-focused. Been meaning to try one that was.

                                I didn’t know about m:tier’s desktops. Thanks for the tip along with the picture of what people are using. All that collectively could be helpful in event anyone wanted to tackle a project creating a more complete desktop. Gotta know people’s preferences to start with. I doubt there will be a lot of interest in that, though. One advantage of just using something like Gnome is people only need to be trained on one thing across several platforms. Pretty intuitive, too, for basic use.

                                Far as gaming, it still trips me out that there’s an OpenBSD gaming scene at all given how niche it is. Unexpected but neat. Aside from the Reddits, are there any goto, introductory links for the best games and/or what goes into porting one to OpenBSD? I figure the latter part could have interesting challenges if game wasn’t originally made for OpenBSD.

                                1. 2

                                  We are pretty active on freenode #openbsd-gaming, thfr made amazing progress with porting FNA based games which accounts for some pretty decent and quite new Indie titles (https://github.com/rfht/fnaify#status). He is also now making strides into VR on OpenBSD.

                                  We also have a GOG mix listing games with native OpenBSD engine available (so excluding dosbox etc). We also game every Saturday, usually Quake 1,2,3. This Sat we spent 8 hours on a 3v3 game of Wesnoth :)

                    1. 8

                      To prevent mutt from auto invoking GPG use the following in your ~/.muttrc:

                      set pgp_decrypt_command = “false”
                      set pgp_auto_decode = no
                      set pgp_use_gpg_agent = no
                      set crypt_autopgp = no
                      set crypt_verify_sig = no
                      set crypt_use_gpgme = no

                      I found it still calling pgp_decrypt_command even after setting all other variables, hence preemptively setting it to “false” as we don’t know what triggers the vuln.

                      1. 8

                        At least by using mutt/neomutt, we’ve secured ourselves against HTML-based exfiltration attacks. :)

                        1. 4

                          Most HTML-aware MUA these days don’t auto-load external resources either

                          1. 4

                            Still I find it a bit worrying that mutt is so eager to shell out to a command by default and apparently ignoring the auto decode flag - wonder if there are more, less popular formats that make it try calling random stuff. @fcambus found plenty in Lynx when he started pledging it.

                            1. 1

                              Maybe it’s just a bug?

                          2. 5

                            The efail paper (warning: pdf) has a table that shows mutt has no exfiltration channels. I believe pgp to be safe with mutt in the context of the efail attacks.

                            1. 1

                              yeah, when I wrote the comment the paper was not available yet (or I wasn’t yet aware it was published).

                          1. 1

                            My impressions are as follows.

                            The interface is bad, the email notifications are useless and don’t distinguish between ‘hey, someone sent you a direct message/mentioned you on a channel’ and ‘here is a dump of messages from last week’.

                            Handling e2e encryption keys and device verification is terrible, including tying the device key to the browser user agent - I had to re-authenticate my browser after Chrome UA changed on OpenBSD.

                            There are some messages that nothing except my phone can decrypt, and ‘requesting’ keys doesn’t help with it at all.

                            The interface and service feels sluggish.

                            e2e encryption is not enabled by default.

                            I love the idea of matrix & the riot client - it lacks a lot of polish at this point in time. It’s annoying enough that I do not use it daily, I take a look at the openbsd riot channel every few weeks - that’s all.

                            1. 1

                              e2e encryption is not enabled by default.

                              I agree with a lot of what you said (although I disagree with the degree which it is a problem). For this one, I’m not sure is a negative. E2E encryption still is in beta, so turning that on by default would probably produce the opposite complaint from a lot of people, possibly even you given your earlier statements on its quality. It also cannot be undone, so making public channels would be annoying. I also don’t really think public channels probably need e2e given anyone can join them. Maybe direct chats should be e2e by default once it’s ready, I’m not sure. But I do believe there is a valid argument for e2e encryption being off by default.

                              1. 1

                                For group channels - sure. I do believe however that direct messages e2e should be on by default. Especially if they consider e2e encryption still a beta - this needs huge usage exposure before people start relying on it in the real world for serious stuff.

                                1. 1

                                  I find your statement kind of confusing. You are suggesting we opt people into e2e encryption by default but at the same time it’s not ready for serious stuff. IMO, letting people opt themselves in and slowly work out bugs and eventually transition people into it by default sounds like a more pleasant user experience than dropping everyone into a buggy solution. I can see merits to your suggestion, but my values prefers a slower solution.

                                  1. 2

                                    IMO, letting people opt themselves in and slowly work out bugs and eventually transition people into it by default sounds like a more pleasant user experience than dropping everyone into a buggy solution.

                                    I think it will lead to it remaining non-default forever and people sending messages without turning on e2e encryption on. Defaults matter.

                                    I also believe it’s better to expose as many users as possible to the e2e feature now - people using matrix today are most likely technical already. It’s harder to change defaults when things go mainstream.

                                    1. 1

                                      I think it will lead to it remaining non-default forever and people sending messages without turning on e2e encryption on

                                      Maybe! It’s hard to tell the future. At least anyone who is sufficiently motivated can write a client which does default to e2e encryption or can make a PR to Riot that defaults to it, etc etc (it’s a client decision not a server decision). I feel like you’re being overly pessimistic, but we’ll find out!

                                    2. 2

                                      IMO, letting people opt themselves in and slowly work out bugs and eventually transition people

                                      They need to just fix the bugs so we don’t have to slowly opt people in. Most of the private or FOSS alternatives to proprietary software fail due to user experience. Those developing them should’ve learned by now. I’d hold off on new features where possible to just fix everything people have reported. Then, do iterations as follows: build some stuff with good diagnostics or logging built-in; fix the bugs people report; build some more stuff; fix some more stuff; maybe trim anything that turned out unnecessary. Just rinse repeat maintaining good user experience with core functionality that works well. If there’s bugs, they should be in rarely-used features.

                                      1. 4

                                        They need to just fix the bugs so we don’t have to slowly opt people in.

                                        This statement is ridiculous. It’s an open source project with limited resources. Yes, it would be nice if they could just fix the bugs. Wouldn’t life be great in every project if that could just happen.

                                        Those developing them should’ve learned by now.

                                        It’s new people developing every project, it’s not Ocean’s 11 where the same crew gets together on every project. Those who can program are growing at an insane rate, most of them are green.

                                        Then, do iterations as follows: …

                                        Feel free to run an open source project like this. But this isn’t a company with top-down management, it’s a bunch of actors in the world doing whatever they are doing and things happen. There is no-one in control.

                                        1. 2

                                          This statement is ridiculous. It’s an open source project with limited resources. Yes, it would be nice if they could just fix the bugs. Wouldn’t life be great in every project if that could just happen.

                                          There’s open source projects that fix their bugs. There’s others that ignore the bugs to work on other parts of the project like new features. So, it’s not ridiculous: it’s a course of action proven by other projects that focus on quality and polishing what they have. Many projects and products do ignore that approach, though, for endless addition of features.

                                          Now, it might be acceptable to ignore bugs if users love the core functionality enough to work around them. Maybe the new features would be justified. Happens with a lot of software. However, bugs in basic use of a chat client that is not in wide demand which its competitors don’t have are going to be a deal-breaker for a wide audience. It’s already a hard, uphill sell to get people to use private, encrypted clients like Signal that work. People mostly cite network effects of existing ecosystems but also things like visuals and breakage of some features. Really petty given the benefits and developers available but gotta play to the market’s perception. Leaving the alternatives broken in whatever ways you were noticing just makes that hard sell worse both for that project and any others that get mentally associated with that experience down the line. As in, people stop wanting to try encrypted, chat programs when the last two or three were buggy as hell or had poor UI. It can even hurt credibility of people recommending them.

                                          “Feel free to run an open source project like this.”

                                          There’s groups that do. They have less contributors but higher quality. Another alternative is one person who does care spending extra time on fixing bugs or QA-checking contributions. I’m usually that guy at my job doing a mix of the stuff people overlook and the normal stuff. There’s people doing it in FOSS projects. This one clearly needs at least one person doing that. Maybe one more person if a person or some people are already doing it but overloaded.

                                          When it comes down to it, though, I said the group wanting a lot of people to switch to their chat client should fix the problems in it. Your counter implies they shouldn’t fix the problems in it. I’m assuming you meant they should keep doing more features or whatever they’re doing while ignoring the problems. I think for chat clients that fixing problems that would reduce or block adoption should one of highest priorities. Even a layperson would tell you they want their new tech to work about as well on main functions as their old ones its replacing. The old ones work really well. So, the new one needs to. That simple to them.

                                          1. 1

                                            There’s open source projects that fix their bugs.

                                            Your counter implies they shouldn’t fix the problems in it.

                                            Ok I think we are talking about different things then because that is not what I meant at all. I’m not saying they don’t fix their bugs, I’m saying they are slowly working a new feature out. Maybe it’s a language barrier but that is what I meant here:

                                            and slowly work out bugs and eventually transition

                                            I think it’s better to give people a new feature they can opt into than force them into something broken.

                                            1. 2

                                              Maybe a misunderstanding. Your original writeup suggested they had bugs in quite a few things, invluding E2E messaging. E2E should be on by default due to its importance. So, Im just saying that fixing esp E2E messaging bugs should be high priority since it’s important and should stay on by default. Plus anything else causing problems in daily use.

                                              1. 1

                                                But that depends on what problem you think Matrix is solving. Currently it’s replacing Slack and IRC, both of which mostly focus on public rooms that anyone can join. E2E encryption doesn’t do much for you in those places. For direct messages, yeah it probably should be on by default. For the private rooms I’m in, we turned it on.

                                                So if one thinks Matrix is the next step in IRC or replacing Slack, then E2E encryption isn’t a high priority for you.

                                                So, Im just saying that fixing esp E2E messaging bugs should be high priority since it’s important and should stay on by default. Plus anything else causing problems in daily use.

                                                It’s easy to dictate project priorities from an arm chair.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Currently it’s replacing Slack and IRC, both of which mostly focus on public rooms that anyone can join. E2E encryption doesn’t do much for you in those places.

                                                  That makes more sense. I assumed it had a privacy focus since someone mentions it in every thread on stuff like Signal and given homepage line. If just a Slack replacement, E2E wouldn’t make sense by default.

                                                  “It’s easy to dictate project priorities from an arm chair.”

                                                  It really isn’t. There’s always lots of debate that follows that consumes time and energy. ;)

                                        2. 3

                                          Totally agree! Leaving bugs in the code is just stupid. You’d think they should’ve learnt that by now.

                                1. 5

                                  This poses an interesting problem for anti-cheat systems like VAC. It’s not impossible to detect this kind of hack, but could it then be used to trick VAC into banning legitimate players?

                                  I’m not aware of any stories about VAC false positives. Trust in VAC seems almost absolute. So anything like the above happening could turn hairy quick.

                                  1. 3

                                    Honestly, games seem like a security issue waiting to happen. Almost every part of them is designed without security in mind (except on consoles, and even the only to an extent) in exchange for performance. Now with Vulkan, they have much lower levels of access to the GPU than they did before, allowing for greater risks involving GPU drivers to happen. Their network protocols are likely highly exploitable, as this article shows.

                                    VAC has mostly dealt with script kiddies. Once the cheating world develops far more advanced methods, then I think Valve et al will have a hell of a time.

                                    1. 4

                                      VAC has mostly dealt with script kiddies. Once the cheating world develops far more advanced methods, then I think Valve et al will have a hell of a time.

                                      Steam itself has millions of active users, most of them with a credit card on file - games are a big target not only for cheating - it’s a lucrative target for criminals and I’m surprised wide scale exploitation of them is not yet a thing.

                                  1. 8

                                    I have huge hopes that this will result in ironing out the e2e encryption out of beta and improving the UI of verification and key management. I have huge hopes for matrix/riot, I want to see it succeed.

                                    1. 5

                                      One of the slack channels I’m on is evaluating it now to switch, it clearly still needs work but it’s not the worst thing. I’ve heard the server is pretty terrible to run so I’ve only experienced it from a client perspective. I’m hoping that France is invests in making the system better, I’d rather use Matrix/Riot than Slack/Discord/any of the other 100 proprietary chat apps.

                                    1. 11

                                      Can you tell me why your blog requires javascript to display the content? It’s extremely frustrating, it’s all there but post the initial blip the site just turns white with only the header remaining visible.

                                      https://i.imgur.com/mQHB3N0.png

                                      1. 2

                                        Fixed.

                                        1. 2

                                          Works fine with FF’s reader view mode even with javascript blocked. He has a bit of javascript that loads typekit and toggles opacity on success. As to why?

                                          1. 2

                                            Looks like there’s an “opacity: 0” in the CSS.

                                            1. 1

                                              so i just have to disable css too? :)

                                          1. 2

                                            cough anti-adblock cough

                                            1. 6

                                              It has one? I use ublock origin and have javascript disabled by default. The article is readable with no annoying anti-adblock with javascript disabled ;)

                                            1. 8

                                              I run OpenBSD as my only operating system on:

                                              • on my daily driver (T420 Thinkpad) that I use for work, gaming & everything else (OpenBSD -current)
                                              • on the Lenovo G50-70 which is a daily driver for my wife - currently running OpenBSD 6.3 (just updated from 6.2)
                                              • our server on vultr running OpenBSD 6.2 (soon to be updated to 6.3)
                                              • an asus intel atom eeepc running snapshots/-current and serves as a backup machine for hacking on stuff

                                              I do have a fallback work assigned laptop with Linux, that I haven’t booted even once this year. I do however use the PS4 extensively for additional gaming and streaming Netflix/HBO Go

                                              1. 2

                                                How has your experience been with suspending/hibernating? When I bought a ThinkPad X41, I first installed OpenBSD, but the fact that every time when I suspended the device, the screen permanently blanked until I forcefully rebooted, really prevented me from using it.

                                                1. 5

                                                  If there is a TPM config option in the BIOS, try to disable the TPM and try again (not sure if this applies to the x41 but it applies to some of the more recent models).

                                                  1. 5

                                                    Suspend & hibernate works perfectly on both laptops I mentioned in my post. Keep in mind, a lot will depends on the hardware model and the amount of time since you tried (OpenBSD is not standing still).

                                                    1. 3

                                                      I have an ThinkPad X41 that has been running OpenBSD from new and both suspend and hibernate work on it.

                                                      Sometimes when it comes out of hibernation / sleep the X desktop did appear to come up blank - but if your press the brightness keys (Fn + Home button on my X41) the screen restored as normal - but I sometimes see this on my Toshiba laptop as well. I have not noticed this on my X41 recently.

                                                    2. 2

                                                      This isn’t completely related, but I also use (Free)BSD on vultr. I’m not really a sysadmin type and barely know that I’m doing, but I like it.

                                                    1. 3

                                                      C4n w3 h4z pr0p3r BBC0de, l1nk3d n0 w0rk5 4nd h4z n0 1mG t4g. I c4n+ 1nl1n3 m3 c00l p1cs?

                                                      http://jo.zan.hu/poen/pictures/pictures_2/fuck_mod_perl.jpg

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Sorry to hear it. Random crazy thought - it’s a shame he died after that Falcon Heavy launch, because wouldn’t it be cool if his ashes were in that Tesla, circling the solar system for ~eternity?

                                                        1. 2

                                                          I think it’s nicer that he was able to see the Falcon Heavy launch happen, knowing that the world is indeed making progress in space exploration.

                                                          1. 4

                                                            In Hawking’s lifetime, he witnessed people landing on the Moon, landing probes on Venus, multiple rovers on Mars, a probe on Titan, and visiting all the outer planets, and Pluto, and landing on a comet… It’s nice that some (but not all) missions would be a bit cheaper to launch now if launched on a Falcon Heavy, but I don’t see how a great physicist would see FH as a milestone in space exploration compared to all the above. I don’t think he’d especially yearn for his urn to be part of an elon musk PR stunt either.

                                                        1. 16

                                                          It’s even easier when using ii from suckless. We have a bot on #openbsd-gaming now that reports how many people are currently playing. It just runs qstat every 5 minutes, massages the output and spits it out to the input file tied to our channel. It’s hard to beat echo "hello world" > irc/chat.freenode.net/#openbsd-gaming for scripting bots.

                                                          1. 5

                                                            This is like some weird Portlandia thing…“The dream of Plan9 is alive in suckless”, etc.

                                                            Still, neat though! :)

                                                            1. -6

                                                              ii sounds great in theory, but try to answer new incoming queries. now instead of parsing a single stream of text you have to monitor an entire directory tree with files appearing out of nowhere at any time

                                                              parsing irc is super simple and ii is a retarded idea for a bot

                                                              1. 15

                                                                parsing irc is super simple and ii is a retarded idea for a bot

                                                                This isn’t constructive. If anything the toxicity detracts from your argument above.

                                                                1. 7

                                                                  ii sounds great in theory, but try to answer new incoming queries. now instead of parsing a single stream of text you have to monitor an entire directory tree with files appearing out of nowhere at any time

                                                                  Sure, if your bot needs to respond to private queries. The one on our channel doesn’t parse any input at all. Including the channel itself - it’s a notification bot.

                                                                  parsing irc is super simple and ii is a retarded idea for a bot

                                                                  You’re telling me it was retarded to output the result of qstat every 5 minutes to a file? It took 5 minutes to write the notification using ii - it serves it’s purpose.

                                                                  Does ii fit every use case of writing a bot for IRC? Nope. However it does make it dead easy to have various tools output content to a file and get it delivered on an IRC channel that way.

                                                                  1. 4

                                                                    To be fair, even for notification, it seems overkill to pull ii and play with files when you can simply send to socket:

                                                                    NICK bot
                                                                    JOIN #foo
                                                                    PRIVMSG #foo :My text message
                                                                    

                                                                    All you need is echo and nc and IRC is yours. ii look to me like an overkill solution for simple problems and limited solution for complexes ones. But then I might simply be missing some complexity about writing bots, manager server configuration, connection throttling, etc.

                                                                    1. 2

                                                                      Sure, but you will either connect to the network each time you invoke that notification or will need to maintain the connection up, respond to keepalive pings from the server etc. It is really easier to just dump a notification to a file every 5 minutes and have ii handle the connection.

                                                                      It’s not perfect for all use cases, but it does simplify this specific one we had :)

                                                                    2. -8

                                                                      yeah i’m sure not many irc bots want fancy features such as being able to reply to things

                                                                1. 4

                                                                  Remove microphone, camera, gps module, install PGP and sell of to drug cartels… I can’t believe anyone involved in organized crime would use a phone with a blackbox baseband. All those countermeasures won’t help if you have a black box with direct RAM access to the device.

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    OTOH are there any open usable basebands?

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Maybe not, but you could try not giving one total DMA access. (This is why IOMMUs exist.)

                                                                      1. 2

                                                                        IOMMUs barely exist on ARM.

                                                                    2. 2

                                                                      I figure they’d use disposable, unencrypted phones and radios for the same reason Id never do in-country business with them in the first place. Even if I had no morals. Id have to be anonymous even from people they might bribe for info. These folks are simply too rich, violent, and crazy to try to work with.

                                                                      An unscrupulous me would probably stick with the Wall St types, the “married but on Tinder” segment, escorts, Alex Jones’ followers, and other shady markets for privacy tech that are still pretty safe. ;)

                                                                    1. 8

                                                                      A d tag would be very nice to have!

                                                                      1. 3

                                                                        you know the drill, gather sample links that would benefit from having the tag then make a meta post.

                                                                        1. 7

                                                                          Duly submitted.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Thank you (and the admins) for doing this. D now has a tag: https://lobste.rs/t/d

                                                                      1. 3

                                                                        Nixpkgs / NixOS has run in to this problem as well, with the same strictness of hash checking. We’ve instead developed tools to normalize the results from GitHub, and compare the hash after normalization, not prior. This works for us since the contents of the archive is what we care about, and not the implementation detail of the archiving process.

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          Does this mean archives are being extracted before they’re verified?

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Yes

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              This opens up an attack vector through your tar & compression implementations - a bug in them could lead to code execution via maliciously crafted archive.

                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                Indeed. Only in specific cases are the archives extracted prior to verification, and GitHub is one of the few. However: Nix with sandboxing turned on (and everybody should have sandboxing turned on) will extract the contents in a very limited sandbox, with read access to limited paths, and write access to a single directory. The code could execute, but couldn’t do very much to the host itself. Other potential concerns involve access to a limited set of environment variables, and possibly the nscd socket. There is the chance of sandbox escapes and kernel vulnerabilities, yes, but we’ve found this to be an acceptable trade off in the few cases we’ve needed it.

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  I applaud sandboxing. However I believe we (as the general community of people packaging software for various OSes) should coordinate on fixing the root issue. Get people to upload release tarballs, stop them from silently moving tags etc. Many people are just not aware, asking them nicely may be enough to solve it - one by one. You won’t get all of them to switch, but many more will if approached - instead of working around the issue.

                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                    I completely agree, and as a community we advocate for efforts in reproducible builds and good packaging practices. I’m sure we’ve asked people to make good releases in the past. I applaud OpenBSD’s efforts to push here as well.

                                                                                2. 2

                                                                                  I mean, gunzip + untar is a lot less complicated than, say, TLS 1.2 + HTTP2 + gzip. Which we pass untrusted data through all the time.

                                                                                  Perhaps this fear is really an issue with the raw C implementation in gnutar.

                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                    Reducing attack surface anywhere in the chain is valuable.

                                                                          1. 12

                                                                            I hadn’t heard about the current, promotion practices before this article. Obviously, not believing it until I hear from more Googlers but it sounds believable given how normal businesses work. I found this one interesting since it’s (a) more a talk than a full-on rant, (b) leads author to understand what business relationship is, and (c) shows how incentives for promotion create some of worst problems in legacy tech. The cartoons were great, too.

                                                                            1. 26

                                                                              Yes, this is pretty accurate, both from my time at Google and from past public criticisms like this one from 2010:

                                                                              What if I tried to design a promotion system to piss off as many employees as possible? What characteristics would it have?

                                                                              • No pleasant surprises. In other words, you can only be disappointed if you didn’t get a promotion, you can’t be pleasantly surprised by a promotion.
                                                                              • Create unhappiness by dependence on scarce resources. In other words, gate promotions based on scarce resources so that even people who would otherwise be qualified could become disgruntled through no fault of their own.
                                                                              • Eliminate accountability from people who make the promotion decisions (e.g., through a committee). That way, promotion decisions can seem arbitrary.
                                                                              • Ensure that promotions are competitive races between all qualified candidates. This ensures that people who manipulate that packet in such a way as to have the best looking packets will win over people who are trying to get feedback and improve, which is supposedly the point behind all these feedback systems.

                                                                              When I looked at Google’s promotion system through this lens, I was very impressed. It seemed as though the system was designed to create disgruntled employees out of people who might otherwise be perfectly happy.”

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                After reading that, I had a thought - promotion schedules are very similar to games, and probably just as likely to be engaging and rewarding. That is - incredibly hit or miss and incredibly hard to perfect.

                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                  In my experience, people who really win at those games recognize that it is, indeed, a game, and go find loopholes in the rules. For example, in medium-large companies, I’ve seen people who optimize for glorious notoriety get promoted much faster than people who optimize for actual quality work and “exceeding expectations”. I’m not the only one seeing that, I even accidentally did that once by becoming super friendly with my direct managers; things went super smooth, I got stellar raises, got promoted extra quick (with not much to show as a warrant for that promotion, frankly). I’m pretty sure I got that promotion by just asking for it and having good standing with my manager.

                                                                                  I think the “upgrade by committee” might be a way to try and mitigate this kind of stuff, but I’d wager there’s ways around that too. Games have rules, rules have loopholes.

                                                                              2. 10

                                                                                Just wanted to chime in and say thanks for linking this and the tl;dr. I saw this posted on the orange site and skipped it. You posting it here and taking the effort to summarize made me actually read through it - I don’t regret it.

                                                                                Great read, well deserved upvote! :)

                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                  Thanks for the feedback. Ive tried to really-selectively bring articles or sometimes comments over here from there that yall will like without having to read all ths fluff. There was a ton of fluff today but worthwhile comments and articles buried in it.

                                                                                  Now, we have the good article over here, an abstract, and low-noise comment section. That’s how I plan to do them in the future, esp if rant-prone topics.

                                                                                2. 10

                                                                                  I worked at Google. My experience was notably atypical and I wasn’t there for long enough to get a sense of how the promotion system works, first-hand, but what he described rings true and he captured Google culture.

                                                                                  Corporations in general– I don’t think Google is worse, in this regard, than any other– have a problem whereby they separate work into “male work” and “female work”. The stuff that causes pain downstream but makes the numbers look better and results in brag points one can defend in front of executives is “male work”. The actual upkeep of the business– resolving conflicts, defining culture, helping other people succeed, cleaning up messes, mentoring– is “female work” that executards don’t like to see people spending serious time on.

                                                                                  OP spent too much time, from the promotion committee’s perspective, on female work that doesn’t directly affect the bottom line.

                                                                                  I hope it’s obvious that I don’t wish to defend this mentality. In addition to the subconscious misogyny, it’s fascistic and short-sighted.

                                                                                1. 6

                                                                                  This video is what I use when countering the myths about how C was designed. It goes to the papers and constraints that led Richards’ team to chop ALOL into BCPL. Then, the modifications from BCPL to B to C. Understanding the context of why C was the way it was might help folks understand why we should upgrade given we’re no longer in those constraints either in hardware or programming features.

                                                                                  1. 10

                                                                                    I think there is a reasonable argument that C won on its merits. The following is a list of some languages that were available in 1975 and my opinion of why they lost out to C. C is pretty much the only language on this list with a portable implementation that ran on minicomputers.

                                                                                    Algol 60 - call by name is expensive, not really intended for system software

                                                                                    Algol 68 - complex to implement, standard uses an obscure formal semantics, requires a runtime, compilers did not emerge for years

                                                                                    Algol W - first implementation was for IBM mainframes in an infix assembly language, few other implementations

                                                                                    BCPL - untyped, inferior to C in some ways, limited support for byte addressing

                                                                                    BLISS - semantics for assignment are unusual, untyped, no portable compiler, only for DEC architectures

                                                                                    Coral66 - British military standard, may not have had recursion

                                                                                    Fortran 66 - not really suited to system software, although a number of vendors wrote operating systems in an extended Fortran

                                                                                    Forth - different programming model, mostly interpreted

                                                                                    IMP72 - implemented mostly on supercomputers, low level of abstraction (Fortran II), complex (extensible) grammar

                                                                                    Jovial73 - DoD standard, no standard IO

                                                                                    LRLtran - no implementations for minicomputers

                                                                                    MAD - low level of abstraction, implementations ran on mainframes

                                                                                    NELIAC - low level of abstraction

                                                                                    Pascal - weak standard, no separate compilation, Wirth moved on to new languages

                                                                                    PL.8 - internal to IBM, compiler ran on mainframes

                                                                                    PL/I - complicated to implement, early implementations were slow

                                                                                    PL/S - internal to IBM, compiler ran on mainframes

                                                                                    RTL/2 - British language for realtime systems, probably unknown in the US.

                                                                                    Simula 67 - uses garbage collection, inventors wanted license fees

                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                      Great list. Remember that there’s two parts to this: one is how they designed it; one is what happened later. Your list seems to be what happened later after comparing its design to everything else unmodified. Whereas, mine says they’d have cherry-picked the best of anything on that list modifying it for their situation. In each case, they’d pick whatever was safest or cleanest by default switching to unsafe only where necessary. As hardware improved, the safety and maintainability would improve.

                                                                                      That’s the approach Wirth took with Modula-2 and the rest of his languages. Most others did as well doing languages for safety or programming in the large. It’s now the standard way to do things with many citing an escape from the safety and maintainability problems of C. So, the evidence leans toward Wirth’s choice.

                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                      If I wanted to both re-write indent(1) in not-C and continue to distribute it as a part of FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD - which programming language should I “upgrade” to? What choice do I have?

                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                        My top choices for contenders would be rust, zig, myrddin and nim. zig being the closest to C with many fixes.

                                                                                        1. 4

                                                                                          One issue with rust currently is that building the compiler will dominate compile times until most of the distribution is ported to rust.

                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                            What about Wirth’s new Oberon-07?

                                                                                            Recently it has got a new promising little compiler to C, OBNC.

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              Hadn’t seen that, will check it out.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                I’d really appreciate your opinion, since you cited Myrddin, which is my favourite contender for the package system of Jehanne.

                                                                                                I do not really know any of the two (I used Pascal years ago.. but Oberon seem better).

                                                                                                But of all the C alternatives I could decide to integrate in Jehanne (the way Perl was integrated in Unix) these seem the best two candidates for their balance between simplicity and practicality.

                                                                                                Wirth’s Oberon win on simplicity, but Obi’s Myrddin win on practicality (according to my shallow understanding so far… take this with a grain of salt!)

                                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                                  FWIW, Myrddin is probably going to be the easiest to port to Jehanne, since it already runs on Plan 9, and has a very small system abstraction layer.

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    Hi Orib! Yes, you are right! Myrddin is the most practical choice for Jehanne.

                                                                                                    Also it provides language features I like, such as ADT and pattern matching, and it already has a practical standard library.
                                                                                                    But honestly I haven’t had the time to try your hints: I saved them from my irc log, but… really I didn’t had the time… :-(

                                                                                                    Nevertheless I’m also rather fashinated by Oberon-07: Wirth keeps cleaning it, removing redundant features. I know this add pressure to the library and applicative code, but…

                                                                                                    I think you can see the affinity with my strive for simplicity in Jehanne.

                                                                                            2. 4

                                                                                              All of those fall over on portability. Rust is amd64 and i386 only, myrddin is amd64 only, and building the zig compiler requires llvm. nim has the best story with amd64, i386, ppc and arm, which still isn’t enough.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                I think you are wrong about rust, there have been plenty of posts of embedded arm and other processors targetted by rust. LLVM has lots of targets and can compile itself, so it is relatively portable, though extremely complex.

                                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                                  Is rust on other architectures done natively or by cross-compiling? I don’t know about the others but OpenBSD requires that the base install can build itself on every architecture.

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    https://forge.rust-lang.org/platform-support.html - it seems like rustc can run on at least 5-6 architectures. and the groundwork is there for more.

                                                                                                    Zig itself has two stdlibs, one is based on libc so I bet that it could run on more platforms.

                                                                                                    1. 6

                                                                                                      He is right, the only platforms at the moment able to self-build rust are amd64 & i386. OpenBSD requires much more. You participated in a previous thread so you know that rust in the base system is not likely to happen. Hence rust is not the answer to:

                                                                                                      If I wanted to both re-write indent(1) in not-C and continue to distribute it as a part of FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD - which programming language should I “upgrade” to? What choice do I have?

                                                                                                      With the current status quo, the only language fitting the above question I believe is Perl.

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc seems to be one of the more practical approaches to upgrading C, though obviously not ready.

                                                                                            3. 2

                                                                                              Maybe Vala. It compiles to C but has dependency on GObject.

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                The answer is C++. Every architecture that OpenBSD currently supports has a C++ compiler in base (well actually compXX.tgz). I’d imagine the answer is similar for FreeBSD and NetBSD. You may be able to get away with C++11 on the popular architectures but I think the less popular ones you’re stuck with C++03 or even C++98.

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  The general choice is anything that compiles to C. If they’re picky about coding standards, what you would have then is a cultural argument instead of one on language capabilities. They wouldn’t allow something better. Then, you might be forced to do what folks like Per Brinch Hansen did back when hardware couldn’t run ALGOL: write in one language you can’t share for its benefits with a second version done against that in language you can share. To automate that, I recommended a while back someone make a safe, clean, superset language that’s compatible with C plus exports to readable code in that language. Throw in real macros and REPL for an extra reason to use it.

                                                                                                  Then, we don’t have a CVSup-style situation where author uses a safe, maintainable, high-level language for its benefits but people eventually rewrite that stuff in C anyway.

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                suggest tag: openbsd

                                                                                                This topic should be interesting to anyone running OpenBSD as it also discusses part of the development process of the Meltdown patch on the OpenBSD side and collaboration between the projects.

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  You’re right.

                                                                                                  Is this something I can edit (but am unable to figure out how to do) or is this only possible for moderators?

                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                    if enough people hit the ‘suggest’ option and enter the same tag it will be automatically applied, like it happened with this story:

                                                                                                    2018-02-24 13:29 -0600 (Users) Story: A long two months Action: changed tags from “security unix” to “security unix openbsd” Reason: Automatically changed from user suggestions

                                                                                                    https://lobste.rs/moderations

                                                                                                1. 7

                                                                                                  with this extra $50 million they’ll surely have the resources to support federating their servers. let’s see it moxie.

                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                    I hope so too, but Moxie Marlinspike voiced quite principal concerns against federations before https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

                                                                                                    1. 5

                                                                                                      That was the day I realised I had to boycott Signal too

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        Generally I don’t like “me too” posts, but in this case, me too! This is unacceptable. Using phone numbers as sole userids, is also unacceptable in my book.

                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                          What is wrong with using phone numbers as ids? Was it wrong 50 years ago?

                                                                                                          1. 4

                                                                                                            First, I don’t want to give my phone number to strangers. I am okay with giving my e-mail address (or some other kind of token) to strangers.

                                                                                                            Second, at least for myself, e-mail addresses are eternal, while phone numbers are very ephemeral. Especially if you travel or move a lot.

                                                                                                            Third, Signal doesn’t just depend on your phone number, it somehow depends on your SIM card (not sure of tech details). You can’t change your SIM card and continue to use Signal smoothly. For me this is a blocker. It means I can’t use Signal even for testing purposes, as I switch SIM cards often.

                                                                                                            Apple iMessage gets this right. You can have any number of ids, including phone numbers or e-mails. I am identified by either one of those. I can be contacted by people who have either in their address book. And I can switch my SIM card any time I want. Of course, iMessage is not equivalent to Signal, nor is iMessage a good example to follow apart from the UX.

                                                                                                            Also I must add a fourth point about Signal. Until relatively recently there was no way to use it on a real computer. Now there’s an Electron application, which to me still means there is no way to use it on a real computer. I do not know if 3rd parties can implement real native desktop applications or not, but there are no such applications today.

                                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                                              Third, Signal doesn’t just depend on your phone number, it somehow depends on your SIM card (not sure of tech details). You can’t change your SIM card and continue to use Signal smoothly. For me this is a blocker. It means I can’t use Signal even for testing purposes, as I switch SIM cards often.

                                                                                                              I have a burner phone that was initially set up with a throw-away prepaid SIM. After doing the initial setup (including with Signal), I threw away the SIM and put the phone in airplane mode. The phone now sits behind a fully Tor-ified wireless network. Signal’s still working fine.

                                                                                                              Maybe if I were to put in a new SIM card, Signal might go crazy.

                                                                                                              And since this is a burner phone that sits behind Tor with a number that’s meant to be public, here it is: +1 443-546-8752. :)

                                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                                I have a burner phone

                                                                                                                You can’t legally acquire a pre-paid SIM in the European Union without registering it against your ID. They did it to ‘thwart terrorism’.

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  Interesting. They give out pre-paid SIMs as promotions on the street here in Sweden, or at least they used to. Maybe the ID check comes at the first top-up.

                                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                                    In the past you were able to obtain them anonymously.

                                                                                                                    They still give them away like candy but it won’t operate unless you register it by providing your ID at the operator. Though I’m speaking based on Poland - don’t know how other countries regulated this.

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      I see. I don’t know if it’s a specific EU-related law / regulation or whether each country has their own rules.

                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                        Some EU countries have regulations limiting the possibility to purchase prepaid cards to the stationary shops of telecommunications operators. Such solutions have been adopted i.a. in Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria and Hungary. Obligation to collect data concerning subscribers who use telecommunications services can be found i.a. in the German law.

                                                                                                                        source: http://krakowexpats.pl/utilities/mandatory-registration-of-prepaid-sim-cards/

                                                                                                                        Funny I thought it was a cross EU law. Regardless, that still makes it very annoying that signal has no other means of making an ID. I don’t really want to give my mobile to everyone, and there is no way to use signal anonymously in countries that do regulate sim registration.

                                                                                                                  2. 1

                                                                                                                    What that would do is create a black market for pre-paid SIMs, where you have a single entity registering tons of SIMs and reselling them pre-activated.

                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                      That is what is happening on the street, criminals approach durnkards etc. to register a SIM on them and resell or use that themselves.

                                                                                                                      Point is, for a regular person there is no legal way to obtain an anonymous SIM. Creating a legal entity registering SIMs is also not possible. This means that signal can’t be used anonymously if you want to stay on the legal side.

                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                        Completely agreed. It’s unfortunate to see such silly laws that are so easy to be skirted around. All it does is make people who would otherwise be honest and trustworthy break the law.

                                                                                                                  3. 1

                                                                                                                    At least in my country, phone numbers can, and eventually, will be reallocated when not in use for several years. So aren’t you running at a small risk that someone else might register ‘your’ number with Signal in a few years?

                                                                                                                  4. 1

                                                                                                                    I cornered a Signal dev at a networking event in December and emphasized how much I also want to communicate via Signal without giving out my phone number. They were aware of how much demand there is for that feature but politely declined to make a public commitment - at the time they were maybe 8 devs and their productivity is limited. Hopefully they’ll be able to expand and address the feature.

                                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                                      A me-too-style reply for what @lattera said.

                                                                                                                      A friend lives abroad and got a local SIM on a visit once. When he went back, he discarded his SIM, unknown to me.

                                                                                                                      When I heard he might be visiting again, I sent a Signal message asking if this still works. To our surprise, it did.

                                                                                                                      So this myth needs to be busted.

                                                                                                                      It may have a bug, though, as I sent a Signal message to another friend and got a reply from a foreign phone number. He told me it’s the number of a SIM he used on a business trip.

                                                                                                                      That’s a different issue someone else can hunt down, but Signal is more anonymous than eg. Bitcoin as it stands today.

                                                                                                              2. 1

                                                                                                                this is so dumb

                                                                                                                • it’s a messaging app… how much can people’s expectations evolve? how have they evolved since signal’s inception?
                                                                                                                • the cost of switching between services is low only for services that already have mass adoption. if moxie started fucking around with the protocol and people weren’t having it, network effects mean there would be no alternative (whatsapp and facebook messenger are not alternatives)
                                                                                                            1. 4

                                                                                                              tl;dr

                                                                                                              Users on reddit discovered that FSLabs includes a password extraction utility. The company replied with it’s own statement.

                                                                                                              They backdoored their flight simulator to target a specific individual who has been cracking their games - they were successful at it..

                                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                                Following up on your link, the company says:

                                                                                                                we were made aware there is a reddit thread started tonight regarding our latest installer and how a tool is included in it, that indescriminantly dumps Chrome passwords. That is not correct information - in fact, the reddit thread was posted by a person who is not our customer and has somehow obtained our installer without purchasing.

                                                                                                                1. If such a specific serial number is used by a pirate (a person who has illegally obtained our software) and the installer verifies this against the pirate serial numbers stored in our server database, it takes specific measures to alert us. “Test.exe” is part of the DRM and is only targeted against specific pirate copies of copyrighted software obtained illegally. That program is only extracted temporarily and is never under any circumstances used in legitimate copies of the product. The only reason why this file would be detected after the installation completes is only if it was used with a pirate serial number (not blacklisted numbers).

                                                                                                                So, the company claims this is not a password extraction utility, but it presumably does something that exfiltrates (a long word I learned on this forum) personal information in a targeted manner, which is still disturbing.

                                                                                                                If they have a list of cracked serial numbers they SHOULD be blocking them, not trying to use potentially illegal means of tracking down the installer.

                                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                                  Ah, thanks. Your comment made me realize that I didn’t link the meaty forum post from the company owner bragging how they actually hacked the hacker:

                                                                                                                  https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/announcement/11-a320-x-drm-what-happened/