• 6 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 10th, 2023

help-circle










  • Stallman doesn’t seem to get that pedophilia is wrong because of the hierarchy of power, and the power imbalances between older/younger people, not because of some inherent wrongness about being attracted to a prepubescent person. This is shown by how he condemns some pedophilia, but is accepting of 12+/past puberty. (I despise this logic, because it would also make gay sex and sodomy wrong, as well).

    I find this deeply ironic, because his primary issue with proprietary software is the way that it gives developers levels of power over users. From his article Why Open Source Misses the Point

    But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that they are harder to remove.

    You would expect someone who is so in tune with the hierarchies that appear with software developers, publishers, and users, to also see those same hierarchies echoed in relationships between people of vastly different ages, but instead, we get this. I’m extremely disappointed.

    These failures to understand hierarchy and power, are exactly why Stallman shouldn’t be in a position of power. Leaders should continually prove that they understand hierarchy and the effects of their actions on those below them. Someone who doesn’t understand how their power could affect another, shouldn’t be a leader.




  • Because forgejo’s ssh isn’t for a normal ssh service, but rather so that users can access git over ssh.

    Now technically, a bastion should work, but it’s not really what people want when they are trying to set up git over ssh. Since git/ssh is a service, rather than an administrative tool, why shouldn’t it be configured within the other tools used for exposes services? (Reverse proxy/caddy).

    And in addition to that, people most probably want git/ssh to be available publicly, which a bastion host doesn’t do.


  • So based on what you’ve said in the comments, I am guessing you are managing all your users with Nixos, in the Nixos config, and want to share these users to other services?

    Yeah, I don’t even know sharing Unix users is possible. EDIT: It seems to be based on comments below.

    But what I do know is possible, is for Unix/Linux to get it’s users from LDAP. Even sudo is able to read from LDAP, and use LDAP groups to authorize users as being able to sudo.

    Setting these up on Nixos is trivial. You can use the users.ldap set of options on Nixos to configure authentication against an external LDAP user. Then, you can configure sudo

    After all of that, you could declaratively configure an LDAP server using Nixos, including setting up users. For example, it looks like you can configure users and groups fro the kanidm ldap server

    Or you could have a config file for the openldap server

    RE: Manage auth at the reverse proxy: If you use Authentik as your LDAP server, it can reverse proxy services and auth users at that step. A common setup I’ve seen is to run another reverse proxy in front of authentik, and then just point that reverse proxy at authentik, and then use authentik to reverse proxy just the services you want behind a login page.



  • Google put an API into Chrome that sends extra system info but only to*.google.com domains. In every Chromium browser.

    Only vivaldi caught this issue. Brave had this api enabled, most likely on accident.

    But the problem is, that chromium is just such big and complex software, when combined with development being driven by Google, it’s just impossible for any significant changes or auditing to be done by third parties. Google is capable of exteriting control over Brave, simply by hiding changes like above, or by making massive changes like manifest v3, which are expensive for third parties to maintain.

    Brave can maintain 1 big change to chromium, but for how long? What about 2, 3, etc.

    My other big problem with brave is that I see them somewhat mimicking Google’s beginnings. Google started out with 3 things: an ad network, a browser, and a search engine.

    Right now, Brave has those same three things. It feels very ominous to me, and I would rather not repeat the cycle of enshittification that drove me away from chrome and goolgle.


  • Why is SSPL not considered FOSS while other restrictive licenses like AGPL and GPL v3 are?

    So I have an answer for this. Basically all of the entities listed that relicensed their projects to the SSPL, also relicensed their projects using the dual licensing scheme, including one proprietary license. That’s important later.

    The SSPL’s intent is probably that the deployment framework used to open source this software must be open sourced. I like this intent, and I would consider it Free/Libre Software, but it should be noted that another license, the open watcom license, which requires you to open source software if you simply deploy it, is not considered Free Software by the FSF. I don’t really understand this decision. I don’t count “must share source code used” as a restriction on usage cases. It seems that the FSF only cares about user freedom, whoever is using the software, and views being forced to open source code only used privately as a restriction.

    Now, IANAL… but the SSPL’s lettering is problematic. What is part of the deployment system? If I deploy software on Windows, am I forced to open source windows? If I deploy it on a server with intel management engine, am I forced to open source that? Due to the way it is worded, the SSPL is unusable.

    And a dual license, one proprietary and one unusable means only one license — proprietary. There’s actually a possibility that this is intentional, and that the intent of the SSPL was never to be usable, but rather so that these companies could pretend they are still Open Source while going fully proprietary.

    But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume the SSPL’s intent was benevolent but misguided, and that it’s intent was not to be unusable, but rather to force companies to open source deployment platforms.

    Of course, the OSI went and wrote an article about how the SSPL is not an open source license but that’s all BS. All you need to do is take a look at who sponsors the OSI (Amazon, Google, other big SAAS providers) to realize that the OSI is just protecting their corporate interests, who are terrified of an SSPL license that actually works, so they seek to misrepresent the intent of the SSPL license as too restrictive for Open Source — which is false. Being forced to open source your deployment platform still allows you to use the code in any way you desire — you just have to open source your deployment platform.

    Is there some hypothetical lesser version of SSPL that still captures the essence of it while still being more restrictive than AGPL that would prevent exploitation by SaaS providers?

    AGPL. There’s also Open Watcom, but it’s not considered a Free Software license by the FSF, meaning software written under that wouldn’t be included in any major Linux distros.

    I think in theory you could make an SSPL that works. But SSPL ain’t it.

    Of course, there are problems with designing an SSPL that works, of course. Like, if you make it so that you don’t have to open source proprietary code by other vendors, then what if companies split themselves up and one company makes and “sells” the proprietary programs to another.




  • Putting something on GitHub is really inconsequential if you’re making your project open source since anyone can use it for anything anyway,

    Except for people in China (blocked in China) or people on ipv6 only networks, since Github hasn’t bothered to support ipv6, cutting out those in countries where ipv4 addresses are scarce.

    So yes, it does matter. Both gitlab and codeberg, the two big alternatives, both support ipv6 (idk about them being blocked in china). They also support github logins, so you dob’t even need to make an account.

    And it’s not a black or white. Software freedom is a spectrum, not a binary. We should strive to use more open source, decentralized software, while recognizing that many parts are going to be out of our immediate control, like the backbone of the internet or little pieces like proprietary firmware.



  • sn1per is not open source, according to the OSI’s definition

    The license for sn1per can be found here: https://github.com/1N3/Sn1per/blob/master/LICENSE.md

    It’s more a EULA than an actual license. It prohibits a lot of stuff, and is basically source-available.

    You agree not to create any product or service from any par of the Code from this Project, paid or free

    There is also:

    Sn1perSecurity LLC reserves the right to change the licensing terms at any time, without advance notice. Sn1perSecurity LLC reserves the right to terminate your license at any time.

    So yeah. I decided to test it out anyways… but what I see… is not promising.

    FROM docker.io/blackarchlinux/blackarch:latest
    
    # Upgrade system
    RUN pacman -Syu --noconfirm
    
    # Install sn1per from official repository
    RUN pacman -Sy sn1per --noconfirm
    
    CMD ["sn1per"]
    

    The two pacman commands are redundant. You only need to run pacman -Syu sn1per --noconfirm once. This also goes against docker best practice, as it creates two layers where only one would be necessary. In addition to that, best practice also includes deleting cache files, which isn’t done here. The final docker image is probably significantly larger than it needs to be.

    Their kali image has similar issues:

    RUN set -x \
            && apt -yqq update \
            && apt -yqq full-upgrade \
            && apt clean
    RUN apt install --yes metasploit-framework
    

    https://www.docker.com/blog/intro-guide-to-dockerfile-best-practices/

    It’s still building right now. I might edit this post with more info if it’s worth it. I really just want a command-line vulnerability scanner, and sn1per seems to offer that with greenbone/openvas as a backend.

    I could modify the dockerfiles with something better, but I don’t know if I’m legally allowed to do so outside of their repo, and I don’t feel comfortable contributing to a repo that’s not FOSS.