alphafalcon

joined 1 year ago
[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 19 points 7 months ago

They occupy a strange niche full of contradictions.

Entering the code on the device itself should increase security as opposed to entering it on a compromised computer.

But plugging it into a compromised computer means the data is compromised anyway.

Their security is way harder to audit than a software solution like PGP. The actual "encryption" varies from actual decent setups to "entering the code connects the data pins with no actual encryption on the storage chip"

Not having to instal/use software to use them means they are suitable for non-technical users which in turn means more support calls for "I forgot the pin, it wiped itself, can you restore my data"

They are kind of useful to check the "data is transported on encrypted media" box for compliance reasons without having to manage something bigger.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 3 points 8 months ago

Wow, that sounds like a decent start for an architecture.

I'm tempted to spin up a few Jellyfin instances to see how it might work...

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 30 points 8 months ago (5 children)

JellyFed(eration) would be awesome. It should use an anonymous overlay network so federation is not limited to people you trust in copyright-zealous jurisdictions.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

It doesn't. It carries you by having a module for absolutely everything even shooting yourself in the foot.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's the equivalent of leaving the door open and hanging a sign "Internet over there" pointing at a wall.

Programs don't need to respect those registry keys. If you're worried about internet access, set up a firewall.

Also, if you're worried about malware, the damage is probably done before anything connects to the internet.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 5 points 8 months ago

B stands for Billion (Parameters) IIRC

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

To a certain degree, yes. If someone at Google decides to wage all-out war against ad blockers they have a good chance. But if that costs more money than it generates, odds are that someone will stop it. Google / Alphabet is publicly traded after all and that means profit above all else.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Embedding ads into the stream would be hard to counter, but it's far away. That would invalidate caches along the way and need extra performance to reencode the stream with the ads inserted.

That's extra costs that are hopefully orders of magnitude above the lost ad revenue from ad blockers

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 5 points 10 months ago

Okay, you got me there. In all fairness, as instruction videos go, that one is on the tame side.

Thanks for posting the instructions here.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Tl;dw:

Append systemd.debug_shell to the boot command line.

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago

I'm hopeful that reencoding on the fly or even merging preencoded files into a single stream is too expensive because it needs a lot of compute power and invalidates caches .

[–] alphafalcon@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

IT changes usually affect management as well, while "cost saving" in production doesn't.

view more: ‹ prev next ›