cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions

  • 9 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jan 17, 2022


That’s complicated to do correctly. Normally, for the server to verify the user has the correct password, it needs to know or receive the password, at which point it could decrypt all the user’s files. They’d need to implement something like SRP.

What I proposed is that the server does not know the password (of course), but that it knows a thing derived from it (lets call it the loginSecret) which the client can send to obtain the encryptedMasterKey. This can be derived in a similar fashion to the keyEncryptionKey (eg, they could be different outputs of an HKDF). The downside to the server knowing something derived from the passphrase is that it enables the server to do an offline brute force of it, but in any system like this where the server is storing something encrypted using [something derived from] the passphrase the server already has that ability.

Is there any downside to what I suggested, vs the current design?

And is there some reason I’m missing which would justify adding the complexity of SRP, vs what I proposed above?

The only reason I can think of would be to protect against a scenario where an attacker has somehow obtained the user’s loginSecret from the server but has not obtained their encryptedMasterKey: in that case they could use it to request the encryptedMasterKey, and then could make offline guesses at the passphrase using that. But, they could also just use the loginSecret for their offline brute-force. And, using SRP, the server still must also store something the user has derived from the password (which is equivalent to the loginSecret in my simpler scheme) and obtaining that thing still gives the adversary an offline brute-force opportunity. So, I don’t think SRP provides any benefit here.



This would be nice, but, this repo includes an iOS app, and AGPL3 binaries cannot be distributed via Apple’s App Store!

AGPL3 (without a special exception for Apple, like NextCloud’s iOS app has) is incompatible with iOS due to the four paragraphs of the license which mention “Installation Information” (known as the anti-tivoization clause).

Only the copyright holder(s) are able to grant Apple permission to distribute binaries of AGPL3-licensed software to iOS users under non-AGPL3 terms.

Every seemingly-(A)GPL3 app on Apple’s App Store has either copyright assignment so that a single entity has the sole right to distribute binaries in the App Store (eg, Signal messenger) or uses a modified license to carve out an Apple-specific exception to the anti-tivoization clause (eg, NextCloud). In my opinion, the first approach is faux free software, because anyone forking the software is not allowed to distribute it via the channel where the vast majority of users get their apps. (In either case, users aren’t allowed to run their own modified versions themselves without agreeing to additional terms from Apple, which is part of what the anti-tivoization clause is meant to prevent.)

Only really nice when not CLA is required and every contributor retains their copyright. Ente doesn’t seem to require a CLA.

I definitely agree here! But if it’s true that they’re accepting contributions without a CLA, and they haven’t added any iOS exception to their AGPL3 license, then they themselves would not be allowed to ship their own iOS app with 3rd party contributions to it! 🤡

If anyone reading this uses this software, especially on iOS, I highly recommend that you send the developers a link to this comment and encourage them to (after getting the consent of all copyright holders) add something akin to NextCloud’s COPYING.iOS to their repository ASAP.


(i’m not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, lol)

edit: in case a dev actually sees this… skimming your architecture document it looks like when a user’s email is compromised (“after you successfully verify your email”), the attacker is given the encryptedMasterKey (encrypted with keyEncryptionKey, which is derived from a passphrase) which lets them perform an offline brute-force attack on the passphrase. Wouldn’t it make more sense to require the user to demonstrate knowledge of their passphrase to the server prior to giving them the encryptedMasterKey? For instance, when deriving keyEncryptionKey, you could also derive another value which is stored on the server and which the client must present prior to receiving their encryptedMasterKey. The server has the opportunity to do offline attacks on the passphrase either way, so it seems like there wouldn’t be a downside to this change. tldr: you shouldn’t let adversaries who have compromised a user’s email account have the ability to attack the passphrase offline.

(i’m not a cryptographer, but this is cryptography advice)

Arthur BessetoMemes@lemmy.ml6÷2(1+2)

Has literally never happened. Texas Instruments is the only brand who continues to do it wrong […] all the other brands who were doing it wrong have reverted

Ok so you’re saying it never happened, but then in the very next sentence you acknowledge that you know it is happening with TI today, and then also admit you know that it did happen with some other brands in the past?

But, if you had read the linked post before writing numerous comments about it, you’d see that it documents that the ambiguity actually exists among both old and currently shipping models from TI, HP, Casio, and Canon, today, and that both behaviors are intentional and documented.

There is no bug; none of these calculators is “wrong”.

The truth is that there are many different math notations which often do lead to ambiguities

Not within any region there isn’t.

Ok, this is the funniest thing I’ve read so far today, but if this is what you are teaching high school students it is also rather sad because you are doing them a disservice by teaching them that there is no ambiguity where there actually is.

If OP’s blog post is too long for you (it is quite long) i recommend reading this one instead: The PEMDAS Paradox.

In Australia it’s the only thing we ever use, and from what I’ve seen also the U.K. (every U.K. textbook I’ve seen uses it).

By “we” do you mean high school teachers, or Australian society beyond high school? Because, I’m pretty sure the latter isn’t true, and I’m skeptical of the former. I thought generally the ÷ symbol mostly stops being used (except as a calculator button) even before high school, basically as soon as fractions are taught. Do you have textbooks where the fraction bar is used concurrently with the obelus (÷) division symbol?

I’m curious if you actually read the whole (admittedly long) page linked in this post, or did you stop after realizing that it was saying something you found disagreeable?

I’m a high school Maths teacher/tutor

What will you tell your students if they show you two different models of calculator, from the same company, where the same sequence of buttons on each produces a different result than on the other, and the user manuals for each explain clearly why they’re doing what they are? “One of these calculators is just objectively wrong, trust me on this, #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous” ?

The truth is that there are many different math notations which often do lead to ambiguities.

In the case of the notation you’re dismissing in your (hilarious!) meme here, well, outside of anglophone high schools, people don’t often encounter the obelus notation for division at all except for as a button on calculators. And there its meaning is ambiguous (as clearly explained in OP’s link).

Check out some of the other things which the “÷” symbol can mean in math!


shoutout to who (i believe?) created this fork bomb :)

there is a great in-depth writeup about fork bombs in general, and this one specifically, here.

And operating system engineers wear boots.

::: spoiler caption a screenshot of the text: > Tech companies argued in comments on the website that the way their models ingested creative content was innovative and legal. The venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which has several investments in A.I. start-ups, warned in its comments that any slowdown for A.I. companies in consuming content “would upset at least a decade’s worth of investment-backed expectations that were premised on the current understanding of the scope of copyright protection in this country.” underneath the screenshot is the "Oh no! Anyway" meme, featuring two pictures of Jeremy Clarkson saying "Oh no!" and "Anyway" ::: screenshot (copied from [this mastodon post]( is of a paragraph of the NYT article "[The Sleepy Copyright Office in the Middle of a High-Stakes Clash Over A.I.]("

I also don’t support violence and property damage to get the message across

so, you condemn the boston tea party, right?

I will never take a “movement” seriously that uses vandalism to get a message across.

what’s your favorite successful social movement from history that didn’t use any vandalism to get a message across?

Arthur BessetoMemes@lemmy.mlMath

I don’t think I’m educated enough to say anything against the group as a whole, as I haven’t sat down to do a lot of research on them (I’m realizing now that my comment was made from a BS bias that I had picked up from when I was a conservative).

You should do more research :)

Unless you’re talking about this one, referring to “the antifa organization” makes as little sense as saying “the conservative organization”. There are many organizations with variously overlapping goals and strategies for achieving them, but there hasn’t been a singular “antifa organization” since 1933.

There is a version of VLC for the Nvidia Shield, but it has a somewhat irritating UI and I don’t know if it can actually read the menus like the desktop version can.

4 hours later… yep :(

prefixing it with "# " makes it a heading (larger text).

I’ll assume you’re genuinely unaware

I’m perfectly aware of what Ubuntu Pro is, and the difference between Ubuntu main and universe.

The current meme implies that Ubuntu/Canonical have actively disabled safety/security features in the form of withholding security updates, unless you pay for Ubuntu Pro subscription. The Ubuntu package support hasn’t changed with the introduction of Ubuntu Pro. The packages that were supported by Canonical prior to this are supported the same way today. The packages that were community supported prior to this are supported the same way today. Without Ununtu Pro.

If you think the meme implies that, then surely you must think that the message printed by Ubuntu’s apt upgrade command in the screenshot implies that too, right?

One of the packages listed in this screenshot is libavcodec, which is required by things like VLC (which is in Ubuntu universe, which is enabled by default).

If you think it is perfectly fine for Canonical to do the work to patch that library and then withhold the security update from the vast majority of Ubuntu users who won’t sign up for Ubuntu Pro… we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Okay tbf this is meant for companies that need to meet specific requirements like government privacy regulations, which change every year and need to be actively maintained or else you get in legal trouble.

Yeah you pretty much would only ever need to install these updates to libavcodec and imagemagick for regulatory compliance reasons, or maybe if you wanted to be able to safely load video or image files found on the internet without being subject to compromise by widely-available exploits for vulnerabilities that were published and fixed upstream last year.

Meh, how’s this different from RH?

It took Canonical about four times as long (twenty years vs five) to start doing this.

Dissatisfaction with RedHat’s introduction of RHN (in 2000) was arguably a significant factor contributing to Ubuntu’s rapid growth when it was first released (in 2004).

First screenshot is from [here]( Second screenshot is from me updating an Ubuntu 22.04 LTS system today. Post title is from via

What is “the enshitification face”

maybe one of these?

cloudflare’s service puts them in the middle - so, HTTPS doesn’t encrypt traffic between the browser and your server anymore, but instead between the browser and CF, and then (separately) between CF and your server. CF is an antidote to intelligence agencies’ problem of losing visibility when most of the web switched to HTTPS a decade ago.

screenshot of Wargames computer saying "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"

cloudflare is an intelligence company who’s flagship product involves them mitming your TLS.

why bother self-hosting, if you do it from behind cloudflare?

Via this video (thanks!) i recently learned a bunch of tricks about :term and am now tempted to start using it all the time.

it can has if you apk add coreutils

GNU Guix, and NixOS, respectively

32-bit x86 Haiku OS: is only binary-compatible with a proprietary OS from 23 years ago

there is /c/ (no posts this year) and /c/ (many posts this year but none in the last 3 months)

* * * How to run it: apt install qemu-system-x86 wget sha256sum -c <<<'1cfcb94b18b4ddc8b1313f47b742b501e119deebd160fd224cdec5a66df0e25a hikarunix-0.4.iso' && qemu-system-i386 -cdrom hikarunix-0.4.iso

counterpoint: don’t not

There are at least four companies listed here selling new laptops with coreboot preinstalled:

It’s used for the Firefox brand of products


mentally inserted a comma between past and tense, tense