Xanza

Those lovable little simpletons.

Lots of things are improved with a GUI. IMO this is one of them.

Having a no-nonsense and predictable folder structure to store documents makes sense for those who are organized. For those who aren't, you can still use projects like this to sort data so they're retrievable by everyone, not just those who know and understand your folder structure.

The intake emails are particularly interesting. Receive email with attachment and save it automatically. Excellent for repetitively collecting data without setting anything extra up. Just create an email alias for your intake, and distribute it. Wait for people to email shit to you.

Great idea, IMO.

It sucks, because all things considered, they're great little devices. I really like mine.

They absolutely do. But it's a symptom of capitalism. They must seek higher and higher profits each year. And this is one of their ideas to seek higher profits....

I will be very surprised if China can’t make their own competitive AI chips soon.

That's exactly the only thing this is going to do. They have the manufacturing to do it, it'll just take a bit of time. So we cut them off, they slump for a little bit, but then they become non-dependent on us because they've developed their own chip.

And now we can't compete at all.

Required? That’s quite a commitment. Is this a Cloudflare thing?

There are specific TLD which are required at the DNS level to be served over HTTPS. .dev is an example. The browser will physically not load a .dev domain over anything but HTTPS.

I self-host on a .dev domain. It's extremely simple with Caddy, as its HTTPS by default. Anything else is kind of a pain in the ass sometimes.

I also know of those who've had great success with Lego although I've never personally used it.

They said “useful,” they didn’t say “relevant.”

I'm really tired of this narrative. Far be it from me to defend a billion dollar company, but I've been using Google since its inception. For literally as long as its been available, and the issue people have with Google is that as a company they changed the way they do search over a decade ago, and people tend to not realize it.

Google went from returning information about "restaurants" when searched, because it was relevant to the search, to assuming you likely want to know what restaurants are in your area when you search for it. Therefore it pivoted from a relevancy based search engine to a contextual based search engine. Google attempts to interpret what you mean when searching for something and provides results based on the context of that search rather than just throwing results at you simply because they're relevant to the search terms used. And people are so fucking mad at them for trying to make search better.

Have they done a good job? Not really. Should they be literally crucified at the fucking cross for attempting to interpret results rather than just throw a bunch of shit at you and rely on the users technical ability to filter data? Not really...

Long story short, people need to take a fuckin' chill pill when it comes at least to Google search results.

Yeah but his blog is tits so we give him a pass. lol

The new service includes a WiFi 7 router

I don't recommend it.

I would shoot for a 4 port 2.5Gbe unmanaged switch with 2 SFP+ ports (6 total ports) for 10G networking. 2.5Gbe is going to be more than enough for any WiFi solution you choose with room to upgrade 10G to WiFi if you wanted to spend a bit more on a higher tier WiFi router still leaving a single SFP+ port for 10G networking from your PC.

Biggest hit for your buck. Gonna set you back $40-50.

but if I ever wanted to get the max out of it, what does that take?

Kind of a lot. At least a top to bottom upgrade, from modem (PON), to 10G networking, to new Ethernet cables, to new 10G network drivers. Looking at a few hundred if you do it right. I also had Optimum's 8Gbps internet and was never able to even get anywhere near advertised speeds due to network saturation. IMO, the upgrade right now is too expensive to justify the expense for what you get. If you were confident you would be able to max out the connection, that would be a different story. But ultimately it's gonna be up to you. If you don't mind dropping a few hundred on upgrades, then go nuts.

Reasoning skills and experience. There are entire botnets dedicated to finding servers with open SSH ports on 22. If the bots can connect, the IP of the server will be added to a list to be brute forced.

I'm a per diem linux systems administrator. Right now I have a VPS that I setup myself. It uses a non-standard ssh port, fail2ban, and rejects incoming connections to port 22. According to connection logs, I get about 200 attempts per 24 hours from bots randomly pinging ports to see if they can catch an open SSH port--and they're banned via fail2ban.

I checked out some other servers that I manage, which I did not setup and have no control over how they operate. Sifting through just 3 random servers and checking connection logs, they have a combined 435,000 connection attempts in the past 6 hours between the 3 of them. These are relatively small servers with an extremely small presence. Simple fact of the matter is, is that they all have port 22 open and reachable. So botnets attempt to brute force them.

So just anecdotally that's a difference of 0.0459770115% or 99.96%. Anyone telling you that changing the default SSH port doesn't do anything for security has absolutely no practical experience at all. It significantly reduces your attack surface as bots have to guess at ports until they find your SSHd's operational port to even begin to start sending attempts.

And I'm a CEHv7. A literal security professional--and I say that an overwhelming vast majority of attacks against servers using SSH are going to come over the default port. Quite literally 99%. This means that you can lower your attack surface by exactly 99% by simply changing the default SSH port...

Those posts provide no meaningful insight and what they say is by the very technical of all interpretations is correct, I absolutely disagree with these statements. What they mean to say is that simply changing the default SSH port isn't alone I means of strictly protecting yourself. Meaning you shouldn't change the default SSH port and think that your server is secured because it's not.

Quite the different interpretation than me saying it should be mandatorily a part of your security strategy.

In protecting yourself against port scanning is trivial.

Anyone underestimating the power of changing The default SSH port is someone who's opinion I can safely disregard.