Viewing profile — mschempp
mschempp
HN member- Joined
- Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 72
- Public activity
- 34 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About mschempp
blog: https://schempp.dev/
contact: hn@schempp.dev
Recent public activity
- comment
-
comment
Comment #47676886
Not sure I understand you correctly, but the study I linked shows that mother's earnings drop significantly after the First child. That has nothing to do with the significant monet…
-
comment
Comment #47658471
Most of the gender pay gap can be attributed to children: See https://www.henrikkleven.com/research/published/kleven-landa... On page 43, it shows very clearly, that women who do n…
-
comment
Comment #47658406
Not sure where this "pushback" comment is directed at, but I was not trying to Push back - I am agreeing with you in general. Just because institutions are oversimplifying doesn't …
-
comment
Comment #47652803
"There is definitely social sexism being surfaced by the wage gap statistic, but it's against men, not women." I would say against both genders.
-
comment
Comment #47652777
As a father, I really can't understand how every article about this topic talks about as if fathers and mothers are just interchangeable. We are not. Mothers carry their child for …
- comment
-
comment
Comment #41332712
btw.: ruroco DOES prevent replay attacks, by saving the deadline (which is in ns) in a blocklist. It does not matter if the deadline has "passed", the deadline is added to the bloc…
-
comment
Comment #41332679
a replay attack won't work, because every UDP packet data has deadline in nanoseconds. Once this UDP packet reaches the server the deadline will be added to the blocklist. If an at…
-
comment
Comment #41332663
hmmm just validated my implementation the deadline that is sent from the client is being added to the blocklist after the command was executed, so sending the same packet again wil…
-
comment
Comment #41332586
"Modern port knocking also incorporates secure cryptographic hashes." Are you referring to fwknop? Thats not "port knocking" but Single Packet Authorization. That is very different…
-
comment
Comment #41332268
the client COULD use something like https://www.ipify.org/ to get the IP, which can then be used as an additional client argument. But if an adversary uses the SAME network, then t…
-
comment
Comment #41332104
I think what rmholt means is that ruroco does not improve security in the sense, that it has stronger and safer encryption/algorithms/... but that it merely "hides" existing servic…
-
comment
Comment #41332056
Thanks for the feedback and pointing out ostiary. Fixing replay attacks is on my todo list, maybe I can learn some things from how ostiary does it. Kind advice from my PoV: Your co…
-
comment
Comment #41332014
that is correct. The configuration is not even ufw specific, you could run any command that you like. This means you could also, for example, disable or enable certain nginx config…
-
comment
Comment #41331991
You are right, but if you are in a network that blocks every packet that is sent to any port which is not 80 or 443 your port knocking capabilities are very limited. Ultimately rea…
-
comment
Comment #41330495
"Maybe the OP simply hasn't yet heard about or used Wireguard." I have, but I do not want to run a VPN solution on my private sever, for which I barely have any need. Also Wireguar…
-
comment
Comment #41330444
"The example shows you opening port 80 (HTTP standard port)" that's because I run my ssh on port 80, but that's not standard, so I agree that it's confusing. Thanks for pointing it…
-
comment
Comment #41330435
yes thats correct. Should have stated that in the headline
-
comment
Comment #41330383
Thanks for the link. Looks interesting!
-
comment
Comment #41330377
I used port knocking in the description, because anyone here probably knows what port knocking is and ruroco is kind of similar to that. Ruroco can be used for more than just keepi…
-
comment
Comment #41330338
One of the reason why I wrote ruroco is, that I can run this from probably anywhere in the world, if I put the service on port 53, because thats DNS and that does not get blocked b…
-
comment
Comment #41330278
"+ Relatively infrequent access by limited # of people to servers which are not top targets for attacks. Solutions like the one above are great for this." Thats exactly what I'm us…
- comment
-
comment
Comment #41330249
Thanks for the feedback! Will definitely put some thought into it.