21–30 of 35 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious why you’re asking this. Are you concerned the author didn’t review what was generated? If (I’m speculating here) that’s the real question you wanted to ask, it’s perfectly okay to ask that.
I asked that because I suspected it was AI-generated, but didn't want to assume.
Eg. Are you concerned about licensing?
> The kill switch is implemented in the firewall and routing table, not in software. As far as I know, both of these are in the kernel (not hardware). It's odd that so much of the README is dedicated to describing this relatively simple firewall rule, but the whole thing smells like generated slop.
You're right that iptables rules execute in kernel space, not dedicated hardware. "Hardware kill switch" in VPN contexts typically means the protection is implemented at the network appliance level (router) rather than a software client on each device. The distinction matters because a) client-side kill switch: App crashes → traffic leaks until you notice, and b) router-level kill switch :Default DROP policy persists…
You might have something interesting here, but arguing this point is burying anything else of value you might have. Just take the feedback and remove it.
> Not a techie? The README is optimized for AI-assisted deployment. Feed it to your LLM of choice (Claude, GPT, etc.) and it can walk you through the entire setup for your specific hardware. The whole thing is AI slop. I thought there might be something interesting here but it's just a bunch of disconnected fragments of OpenWRT config and some other bits without any overall thought. It doesn't even use network namesp…
It prompts the user's agent to audit their network devices and topology first, and research online if it gets stuck. The configs need to be agnostic and contain placeholders. The whole idea is that the agent helps the user vibe code this, which is very doable, and probably the norm when there are so many people looking for solutions like this given the current climate. And netns is for single-host isolation. This is…
Not at all. Put the LAN interface in a network namespace that is different to the host (ip link set ... netns ...).
This gives you your "kill switch" without even needing firewall rules, it happens on a lower level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It prompts the user's agent to audit their network devices and topology first, and research online if it gets stuck. The configs need to be agnostic and contain placeholders. The whole idea is that the agent helps the user vibe code this, which is very doable, and probably the norm when there are so many people looking for solutions like this given the current climate. And netns is for single-host isolation. This is…
> And netns is for single-host isolation. This is a router forwarding LAN→WAN. Different problem Not at all. Put the LAN interface in a network namespace that is different to the host (ip link set ... netns ...). This gives you your "kill switch" without even needing firewall rules, it happens on a lower level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that iptables rules execute in kernel space, not dedicated hardware. "Hardware kill switch" in VPN contexts typically means the protection is implemented at the network appliance level (router) rather than a software client on each device. The distinction matters because a) client-side kill switch: App crashes → traffic leaks until you notice, and b) router-level kill switch :Default DROP policy persists…
No, it does not. Please stop responding with AI slop. A hardware kill switch always means a hardware (i.e. physical) mechanism. ALWAYS. You might have something interesting here, but arguing this point is burying anything else of value you might have. Just take the feedback and remove it.
What's the difference between this, and just configuring the VPN settings that's available on my router that came with my ISP?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I asked that because I suspected it was AI-generated, but didn't want to assume.
No worries - still curious why you would care if it’s AI generated? Eg. Are you concerned about licensing?
This applies to code just as much as it does to prose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it does not. Please stop responding with AI slop. A hardware kill switch always means a hardware (i.e. physical) mechanism. ALWAYS. You might have something interesting here, but arguing this point is burying anything else of value you might have. Just take the feedback and remove it.
Its done, but too late to edit the title of this submission. One of the unfortunate things about churning out AI slop is that the AI doesn't always catch all of its turds in one go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No worries - still curious why you would care if it’s AI generated? Eg. Are you concerned about licensing?
Not being generated implies some intent behind what's and how's being written that you can read into. Being generated means it's just driven by random chance and the poster may or may not have cared to redact it, making attempts at interpretation futile. This applies to code just as much as it does to prose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its done, but too late to edit the title of this submission. One of the unfortunate things about churning out AI slop is that the AI doesn't always catch all of its turds in one go.
The human in the loop should be acting as an editor of the slop before it gets posted.