81–90 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can! They just need a real computer, the real Minecraft game (Java), and then they can! it's so easy when you don't play the shitty mobile clone.
Why is this downvoted? Bedrock is literally dog shit clone for iPad kids. This is not even controversial, it's just fact.
The only thing that convinces me that tailscale isn't a CIA op is how badly it works for real uses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can! They just need a real computer, the real Minecraft game (Java), and then they can! it's so easy when you don't play the shitty mobile clone.
Why is this downvoted? Bedrock is literally dog shit clone for iPad kids. This is not even controversial, it's just fact.
Tool like this exposes big problem with the current shape of the Internet, I believe. Everything should be possible with just plain netcat and IP stack. Someone asks about NAT holepunching, encryption, static IDs, permissions, etc., yes this is what Internet lacks and why every P2P app reinvents it over and over again.
What's the risk of malware using this for C&C or otherwise? Hackers love communication channels that are difficult to take down individually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, though MW has the important distinction that it uses short human-readable session identifiers. This means MW supports file transfer where the out-of-band channel is just a phone call. This is also why it needs PAKE as opposed to the simpler cryptography used in tailcat
Not a huge lift to stick a PAKE in this protocol, though I'm dubious that it'd be much of a win. The PAKE + nameplate system in Wormhole makes a lot of sense, because you're doing one very specific thing with that system (moving a file from point A to point B). Here you're booting up servers; you're almost always going to have a non-voice channel to set up with.
I literally just figured out how tsnet fits into the picture (an in-process Go based entire network stack that gets the process to act as a node in the tailnet) and so that helps me understand this (everything in tsnet excepting the control plane). It's very impressive that they can do this in a reliable way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just wondering yesterday if it'd be possible to have a tailscale client, or multiple tailscale clients in their own network namespaces, that could connect to multiple networks. The slightly tricky part would be managing a local NAT that blends the two networks, and also does MagicDNS to answer on those NATed IPs. If routes conflicted, I guess you'd have to pick one? Seems very doable though.
yeah that's kinda what it does. It sets up two tsnet servers connected to two different tailnets and exposes them through a shared TUN device. It does the magic of allocating safe IPs to each host so that they don't overlap and does some leasing so that IPs aren't accidentally reassigned. It also does the MagicDNS thing so that DNS returns the "effective IP". I wanted it to work on macOS so couldn't rely on network n…