Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would generally be considered "detectable intrusion" though.
Not if you replace it with another lock that looks similar
I think when you get home and your key doesn’t work on the lock, it might tip you off.
O.mg Cable
421–430 of 555 posts
Re: O.mg Cable
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I understand those last two sentences. Could you clarify?
Don't do drugs (including marijuana), don't get blackout drunk, don't talk about your work, don't need psychiatric help... For the last sentence...Trump had all sorts of clearance when he clearly should not have. But he was in an important position.
> don't need psychiatric help
Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?
Re: O.mg Cable
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m into locksport as well and would favor that kind of modification on a back door which is more likely to be targeted by thieves. Not sure I’d do it on a front door in case I put a family member actually locked themselves out and actually needed a locksmith to be able to get in.
Sure, and the application of access control devices generally requires a degree of discretion and understanding what your threat model is. If you don't fear your front door will be clandestinely accessed, I feel it's perfectly valid not to worry about doing this to the lock there. Not being you, that isn't my call to make.
Yeah, my threat model is common house thieves, not intelligence agencies or police.
Re: O.mg Cable
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting aside the politics of it for a second, all clearence stems from the executive branch which stems from the president. Saying the president shouldn't have clearance doesn't make a lot of sense, he's the one who authorized it. He's the one who decides who gets it. Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without…
That statement wasn't about politics at all. Let me put it another way: Had he been trying to get clearance for a normal position, he would probably not have received it. I also never said he had access to everything . Nobody has access to everything. Not arguing for a shadow government--it's already a fact. It happened when classification rules went from "what would harm national security" to "what would cause probl…
In principle the president has access to EVERYTHING. There is literally nothing he shouldn't have access to, at least within the executive branch which includes nearly all military/defense/intel secrets.
The only thing he does not have unrestricted access to is Justice department stuff (e.g. FBI), although there'd better be a damn good reason to deny it to POTUS if he asks, and legislative branch secrets which really infrequently comes into play. That's due to the whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing. But security clearances for everything in the executive branch stem FROM the president. If he wants to reveal some state secret, he can just tweet it with no consequences, or blurt it out while on the phone with foreign states. As Trump did on multiple occasions.
That said, of course there is a significant deep state bureaucracy which attempts at times to keep certain things hidden, even from the current president. But if the president were to ask about it, they have to tell him.
Re: O.mg Cable
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. It's the human mind's responsibility not to be "hacked", by which I assume you mean exploited to e.g. mindlessly scroll Facebook all day. If most people are weak enough to become matrix-like slaves to the machine, so be it. I don't believe in free will and I don't think we need to preserve human life in a certain way (e.g. the way our ancestors lived). Sure, a lot of people will fail this test, or maybe t…
If you don't accept that you have free will, than nothing you write or say has any meaning.
To be fair, I too have ended up thinking that free will probably does not exist. Yet everyone else and I will always continue to behave and live as if it existed, that is my consolation.
Re: O.mg Cable
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. It's the human mind's responsibility not to be "hacked", by which I assume you mean exploited to e.g. mindlessly scroll Facebook all day. If most people are weak enough to become matrix-like slaves to the machine, so be it. I don't believe in free will and I don't think we need to preserve human life in a certain way (e.g. the way our ancestors lived). Sure, a lot of people will fail this test, or maybe t…
If you don't accept that you have free will, than nothing you write or say has any meaning.
It may be possible to believe you don’t have free will, yet act like you do and to find meaning in life. After all, given how hard it is to even define “free will”, how can we know for sure whether we have it? Now recent research seems to indicate (note the weasel words) that we have less of this “free will” stuff than we like to think. Yet hopefully, if you dig a little deeper, we find something that qualifies as free will, even if we live in a deterministic world. Which we don,t quite; see quantum mechanics. But a free will based on QM seems no better. Who wants a “free will” based on randomness?
Please forgive my ramblings. I may have been reading Daniel Dennett too much, most likely with too little understanding.
Re: O.mg Cable
#427After looking at that product page and seeing how something that looks innocuous can be so insidious, does anyone else wonder just a bit whether the page is not so innocent and visiting it may have been a mistake.
Re: O.mg Cable
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
When USB came out I was working in the defence sector. We closed the vector off with cages for the PCs with tied looms under desks, epoxy in all the holes we didn’t want people to use and with threat of being in deep shit.
When I was frequently using things like this on coworkers in red teaming (back when being in an office was a thing) putting my own desktop in a steel cage with a good lock proved effective against retaliation. Then we moved on to attacking the firmware in each others keyboards.
Since this has generated some discussion on locks and picking, there's been some interesting developments on "unpickable locks" that sidestep the tolerance problem by decoupling setting the pins from testing them. I.e. pins are tested all at once after they are physically decoupled from the key & keyway, eliminating state space reduction attacks (aka picking one pin at a time) leaving only brute force.
One such effort features locks made by Stuff Made Here sent to Lock Picking Lawyer. According to LPL the locks are theoretically sound and he did not attempt to pick them, but these particular implementations had a couple (easily fixable) bypasses. Made for interesting videos on both sides:
Stuff Made Here describes the design in detail: TWO Unpickable (?) Locks for Lock Picking Lawyer! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A2NY29iQdI
Lock Picking Lawyer reviews them and performs some bypasses: [1299] Unpickable Locks From Stuff Made Here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecy1FBdCRbQ
Re: O.mg Cable
#429After looking at that product page and seeing how something that looks innocuous can be so insidious, does anyone else wonder just a bit whether the page is not so innocent and visiting it may have been a mistake.
That would be shooting yourself in the foot really. Hackers hacking hackers?
Re: O.mg Cable
#430After looking at that product page and seeing how something that looks innocuous can be so insidious, does anyone else wonder just a bit whether the page is not so innocent and visiting it may have been a mistake.
Yes I had that thought too. However I was glad to learn of it's existence so at least I know what is scarily possible.