Wait… IT isn’t informations technology?

Not OP, but it’s two-way TLS. It’s not only your server providing a certificate to prove it’s the real thing and not just some men-in-the-middle device or your connection for redirected, but the other side of the connection using a certificate, too, to show they are actually the devices allowed to communicate.

So this basically reverts the security. You are no longer trying to filter out access attempts when they show questionable behavior, but completely reject anything unless it’s explicitly authorized. Which of course only works when you or (a small number you can manually manage of) others access that stuff from fixed devices that you can set up properly.

PS: For me fail2ban does basically something similiar. I have several web interfaces exposed via reverse proxy. But I barely ever use those interfaces manually; normally it’s via apps that access the services via that web interface. So things like failed authentifications or misstyped passwords don’t happen (unless when setting up something new maybe and then I’m there to unban a device manually if I screwed up). So fail2ban is set up to aggressively bans IPs for hours just for a single failed attempt.

That’s keeping all those spammy bots looking for easy targets away very effectively, yet completely invisible for my legitimate use. After all that’s always the core issue: security vs. convenience. You build the best possible security that also doesn’t overly interfere with your normal use. Also the reason there is no on-size-fits-all solution because it’s about your use-case.

Funnily a lot of people consider “guy” as gender neutral nowadays…

Because the fictious person stealing your laptop and drilling through your disk to erase it identifies as male. I have a whole backstory worked out if you are interested…

Or because it doesn’t matter at all and two letters were simply the shortest.

Yes, I am in fact okay with refering to every teacher as he, because that’s what grammar in my native language demands (“Lehrer, der - masc.”). I will also happily refer to every guard as she, because –again– grammar ("Wache, die - fem.).

Genus != sexus != gender… One is grammar, one is biology, one is identity. Overlaps are purely coincidental. I don’t understand why especially English speakers can’t get the concept. I mean sure, they dumbed down their grammar so much that they lost the destinction, but even unrelated to language they seem to develop an insane fetish for conflating sexus and gender somehow. For example if you need to add “biological” before “gender” for your expression to make sense, that should be a hint that you are actually talking bout different things.

Fun fact: When English tried to move away from gender specific words and towards generic ones (all being actors, instead of speaking about actors and actresses), other languages did the exact opposite. Because when you language’s grammar has all nouns (arbitrarily) gendered, actresses and actors is a step forward from the generic actor (which often is male my grammatical definition). At least that was the theory in both cases. Two languages, two exactly opposite reactions to same fact. Why doesn’t it make any sense? Because it’s a fucking narrative to keep some culture war bullshit going. Language isn’t sexist. The Sexism filtering your words because they reach your brain is.

Nothing will prevent him from wiping your drive if he has physical access to your device.

Sure you can use stuff like Secure Boot with your own custom keys to lock it. Then noone can indeed just boot it.

Doesn’t stop that person from removing your drive and plugging it into another pc. Or from just smashing your disk to pieces.

The same goes for stuff like a bios password. With physical access you can wipe that, too. It’s just a bit more work (or requires additional tools) than just an USB stick.

In short: Yes, you can stop someone from just booting an USB stick and wipe you drive. But it doesn’t matter if he has other ways to do the same. Protection only works as a whole concept, Software won’t help you when physical security allows the device to be stolen. And seriously? Who cares if their stolen laptop is wiped, smashed or drowning on the bottom of the ocean. It’s gone anyway.

The actual protection for data is a) backups so you don’t lose them and b) encryption so nobody can read them.

it will bring value to […] the community.

I’m inclined to find this more believable than similiar statements of all the usual AI suspects.

I’m more irritated than I’d like to admit by the fact that there is no 12V to 6x SATA power converter going with that M.2 to 6x SATA adapter.

ISO 8601

!iso8601@lemmy.sdf.org 👍

In my case it was Syncthing and Radicale that replaced basically all my Nextcloud use.

Nextcloud isn’t bad actually but you really need to use a lot of the million optional features to justify that behemoth.

The 800M series is first generation Maxwell architecture, if that is your question (basically slightly upgraded processors from the 700 series rebranded for mobile). All but the early 860M which is still Kepler for some reason. Nvidia numbering is weird.

Honestly I have no clue how many EFI implementations actually fail there. Maybe it’s indeed a minor fraction. But I have personally seen two different ones (out of about a dozen -mostly laptops a few years old- systems where I tried it) and that’s enough to consider it a problem. (PS: Probably not conicidently one of those also had a broken SecureBoot implementation that rejected all key changes and only worked with the pre-installed MS ones. Maybe I’m simply good at finding the trashy ones.)

set up a second efi boot partition

This may or may not work. Recognizing a second ESP on the same disk is not required in the EFI standard. So it’s down to your board’s implementation if it works or just stops the moment it finds the first one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

That’s the probably most unhelpful and stupid thing I saw in quite some time. The AI or Not Quiz right at the beginning in particular regularly links the exact same things to human or to AI (404 links are a sign or AI hallucination or just natural link decay that show it’s from a human; wonky grammar is a sign for AI unless the text is human-written where it’s just bad english that LLMs would not produce intentionally…).

Yes, spotting AI by clear attributes isn’t easy. If it was those points would be changed first in training of AI. But lengthily discussing tell–tale signs then interpreting them in contrary ways depending on source is absolute bullshit.

No, you said these videos show common mistakes on purpose because real users would make them. Which is okay…

But it doesn’t matter if it was an honest mistake or one made on purpose because it’s a common thing.

Ignoring the chat telling him the problem (and that he caused it himself) and also not mentioning the problem’s origin anymore later was not an accident. Given the fact that he later made some offhand comment about “yeah, shader thing again” he understood the problem yet intentionally chose to not include the explanation in the video but leave it at “on Linux there are random freezes I don’t understand”.

I would at least pretend to learn from my mistakes. So when I skip the shader compilation, then experience freezes while shaders get loaded and the whole f***ing chat mentions it, letting them compile first and then seeing if that fixes the issue would be in fact the first thing I would try…

So no, this is not honest “showing common mistakes other people will experience” or “struggling with basics”. Because if it was honest there would be any mention of the underlying issue once he understood it. And he obviously did, judging by a later offhand comment about “yeah, shader issues…”

When using the systemd hooks for your initramfs (and using rd.luks.name=<UUID>=<name> instead of cryptdevice=UUID=<UUID>:<name> in the kernel parameters) it will try to decrypt all listed drives with the first password typed in, and only ask for additional passwords if that fails. Unlike the “traditional” busybox hooks that will ask for a password for each device. Doesn’t matter what you actually do with the drives themselves.

So yes, you can for example have partitions/devices /dev/sda1, /dev/sda2, /dev/sdb1 all encrypted with the same password, format sda1 as your classic swap partition, sda2 as the first half of your btrfs raid0 root device and sdb1 as the second half (let’s give them fitting names when decrypting, so /dev/mapper/cryptswap, /dev/mapper/cryptroot-a and /dev/mapper/cryptroot-b), with rd.luks.name=<UUID>=cryptswap rd.luks.name=<UUID>=cryptroot-a rd.luks.name=<UUID>=cryptroot-b in your kernel parameters.

And at boot you will be asked for the password only once, which will unlock all three encrypted partitions. (Unless you mistype. Then it will fall back to the default behavior of asking for 3 passwords, one for each.)

(PS: You can also just unlock other encrypted devices via /etc/crypttab later in the boot process. That’s the much easier option and should be prefered unless you really need them early… as in they are your (or part of your) root device, swap etc.)

The actual real question if you don’t want to figure out everything manually is which options the installer supports.

Your best options when you are already doing a fresh new install:

• make both drives one virtual one with LVM, then encrypt that virtual drive

But that’s not related to BTRFS at all and can be done with any file system

• encrypt both drives with the same password, format them as BTRFS raid0 (again making it one big virtual drive), use the systemd hooks in your initramfs because then the first password you will provide on boot will unlock both drives (only if this fails on the first try you will be asked for additional passwords - also if you mistype your password once you will then have to unlock both by typing the password both; you only get one attempt to unlock everything with the same password).

If you can do this is mostly depending on the specific installer (I would assume only the first option works by default…). It’s definitely possible in general but “I’m not technical enough” doesn’t go well with all the details you have to figure out yourself when the installer doesn’t do all the work.

If they have the same password you can just unlog them at boot with one password. They SystemD hook for unlocking LUKS drives automatically tries the first provided password on all encrypted drives it’s supposed to unlock. Only if that fails it will ask for additional passwords.