• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • cmhe@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzpump up the jamz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Nothing gets burned or otherwise destroyed when receiving EM radiation via a dish and converted it into electricity via a receiver.

    Sure, the amplification stage of the process likely works only one way, and should be replaced in order to send something.

    The one way process of burning oil to generate heat seems much more primitive than the energy conversion offered by a diode, TBH.

    You can push or tow an electric car and charge their batteries. Because electric motors are also generators.

    Even with your simplistic fossil fuel car in your example the alternator within can also be used as a motor.


  • cmhe@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzpump up the jamz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    There is no such big differences between a light emitting (LED) and a light receiving diode (photodiode), they are just the reverse of each other. In fact photodiodes can even emit light, but very inefficiently. Same in reverse, LEDs can also detect light, just badly.

    It seems like most efficient energy conversion methods can be used in both directions.


  • cmhe@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzpump up the jamz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    These radio telescopes don’t transmit anything at all, they listen to radio waves coming from the cosmos. Much like a normal telescope doesn’t transmit light.

    If you invert the flow of the electrons, a receiver becomes a transmitter.

    Speakers can become bad microphones and vice versa. Pretty sure that a radio telescope is a very bad transmitter for human music, but it could be possible with some changes…


  • Together with secure boot and your own signing keys, it could be a good way to en/decrypt the a dm-verity secured read-only rootfs. But for the home partition I would probably still want to enter my own decryption key, maybe via systemd-homed. From there you can update the kernel/initramfs and read-only rootfs image and sign them for the next boot.

    This is complicated to set up. Otherwise maybe use TPM as a 2FA, so you still have to enter a pin?









  • cmhe@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.mlRecommend me a scripting language
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What about Lua/Luajit?

    In most scripting languages you have the interpreter binary and the (standard) libraries as separate files. But creating self-extracting executables, that clean up after themselves can easily be done by wrapping them in a shell script.

    IMO, if low dependencies and small size is really important, you could also just write your script in a low level compiled language (C, Rust, Zig, …), link it statically (e.g. with musl) and execute that.


  • What’s ACC?

    ACC - Advanced Charging Controller, which allows to set charge limits, thus extending the battery life, which should have been part of Android from the beginning,

    Anyway I would strongly discourage using root under Android as it breaks the security model.

    Security isn’t a binary, security works like an onion, you have multiple layers of security and multiple decisions to make on every level. Currently you might be right, that having root access to a device might compromise it in some ways, but that isn’t necessarily so and depends on how it is done.

    You should find ways around using root and if you can’t you probably shouldn’t be doing on your phone anyway.

    This kind of thinking is the ‘I know better than you’ mentality, that I sometimes see around people advertising GrapheneOS. Having ‘root’ permissions to the device is owing it, I want to decide what to do with it, not the vendor of the ROM, or who ever else. They aren’t me, they don’t know what I want to do with it.

    The goal of security models is allowing me, the owner, to do what ever I want with my device, while preventing others, non-owners, un-trusted applications or the internet from doing what they want with my device. If the security model doesn’t allow me, the owner, to do what I want, then it failed its job at least partially.

    Root is very dangerous as it can survive a factory reset.

    Why is that dangerous? The first thing I do, when I get a new phone is boot into the boot loader, and overwrite the whole partition, then the system is trusted again, at least if I trust the vendor of the boot loader. When I want to do a factory reset, I do the same, overwrite the flash with a fresh OS image.

    IMO, there are other reasons why the current implementation of root are dangerous: They currently considered binary and I think they could be implemented more gradually. Like one application having root over individual other applications, e.g. accessing their files. Allowing/Disallowing individual privileged system calls, or access to specific system files, etc. All of this could be hidden behind a switch in the developers menu. Maybe only allow applications to gain root access when using a registered hardware token, etc.

    As for MicroG, it is sandboxed but it does require device admin for full functionality. It isn’t running as root but it requires a lot of device permissions. You can turn off the permissions you don’t need but that could break things.

    In order for MicroG to work full, you need to fake the signature, which requires a patch to the system, or root privileges.


  • Like others already said, you can still root your GrapheneOS, there are two ways to do this:

    1. Just unlock your bootloader, flash Magisk or whatever, done. Disadvantages, you cannot lock your bootloader again, thus creating a huge security gap where an attacker, when gained physical access to your phone, overwrites your boot partition and you boot your compromised system without noticing. Which is bad, IMO.

    2. Recompile GrapheneOS with Magisk installed, signed it with that key and use this key in your bootloader to lock it. You essentially created a GrapheneOS fork, can no longer use their OTA update server and use the security updates, etc. You need to create this yourself.

    Yeah, they don’t prevent you from doing it, the same as original ROMs don’t prevent you from doing it.



  • Well, I never really missed being able to pay via NFC on a phone, but I also never done it. My NFC chip in my card works fine.

    When my baking app started detecting my rooted phone, I just switched to using their web-app via Firefox, which allows you to create a direct link to it as an “App”. Which is probably better anyway, than installing random proprietary apps on a phone. And logging into it every time is also easy with a password manager.

    So I guess, as long as the banks still offer a website, I am good.


  • I am currently using a rooted LOS with MicroG. It certainly is not as secure as GrapheneOS in terms of app sandboxing, encryption, regular security updates, etc., but I have control of the system, in case I need it, for instance ACC, F-droid privilege extension (F-Droid auto updates), ReVanced Manager (not using it currently) etc.

    I trust GrapheneOS much more than Apple, but both go into a similar direction with their understanding of security. IMO taking control away from the user might be a good option, if you are dealing with just regular consumers, but I don’t really like the “one-size-fits-all” approach of it. And it is my device, I should be allowed to decide what I want to do with it.

    BTW, this is just a personal annoyance of mine. The GrapheneOS devs do a very good job.


  • I would like to switch, but there are a couple of points that are still holding me back right now:

    • Charge limits, on LOS I can root the phone, install ACC and still use the OTA updates, if I apply the patch afterwards. (Will be resolved in A15)

    • Option for sandboxed MicroG, IMO privacy is also very important for security, and people should be able to decide if they like more privacy or more security.

    • Option for rooting sandboxed apps from outside. IMO I, and a person, like to have full control over my phone. Trust often comes with control. If I choose to trust one app to have root access to another app in order to inspect it, then this should be possible. Sandboxing could allow one app to have root access to individually chosen other apps, thus limiting the impact compared to system-wide root access. Maybe offer rooting gated behind a separate hardware token authentication. (sudo like) A lot there can be improved IMO, while still providing it and making it more secure in general.

    I know that my understanding of security and privacy might be different from what GrapheneOS understands, but as a long time Linux Admin, I don’t like black boxes, I like to peek into them, modify or patch them, when they do something I don’t want them to do, etc. So that when I enter personal information into them, I am still in control what happens to them, at least that is my desire.

    Taking control away from the user in order to “improve security” might be a valid approach to some, but it is not something I have much trust in.


  • cmhe@lemmy.worldtoLinux@lemmy.mlCoreboot: Pros and Cons
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    So generally the pro of coreboot is that it is open source, but the con is that it is open source.

    What I mean by that, you can fix any issues yourself, however, if you are unable to do it yourself, you have to wait until someone does it for you and often what features are available and stable are a hit and miss.

    Compared to proprietary bioses, the company has some kind of standardized process for developing the bios. So you often get want you would expect. However, if the money flow from the pc vendor to the bios vendor drys up, you, or the community of owners. will not be able to fix any issues.

    Linux support should be the same, regardless if you choose proprietary or open source bios. But that depends on how well the coreboot was ported to the platform. So officially supported coreboot bioses are likely better than others.

    Personally, if all other attributes are equal, would go with coreboot, because I like to support vendors that offer that choice, and IMO a open source solution, that you can review and build yourself is intrinsically more secure than a binary blob, where you have to blindly trust some corporation. But other security minded people might disagree, which is fine.