Some would argue the inherent moral hazard makes these opposing outcomes that cannot be achieved simultaneously.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49047884

Points: 46

# Comments: 6

I also run mail servers for others, mostly non-profit adjacent groups who don’t have the capital to be extorted by cloud service providers.

Sure, there are some things to learn, but like anything – if you do it properly, it’s not hard and can work properly. Never had any deliverability issues over that time (yes, even to the big providers). I also almost never touch the boxes (I do about one architectural overhaul a decade and am working on the next right now).

If you’re willing to invest the time and resources to do it properly, I agree, it works fine.

I know that. Just because SSH automatically sends my local $USER doesn't mean they have to report the value received in the SSH username automatically on the game platform to other users, without first having prompted me "your username has been reported as . Is it okay to show this?".

A simple flag in my user profile in the platform to say whether I've said that's okay or not.

Or instructions to advise people to choose their username /before/ first connect. These are reasonable, privacy-preserving things to call out in a good and user-friendly design.

If this affects you, make sure you connect with `ssh [pseudonymous name]@late.sh`.

I see this also purports to link to secondary regulation, but there's a reason lawyers pay huge chunks of cash to professional firms that ingest court decisions and other sources of applicable regulation. Meh, there's a reason _lawyers_ are paid huge chunks of cash to be kept on retainer and give their opinions to begin with.

It's harder to solve some of these problems than prompting an LLM to vibe a solution. I wish we'd stop.

> SOC2, ISO27001 and all that shit is not the same thing.

Hard agree. SOC2/ISO27001 are a thing that might be useful, but are mostly a framework dreamt up by auditors and other people who like wearing suits (and making lots of money).

They have some normative controls. But a SOC2 audit is not going to survive contact with an engineer who can push code and whose job depends on the company they work for making money. Where they have to ship product features, and don't have weeks to justify every line of code they write.

A SOC2 audit is not going to survive contact with a script kiddie in their bedroom (or, a nation-state APT) who has plenty of time and an LLM to help them find vulnerabilities or weird edge cases they can compose to attack a system.

These frameworks might serve a purpose, but corporate 'compliance' departments have been lulled into a false sense of security that a satisfactory SOC2 audit means the product is secure and obviates them from asking more technical details or for a fuller audit. It's not. That doesn't matter in a lot of cases, but probably does for a network security solution - I would absolutely be asking deeper questions if I was deploying any of these products en masse.

But then again, the insurers probably asked for a SOC2 certificate, so I guess like most things in life, it's not about whether the systems are secure - it's about whose insurance is ultimately covering the loss.

> Isn't Headscale server-side only ?

Yes. You're still running the native Tailscale client code on the hosts, which this evidence reveals can't be as trusted as Tailscale would like us to believe.

I also wouldn't trust Headscale fully. It had a critical defect at some point that, IIRC, would allow an attacker to rotate the key of a registered node without auth to a value chosen by the attacker. And its primary maintainer is a member of the Tailscale team, apparently maintained with full approval of their employer and with reasonable transparency between the projects, but nonetheless the overlap is a little close for comfort.

Frankly, as you've said, I don't trust any of these solutions to be anything more than a convenient way to jump onto a bastion or another host of minimal consequence to get into the network and jump onwards.

The problem is that process of not writing the code, but just editing what the LLM produced – and somewhat mindless editing at that (I'm editing comments, not LoC!) – leads to a loss of focus and all the perils of human procrastination that entails (hello, writing comments on HN).

I've tried to prompt Claude et al. not to do this - but whatever I've tried so far, even meta-prompting it to ask why it ignored my instructions, it doesn't work, doesn't stick, and I can't find a good way to stop it.

Engineering (as with so many professions) is about so much more than just shipping features as quickly as possible, and it pleases me when I see fellow engineers taking care and showing thorough consideration over the potential impact of their design decisions on people from all walks of life and circumstances.

I was (badly) getting at the fact that back then, as a function of the totality of knowledge we had, discovering a new knot could be quite transformational – whereas now it's just one of many professional fields of modern research. Not implying it was then, or now, merely a hobby.

* with some notable root certs that I have… questionable… trust and confidence are not simply controlled by certain state actors.

They could have picked something far more concrete (for Cloudflare's business and the type of services they deploy) than "AI model" there, which is clearly picked just to make it seem 'current' and on-trend.

Yes, it is a fact of modern life that one reason there's no political will to reduce ticket prices is that it's an effective pricing mechanism for limiting demand or pushing travellers to other modes of transport to avoid further overcrowding – as perverse as that sounds for a rail network.