• Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Still don’t understand what this is looking for? I recently fired up a server and this all seems like something I should be worried about but I don’t really know how to look up the right words. Is there a way for me to go to this site through the cli so I can check on my server? And if my server says hello when I look what does that mean?

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            it’s tricky because browsers check certificates in 1 way, operating system tools check in another way, and programming languages often check in another way again… and if you run docker containers, they’ll need updates - not just your host OS

            browsers should be fine automatically (they check for certificate revocation before even software updates), and system updates on linux at least should cover some things like node, but then you have eg python which ships CA bundles with libraries so will require package updates there or rust which (apparently) often compiles its trust store into its binaries so would require a recompile

            this site will easily check browsers, and further down there are curl commands (curl will test your OS trust store), and you could load the same URL in various languages to test them, but again that’s a lot of work to go to when you also have to do that across all docker containers and virtual environments, etc and still tells you nothing about rust binaries

            https://emudhra.we-have-a-problem.com/

            same advice as ever: stay up to date, do the best that you can… upstream projects will get CVE reports for vulnerable libs, and it should be a very easy to backport a fix so security patches should be quick and easy, even on old versions of software

            *edit: that site also lists minimum versions of a lot of things like OS packages, language packages, etc

  • Triumph@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 days ago

    That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough about four to dispute it.

    • Taasz/Woof@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Yes, typing randomly isn’t actually as random as it could be, so a generator will do a better job.

      However mashing the keyboard is absolutely better than literally just “4” lol

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        first, what if i have my cat do it. second, why does it matter if a string is maximally random? is there a certain level that is random enough?

      • BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        Generators aren’t intrinsically random either, the project that’s closest to random is the lava light room at cloud flare. But a wall of lamalamps aren’t random enough, so they add in a few parameters from the moon.

        But ultimately, it’s not truly random.

        Most generators are magnitudes simpler than that and honestly mashing everything at random yourself does a pretty good job at it. Especially if you smash too many characters and then scrambles it before picking a sequence without thought. As the biggest issue with manual button smashing, is the same character either won’t appear twice in a row ever or will always appear multiple in a row. Not to talk about special letters, which you likely wouldn’t hit - although we could make larger keyboards for the lulz

        Ultimately random generators is just a simpler/faster solution, but there’s ways of doing something as randomly by hand

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          5 days ago

          This is why Hot Topic girlies are not in charge of crypto standards. They’re “OMG so random”, but not mathematically so random.

        • balsoft@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          Those are all technically words in some dictionary somewhere, arranged in a sensible grammatical order. The entropy is not as high as you may think

    • biggeoff@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      Aside from humans being terrible random number generators, not as such.

      It’s better to seed a CSPRNG with a source of entropy though. E.g. there are tools that let you enter the result of many dice rolls and use it to generate a key.

  • JudgeDredd@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    No one would even assume that someone chose a single character. People with bad intentions would start at with a minimum of 4 or 6 characters?

    This way, in case of just bruteforcing your way in, you are indeed very safe. They would brute force into infinity…

  • Patrikvo@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    ‘4’ is actually a great choice if the attackers would start searching from the highest number down. In fact there are only 4 other possiblities that are better: 0,1,2 and 3. And that is assuming the worse case where ‘0’ is a legal choice. /s