Natanael

joined 10 months ago
[–] Natanael 1 points 12 minutes ago

He'll fire everyone and SCOTUS will let him do it

[–] Natanael 4 points 2 days ago

I'm guessing it's a niche thing easily recognized

[–] Natanael 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You have to explain why in a much clearer way.

Explain that you do appreciate it. Explain that if you hadn't had the prior thing you probably would have loved it. But now, it's a change, and it's a big change, in several ways, including the nostalgia factor, and you absolutely appreciate that this thing is newer and more expensive but it doesn't YET make sense for you to make the change and because of that you don't want to make the change.

And because of that, it will just be sitting unused and you don't like the idea of it sitting unused.

It felt bad to you to not use a gift.

And that, wanting to keep what you have, not wanting a change, and not wanting it to sit unused, is why you suggested a return, and not because you don't appreciate it.

I think you'll have to explain the "not wanting change" bit the most, by explaining why you feel that way. Maybe try finding a similar comparison. Imagine you'd gift them expensive jewelry or clothes they feel they couldn't ever wear, maybe something they couldn't wear together with their favorite clothing. A bag that would only sit in a closet. A tool that does more, but is heavier or whatever. Whatever that feels relevant to them, that makes them understand why you feel like you don't want to make the change, not yet.

this is brilliant, but I like this

How should you have initially responded? Hard to say without knowing the people around you, but I'd say it would've been safe to say something like "oh, I don't know if I can replace the current thing yet, I like it too much, and it's got so many years left"

In other words, tell her that the gift was indeed great and that there's wrong with the gift except timing, and emphasize you do not fault her for anything, you're happy she thought of it, you're sorry your reaction made her feel bad, you should've communicated better, and you'll make a change to communicate better.

Perhaps even say something like "I probably should've told you I wanted to use this current thing for much longer, I should've explained more about how I think about these things and how I plan". Because your initial response sucked honestly, and you need to make sure your phrasing don't make her feel she made a mistake.

If she really likes being able to give you gifts, and if she now feels uncertain about being able to give you future gifts (this is very likely, by the way!), you should consider implementing that "communicating better" thing - for example (you don't need to do it exactly like this, IT'S AN EXAMPLE) by maintaining and sharing a list of your existing things plus a wishlist, with details like "don't replace before" and "replace no later than" and "required specs: XYZ". And if she likes feeling like she can put her own touch on it, DO NOT present it as "do exactly this", but rather "you can take inspiration from this".

[–] Natanael 3 points 2 days ago

There's steps in between. Rate limiting unverified server federations, etc. No need to inhibit discovery for casual users

[–] Natanael 2 points 2 days ago

Lol no, at least not compared to Scandinavian languages. OTOH plenty of us might only be experienced in emotions expressed in older poems and songs, not a natural style to copy for most (you know, this whole Scandinavians being introverted bit)

[–] Natanael 1 points 2 days ago

Why not just go full fonetic

[–] Natanael 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That only moves the problem around

[–] Natanael 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Freighter is for shipping distance

[–] Natanael 5 points 2 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

It's not cleanly defined for digital only sales

[–] Natanael 8 points 2 days ago

It's not network effects (but slightly related), it's opportunity cost.

Getting your app into yet another app store isn't hard, but takes time, so you need to make sure it doesn't cost devs more to add support for you than it earns them. The slightest fuzz and they'll drop you if you're small.

But stores like Gog are able to exist just fine. They're big enough that many devs think it's worth it to support them. If you want more devs to do so, tell them that's what you want and show it will be worth it. And if you want to open another store, copy Gog & co

[–] Natanael 5 points 3 days ago

Try to set up the interviewer with my friend "who isn't as bad as they say"

[–] Natanael 8 points 4 days ago

"I'm the reason they changed the safety rules 3 times in a month"

18
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
4
submitted 2 months ago by Natanael to c/crypto
2
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

Abstract Common verification steps in cryptographic protocols, such as signature or message authentication code checks or the validation of elliptic curve points, are crucial for the overall security of the protocol. Yet implementation errors omitting these steps easily remain unnoticed, as often the protocol will function perfectly anyways. One of the most prominent examples is Apple's goto fail bug where the erroneous certificate verification skipped over several of the required steps, marking invalid certificates as correctly verified. This vulnerability went undetected for at least 17 months.

We propose here a mechanism which supports the detection of such errors on a cryptographic level. Instead of merely returning the binary acceptance decision, we let the verification return more fine-grained information in form of what we call a confirmation code. The reader may think of the confirmation code as disposable information produced as part of the relevant verification steps. In case of an implementation error like the goto fail bug, the confirmation code would then miss essential elements.

The question arises now how to verify the confirmation code itself. We show how to use confirmation codes to tie security to basic functionality at the overall protocol level, making erroneous implementations be detected through the protocol not functioning properly. More concretely, we discuss the usage of confirmation codes in secure connections, established via a key exchange protocol and secured through the derived keys. If some verification steps in a key exchange protocol execution are faulty, then so will be the confirmation codes, and because we can let the confirmation codes enter key derivation, the connection of the two parties will eventually fail. In consequence, an implementation error like goto fail would now be detectable through a simple connection test.

3
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

https://bsky.app/profile/tumbolia.bsky.social/post/3ltyahiem3s2u

We updated our paper on Fiat-Shamir!

We now take a closer look at the gap between what symmetric cryptography has focused on for over 10 years (indifferentiability) and what is actually needed for the soundness of ZKPs and SNARKs (something stronger!).

4
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Natanael to c/crypto
 

Opossum is a cross-protocol application layer desynchronization attack that affects TLS-based application protocols that rely on both opportunistic and implicit TLS. Among the affected protocols are HTTP, FTP, POP3, SMTP, LMTP and NNTP.

Note: The vast majority of websites are not vulnerable as HTTP TLS upgrade (RFC 2817) was never widely adopted and no browsers support it.

view more: next ›