If I am understanding the article correctly, NHTSA asserts that to open up telematics to 3rd parties would allow remote attacks on multiple vehicles' safety-critical systems simultaneously. This implies telematics has remote control on those safety critical systems.
This raises a question for me: Why the actual fuck are safety-critical systems able to receive commands from anywhere other than the driver's controls or diagnostic port? Perhaps I am old-scool, naive, ignorant, etc, but given what "safety-critical" means, that strikes me as egregiously unacceptable.
I can sympathize with the idea of convenient remote diagnostic and repair, but in my opinion, this is a case where the saftey risk not just to the driver and passengers, but anyone else nearby, outweighs the convenience of logging into Ford's/BMW/Honda's website, click button, car works again.
My guess is that since the packet is officially reserved and should not be set, a common firewall or other security appliance considers said packets to be malformed and drops them as a default behavior.
In the article, Firefox is cited as intending to adopt MV3 for compatibility reasons. If they indeed do so, I'm not sure how much relief running Firefox will offer from the more evil aspects of MV3.
The concept this video covers proably will not come to a surprise to some here. However, I didn't take any of the classes in college that would introduced this concept to me. Thus, in a failure to recognize that auto-play had been turned back on, again, I was one of today's lucky 10,000. Hopefully, some of you are as well.
I will not disagree with the premise that our current and future energy needs require diversification into more nuclear generation, and that nuclear requires uranium. I will however, reject the notion that such necessarily means that what is happening at the mill and surrounding land is acceptable or can't be done any better.
My objections with the situation described in the article are twofold.
First, the mill is not a designed as a long-term waste storage facility and is being treated as such. My understanding from the article is that the mill was originally designed and intended to be there for 15 years, then reclaimed. But it's still in operation. The holding cells for tailings were designed for the original planned life of the mill, and are still in use. Generally, I like it when things are useful for a long time. But from the OP, the mill and its temporary waste storage is running well past its design lifetime, and more waste continues to be added to the site, allowing it to be treated as long-term radioactive waste disposal by loophole. That's not acceptable. I don't disagree with long-term radioactive waste storage. I do disagree with it being stored long term in a place not properly designed for it and where a containment failure, however small, endangers the health and safety of surrounding communities or otherwise general usefulness of the land. The article describes how the groundwater in the area has been acidifying. The locals worry that such is because of contamination caused by the mill's waste. The mill claims that such is a natural process that just happens sometimes. Regardless of who is (more) correct, those holding cells were designed when the groundwater (and thus soil) were far less acidic, and are being operated decades after their intended design lifetime. The water in the cells is measuring with a pH as low as 1. You can't tell me that's not creating a needless contamination risk.
Second, the age of the mill and thus their processes. As a millennial, I read "Built in the 1980s" and reflexively think "Oh, of course that's modern," because it's something that happened in my lifetime. But it's not; that's 30-40 years ago. I would be in no way surprised that the wastes produced by this mill are as dangerous as they are because of the process they use. From the description in the article, and on the NRC website[1][2] it sounds like this mill is using a conventional process (crush, leach out the uranium with sulfuric acid). Have there genuinely been no improvements in the conventional process over 30-40 years that improve its extractive efficiency, resulting in less radioactive tailings? Or improving the solvent recovery so the tailings don't acidify the soil and ground water so much over the long term? Or in extracting the other heavy metals, (lead, molybdenum, selenium), further reducing the the hazard of the tailings, and possibly providing a useful feedstock for other industrial processes? I find that unlikely, and would be disappointed if that were the case. Even if it doesn't make sense to retrofit such improvements to this mill (more capex on something already past its original design life, etc), the economic need for nuclear capability doesn't mean that this mill must remain. Is is genuinely so impossible to build a newer, better one?
This feels like one of those obvious-in-hindsight things. Of course an unshielded conductor would radiate RF correlating with the signal it carries, and if you could pick up the radiated RF, and knew the modulation scheme and how do decode it, you could see what was on the wire.
I do find myself wondering some things though.
Ethernet cables are 4 differential pairs. As I understand, the whole idea of these twisted pairs carrying a differential signal is that any RF the cable picked up from the environment would be common-mode, and get cancelled out receiver side, allowing the transmitted signal to arrive unspoiled. So, in theory, one would have a hard time injecting spurious transmissions into an Ethernet cable via RF.
Is this supposed to work in reverse, where the common-mode rejection of a differential pair would prevent RF from leaking out of the cable? Or is this one of those theory vs. practice things, where in theory, it shouldn't, but in practice, being a not-ideal twisted differential pair (e.g. twist rate is wrong for frequency of interest, untwisted section, conductors of slightly different lengths, etc) allows some RF emission to leak out, uncancelled. And in the case of a cheap cable, something claiming to be Cat 6A in actuality might never have passed spec for Cat 5, and thus leaks way more RF than it should, because the quality and balance of the twist was half-assed?
Or am I badly misunderstanding how this works because I haven't started studying for an amateur radio license yet?
Huh. There's a lot bands in the "Hate" section. Looking up the various names I'm finding various death metal and black metal bands. I can't help but wonder how many of those bands on are on that list because someone at Facebook took heavy metal imagery and lyrical themes too seriously and literally.
More Edit: Turns out I picked a bad example. I missed reference to a name collision with an actual National Socialist band using the original name. The original edit is below.
Edit: Figured I should support my thesis with an example.
Let us take the band Sturmtruppen, from the Hate section of the linked article. From Encyclopaedia Metallum[1][2], they are a Black/Death metal band with themes of war and genocide. Per and interview referenced on their Encyclopedia Metallum page, their choice of those themes is not to glorify them, but to have something evil sounding enough to fit the style of music.
I am not saying that all the listed bands don't belong there. I know that actual neo nazi bands that take their imagery and themes seriously are a real thing that exist. But I do suspect at least some bands are on that list because of imagery and lyrical themes alone.
Man, I wish I would have known about this a few weeks ago when I was working on repairing a water damaged controller board from an electric smoker. Fortunately, the damaged components were not the mysterious SOT-23 devices labeled only "S3", but just a couple shorted-out diodes. Without this page, it would have been quite frustrating trying to source a new "S3" were it blown out, as I wouldn't have been able to measure polarity or hFE to narrow down a short list of candidates.
I mean, when I last worked in a NOC, we used to call ourselves "NOC monkeys", so yeah. IF you're in the NOC, you're a NOC monkey, if you're on the floor, you're a floor monkey. And so on.
Yes, but Facebook is not a small company. Could PagerDuty realistically handle the scale of notifications that would be required for Facebook's operations?
I have no doubt that the publicly published post-mortem report (if there even is one) will be heavily redacted in comparison to the internal-only version. But I very much want to see said hypothetical report anyway. This kind of infrastructural stuff fascinates me. And I would hope there would be some lessons in said report that even small time operators such as myself would do well to heed.
* The volume ramps up a bit too quickly. In trying to blend hese, I don't think I've taken a single one above 10. Finer gradations in volume, if possible, would be great.
* It would be great to set some of the sounds to happen randomly or intermittently pop or fade in and out, and possibly at different intensities. E.g. if you're chilling in a coffee shop that's playing lo-fi beats while it's raining outside, there probably not going to be a constant wind, but occasional gusts, some stronger than others.
In the end of the video he lists off the number of things he did that were fancier than necessary. One of them was the use of an Arduino for the pulse duration and switching. I found myself reflexively commenting, "It's called a 555 timer." I'm confident that the same function could be more minimally implemented with a 555 timer and maybe a couple other supporting chips. But he's probably getting more consistent control of pulse duration and it was probably easier for him to implement as well.
What is the cause of the excess heat transfer? Is it mainly an excess pulse duration? I notice that the project in the OP was being pulsed on the order of 100s of ms, long enough to get a visible glow. Or is the excess heat caused by the fact that the OP runs at constant current for the entire duration of the pulse, where a capacitive discharge design is going to have the current falling off during the pulse? Or is it a blend of both?
If you read the linked book, it covers this point. Yes, the tech exists to build bombs with multi-megaton yields and has existed for decades However, those super-big explosions are actually less tactically and strategically useful. More useful are smaller explosions that can be placed with more precision, and the tech needed to hit with precision has only improved over time. It is more likely that deployed weapons would have yields measured in kilotons. While bigger than Nagasaki, probably still closer to Nagasaki than Tsar Bomba
> Fancypants non-stainless steel knives do exist and will rust.
> I don't really get why anyone likes them though.
The non-stainless alloys will have an easier time taking and keeping a very sharp edge. This makes them more useful, and for longer. Not only does a very sharp edge make the knife easier and faster to work with, is safer to use than a not-so-sharp knife.
The situation with SMPTS and port 465 is a fun one. By my understanding, at present, implicit TLS for submission isn't standard. Now, a lot of mail server operators listen on port 465 for SMTPS anyway, because very breifly, that was the standard port for such. But there are other operators who are stickler for the letter of the standard, and when asked to support SMTPS on port 465, respond with "That's not standard. STARTTLS on 587 is. Use STARTTLS." I will confess to having been one of those operators in the past. Reflecting, I suspect that was at least partly because in insisting on strict standard compliance, I cut down on the amount of spam I had to deal with (you would be amazed at the sheer volume of poorly coded bots that imediately throw a LOGIN or MESSAGE FROM at you upon establishing a connection, not even bothering to forge a HELO or EHLO).
I totally support RFC 8314's attempt to standardize existing practice, and get port 465 officialy recognized. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8314 Once done, what is "standard" will no longer be an excuse. Though, updating out-of-support middleboxen will probably still take a while.
This raises a question for me: Why the actual fuck are safety-critical systems able to receive commands from anywhere other than the driver's controls or diagnostic port? Perhaps I am old-scool, naive, ignorant, etc, but given what "safety-critical" means, that strikes me as egregiously unacceptable.
I can sympathize with the idea of convenient remote diagnostic and repair, but in my opinion, this is a case where the saftey risk not just to the driver and passengers, but anyone else nearby, outweighs the convenience of logging into Ford's/BMW/Honda's website, click button, car works again.