Either they’re scared of competing with new intel NUC SOCs built on their 18A process, or this confirms their buyout of Intel is happening, and they’re preparing to exit from the laptop/SFF space.

Twelve paragraphs in, and you still haven’t made your argument?

Are the AI companies at odds with copyright laws when they train new models? I think, yes.

Ah, because it’s a bullshit opinion piece being presented as fact, that makes sense.

Said it better than I could. Fair? Yes. Effective? No.

So… Slackware?

deleted by creator

Even as a power user… You can’t.

And, in the 21st century, nothing on your computer is safe and private, least of all, browser extensions.

Even if an extension is safe today, with a tiny handful of notable exceptions, it will be”monetized”, or bought and sold to someone that will use it to install adware on your system, train their AI model, or steal your personal information.

There is no feasible defense to this for a layperson, other than absolute transparency in FOSS, and even that is under attack via flaws in the software supply chain.

The best a layperson can hope for is that major vendors care more about exclusivity and locking others out of their ecosystem, such that they are the only ones who have full control of your data (Apple, Google, Microsoft).

deleted by creator

Actively encouraging people to toss perfectly good hardware to fuel their subscription bullshit… and these guys weren’t even recently bought by a VC firm or anything?

It hasn’t even been in existence for 15 years, literally any adult with an income can imagine what life without Airbnb is like.

I jumped over to the App Store the second Hades was announced, fully willing to pay full price, even though I could easily get the game for 30% cheaper on Steam.

Subscription required.

Fuck. That.

To be pedantic, they have a navy, just no large ships in said navy.

Yeah, no shit, you’re the fucking CEO

The best description I have seen for single store franchisees is, you’ve paid a lot to give yourself a job. They are not lucrative, and in fact, are capital intensive, and often predatory.

There is a very high up front cost, and you generally do not own the real estate. This means you are locked into 30 year leases, often with complicated terms that are solely beneficial to the land owner.

Next, with regards to liquidity, if you don’t own the real estate, you often can’t get multiple business loans with a single franchise, so you must secure the loan with your personal assets, which means you will go personally bankrupt if you hit a rough patch.

Then, after dealing with the complicated business to business transactions and legal work, you still have to deal with the corporate bullshit, taxes, and supervisory duties, particularly if you do not already have a strong business partner to do this for you.

Pretty much, unless you are independently wealthy, own the real estate in a high traffic location, or already have multiple other franchises, it’s a losing venture that will kill your soul and eat every dollar you have.

Tens of thousands of children, killed or injured. And people wonder how the Palestinians become radicalized against Israel, the West, and the United States, or why there can’t be peace in the Middle East?

Forgiveness is probably the furthest thing from being on their minds.

MMORPGs are an easy example, where people form recognizable identities and communities in game. An extension of this would be Second Life, and somewhat more recently, VRChat.

From my understanding, the impetus was that F5 submitted a CVE for a vulnerability, for an optional, “beta” feature that can be enabled. Dounin did not think a CVE should be submitted, since he did not considered it to be “production” feature.

That said, the vulnerability is in shipping code, regardless of whether it is optional or not, so per industry coding practices, it should either be patched or removed entirely in order to resolve the issue.

Authentication is, explicitly, the process of validating that you are who you say you are. Like biometrics, your username is part of your digital identity. So you are correct in arguing that biometrics alone is little stronger than a username, but by definition, both are part of authentication.

That said, to securely authenticate your identity, you need to use multiple factors.

Could you? Yes. But there really is no point— biometrics alone are only a single factor for authentication.

You should have at least two of the three— something you are (fingerprint, facial, or retinal recognition), something you have (badge, token, secure device), and something you know (passphrase).

1. From the title of your article and your executive summary, the premise of your paper is that CVSS is flawed, and CITE is your solution.
2. From the title of your article, and choice of name, “QHE CVSS Alternative; CITE”. CVSS is a VULNERABILITY Scoring System. CITE, as your propose, is a THREAT evaluation tool. You can see how one could have the impression that they were incorrectly being used interchangeably.

As you yourself stated, CVSS does exactly what it says on the box. It provides a singular rating for a software vulnerability, in a vacuum. It does not prescribe to do anything more, and it does a good job doing what it sets out to do (including specifically as an input to other quantitative risk calculations).

Compare what with attack?

Your methodology heavily relies on “the analysis of cybersecurity experts”, and in particular, frequently references “exploit chains”, mappings which are not clearly defined, and appears to rely on the knowledge of the individual practitioner, rather than existing open frameworks. MITRE ATT&CK and CAPEC already provide such a mapping, as well as a list of threat actor groups leveraging tactics, techniques, and procedures (e.g., exploitation of a given CVE). Here’s a good articlewhich maps similarly to how we operate our cybersecurity program.

I think there is a lot on the mark in your article about the issues with cybersecurity today, but again, I believe that your premise that CVSS needs replacing is flawed, and I don’t think you provided a compelling case to demonstrate how/why it is flawed. If anything, I think you would agree that if organizations are exclusively using CVSS scores to prioritize remediation, they’re doing it wrong, and fighting an impossible battle. But this means the organization’s approach is wrong, not CVSS itself.

Your article stands better alone as a proposal for a methodology for quantifying risk and threat to an organization (or society?), rather than as a takedown of CVSS.

Glancing through your article, while you have correctly assessed the need for risk based prioritization of vulnerability remediation and mitigation, your central premise is flawed.

Vulnerability is not threat— CVSS is a scoring system for individual vulnerabilities, not exploit chains. For that, you’ll want to compare with ATT&CK or the legacy cyber kill chain.