Container checkpointing -- very cool from a forensics use case! I hope someone produces a useful "container diff" tool to make visualizing differences between checkpoints easier!
I have 8 years of experience doing OS-level coding in the storage industry. I've dabbled in embedded on the low end and userspace / application development on the high end. I've worked remotely from New Zealand for a US-based company for about a year and have proven my effectiveness as a remote employee. Also completely keen for working locally with an Auckland company.
This is an excellent point. Your communication is only as secure as the weakest endpoint (in the same vein, perhaps your correspondents might be of the opposing viewpoint and might feel weird about their personal mails being stored by someone who's rolling his own IT and security).
I've had this setup for about a month on my primary email, and it is working flawlessly. Even when I had to reboot the server, I was able to bring everything back online quickly.
I am keeping a lower priority MX dns entry pointed to an independent provider as a failover, but this is standard practice, I believe.
What I really like about the docker-mailserver image is that it has no database and that it is designed for simple updates (that is, docker pull && docker-compose restart).
Rainloop is also new to me (I previously used roundcube) and again I am very positively surprised: it works over imaps, so multiple accounts can be combined under a single login, it supports 2FA, manages both plaintext and html, manages your contacts, it supports openPGP (still in beta, I've not tried it yet).
So what if I were, say, a US citizen living abroad? I am legally able to work in the US and in my home country, but of course since I'm not actually living in the US some companies might find that problematic. Do you?
I think it's important to note that a fear or anxiety reaction may not, as you say, keep us safe. When I'm calm and rational, I make better decisions than when I'm gripped by fear.
As an avid hiker and explorer, occasionally my fear of heights interferes with my enjoyment of my hobby. I try to push past it as much as possible, but when my heart is racing and my legs are shaking, a situation which would otherwise be safe can become dangerous.
Also, unlike you, I do have two friends who suffer from PTSD (it's common enough that one may be surprised to find that a friend one has known for years wrestles with PTSD in some aspect of life but doesn't advertise that fact). One of those friends has gotten off an elevator early because being in an enclosed situation with a stranger gave her a panic attack. Another called me on the phone nearly in tears because she had to stay late at work and walking across the deserted, dark carpark to her car was almost more than she could handle.
I think it would be great if a drug could help people like these two friends of mine go through life without feeling controlled by anxiety in situations like these. I also think it would be great if people like me whose day-to-day lives are unmarred by fear can do more things -- safely; the drug does not impair reason -- through this therapy. The tradeoffs are important to know (and as you say, the article does a great job exploring them), but to me this sounds really promising.
Yeah, that paragraph was where she completely lost me. The desire to ensure the poor are taken care of and given opportunities for advancement is not mutually incompatible with the automation of rote tasks. It is not incumbent on society to stop technological advancement in certain areas to ensure that no additional humans lose their jobs to automated processes.
Getting upset at the loss of jobs is the luddite position. The more socially liberal position is getting upset that the savings from the loss of said jobs are rolled up into the pockets of corporate executives and working to ensure that wealth is equitably distributed. The socially conservative position is that the additional wealth freed up by the automation will create new job opportunities elsewhere that the recently unemployed individual can seek out and pursue. I lean more to the socially liberal side (and hopefully this bias did not creep out in my description of the conservative point of view), but either one is preferable to putting the kibosh on progress because it might step on someone's toes.
I work for a company which makes network devices. We've detected many hostile intrusions in our network. If you make hardware or software that runs in enterprise datacenters, someone is surely going to be trying to steal your source code to find exploits and possibly put backdoors in.
We use multi-factor authentication just to get in the corporate network and a separate, airlocked engineering network to store our IP. From what I've talked to from my colleagues at other major device manufacturers, this is becoming the industry standard (seven years ago I scoffed at Ericsson's paranoia for having a sequestered engineering network. Turns out they just saw the attacks earlier than we did).
In our case, doesn't seem to be the NSA. Looks more like China. Could easily be either one, or yet another party. This is the world we live in.
When I set up the Stock Options system at Netscape (as the Desktop Support guy) back in 1997, It consisted of two computers, connected to each other via a switch, in a Locked room, with a wall all the way to the ceiling to reduce false-ceiling access, with that room also located inside the Secure Legal Office Space. Systems were backed up daily by the users, using encrypted backups to Zip Drives.
It's interesting how when you don't know what the hell you are doing, you sometimes do something reasonably secure by pure happenstance. (Also, I had probably read too much Bruce Schneier when I was a teenager.)
I'm not 100% familiar with what precisely they were tracking. The software was called "Equity Edge", and it involved employee stock options. I do recall contacting their support organization when I realized the data files they were storing on the hard drives didn't seem to be encrypted (the systems were Windows 95). Netscape had two employees whose sole job seemed to be the care and feeding (and data integrity) of this system.
Data was sent to the Accounting Department (and other Lawyers) on Printouts.
I was doing this for a fintec company in 2002, and was scoffed at by just about everyone. These things have been going on since the world became connected (somewhere in 1992 or so), and have been getting prevalent and intricate - but they are not new.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. It's not unprecedented, but I also don't think a lot of the companies that get hit by something like this talk about it so publicly.
