The DMZ

@daya The chat functionality is fatally broken on SE.

It doesn't work correctly for anyone.

Yep, I noticed it many times

The - means stdout, so it's writing that data to stdout instead of to a file. As for using compress, I don't know why. It's an ancient program and is pretty silly.

You can either use z and the like in tar directly, or use gzip -c.

I'd avoid using j because it calls bzip2 which is pretty slow.

Honestly I might even do gzip -1c for minimal compression.

5:32 AM

@forest I mean it is really bad because of this my above chat comment looks very ugly

yup

sender: tar cfp - /some/dir | gzip -1c | nc -w 3 $ip $port

receiver: nc -l -p $port | gzip -dc | tar xvfp -

or

sender: tar czfp - /some/dir | nc -w 3 $ip $port

receiver: nc -l -p $port | tar xzvfp -

Also you don't even need the f and -. You can omit those and tar will use stdout automatically. E.g. pipe to tar xzvp instead of tar xzvfp -.

Ok this makes sense

@daya Is this for a local network or remote over the internet?

If it's local, or if you have particularly high-speed internet, then you probably don't need any compression. It's only if the network link is fairly slow or the data is highly compressible that you'll actually benefit from using it.

But why we just can't use;
sender: `tar -czv /some/dir | nc -w 3 $ip $port`
reciver: `nc -lp $port | tar -xzv`

@forest local vms

Then you don't need any compression at all.

Compression would just slow it down.

@daya Does that not work for you?

5:45 AM

@forest No, on the receiver end, it just receives the file in ASCII format!

Huh?

In ASCII format?

You mean it just lists the output?

Because that's implied by the v in the receiver's command.

Yep, Actually I was having a folder and that folder contained some text files
So on receiver end, it just arrives as ASCII (like the contents of the arrived file were simply the _names_ of text files and not their content)

Yeah that's because it's decompressing the files and listing their names.

that's what the v does.

I don't know what's worse--the fact that after 15 years of using tar I still can't keep the flags straight, or that after 15 years of technological advancement I'm still mucking with tar flags that were 15 years old when I started.

2

@forest But it is also extracting the files, isn't?

It should be, yeah.

5:51 AM

So why it doesn't show contents

Why would it? It's just extracting them to the filesystem.

@forest Sure, So should I do something like nc -lp $port | tar -xvz | some_file?

So that I can view its contents

No, just tar x would be enough.

And then the contents will be put on the filesystem.

So you can cd into them and use less or cat.

@forest But where, in the current directory?

Or somewhere else?

Yeah whatever directory tar ran in.

The exact name of the directory depends on what you sent.

It'd probably be called some/dir in your local directory.

Assuming you sent /some/dir.

6:00 AM

hmm okay

@forest But what Rob did? just a _ ? I didn't get it?

@daya No that's the prompt.

He didn't enter anything.

@forest lol

@forest Oh I didn't noticed that because I have set my cursor always in blink mode

So I thought It as a command

6:32 AM

Anyone know what kind of privileges are required to exploit CVE-2018-12200?

The only two bugs exploitable by a local attacker in the CSME from a few days ago are that and CVE-2018-12190, but that one involves interaction with TXEI (I think?), which requires running in ring 0. But CVE-2018-12200 affects iCLS. The CVSSv3 does say "PR:H", but I hate how little information it gives about what the privs actually are.

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-12190

6:51 AM

@forest No unfortunately, because nobody here is more knowledgeable than you :P

Nah I'm sure people are. :P

I know some things, not everything. I wish I knew everything.

Then again, knowing everything would get depressing quite quickly.

@forest You are right

Being omnipotent without being omniscient would be fun. Being simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient would be boring. Being omniscient without being omnipotent would almost always lead to suicide.

@forest Yeah but they don't come here unfortunately

Well this is a pretty small chat.

I prefer IRC. Way more active.

6:56 AM

@forest true

Downloading Tor Browser always provides the latest version (eg. 8.0.8). Say I download it now, so I get version 8.0.8 (along with another 1000 people). If I use it on other devices in 2 months I'll start with 8.0.8, meaning an adversary knows that I am among the 1000 that got 8.0.8 which narrows down his search a lot.

Wouldn't it be better if everyone got only major releases? Since there would be a larger group to investigate?

@Fermiparadox No, because then said adversary could just exploit your outdated version, bypass Tor, and identify you. Far worse than a little fingerprinting.

Also, Tor Browser does updates by itself (prompting for a restart), so very, very quickly after you get the latest version, everyone else starts using it too.

@forest No, I mean I would update before use.

My point is just that if you always download the latest version, you'll be able to blend in with the largest anonymity set.

When having the following options:
a) Everyone downloads 8.0.0 by default -> (2 months later) update -> use.
b) Everyone downloads latest by default -> (2 months later) update -> use
which one is better?

7:11 AM

Ah I see what you mean.

Once you download the browser the first time, your connections to the download server will be routed through Tor, so an adversary at the level of your ISP only gets one snapshot of the version you download.

So they're both about the same, if I am assuming your threat model correctly.

Does Tor always update itself? I don't get notifications for available updates when I start Tor, lately. Instead a tiny green arrow appears at top right corner when updates are available.

That's the notification.

Sometimes it takes longer to prepare a release than others.

In the past it was more visible though, am i mistaken?

I don't think so?

I don't remember. I usually use Linux where I've configured updates through the package manager, so I don't see those notifications unless I'm on another machine.

I've seen documentaries about spies, lying to their family for 10-30 years. Hiding what they are truly doing. How do they survive that? It looks so tormenting, not being able to talk to anyone about your struggles.

7:26 AM

Well, it's not easy to keep up constant opsec.

Have you read The Grugq's list of CIA spy opsec?

-How was your day honey?
-Not bad, I sold some computers in France (in reality he was in Afghanistan risking his life while infiltrating terrorist cells)
Sounds so funny. :P

heh

Well, I'm not one to support those kinds of people.

I have a deep disdain for the intelligence community on all levels.

Grugq's list? I'll look it up.

Disdain? Why?

9:07 AM

sigh

I think you could be a little less agressive about this

→ 4 messages moved to Recycle Bin

wow ok

I'll rephrase it. Which one of you fine gentlemen is the patriot who has decided to bravely flag my evil communist rantings against our wonderful government?

SO - I can totally see, reading the scrollback why people are uncomfortable with the current line of conversation.

braces

And they're free to flag as they see fit

Hey last time I flagged a curse word I got threatened with being banned for abusing flags. Clearly people aren't free to flag as they see fit. :D

9:11 AM

→ 19 messages moved to Recycle Bin

wow

Removing on-topic messages. Nice.

I'll have a word with local mods later.

@JourneymanGeek Why were those removed?

This is the local puritan who goes around removing things that are "problematic".

I got banned once for saying "screwing with" once. :D

So... yeah.

Anyway, I won't let one person stop me from expressing my appreciation of whistleblowers who risk their lives to better their nation.

As much as some people might hate that.

@forest I get you have a problem with how I do things. It works pretty welll. If you have an issue with my chat moderation, you can take it up with the CMs.

9:15 AM

@JourneymanGeek why were those messages removed?

9 mins ago, by Journeyman Geek

SO - I can totally see, reading the scrollback why people are uncomfortable with the current line of conversation.

@Fermiparadox I'll have a word with the local mods when I can catch one over this. If it was excessive, they can let me know/undo it.

You mean it was removed because someone "felt uncomfortable"?

Sure.

This is public chat - and that's a determination we sometimes have to make

@JourneymanGeek I m guessing the f-word triggered Smoke Detector; i disagree with its removal but won't argue about it. However, "feeling uncomfortable" is something you should definitely discuss with fellow mods. Please ping me when you start discussing it, i'd love to hear or even participate.

10:04 AM

@J.J it doesn't really work like that. Best plan is to get on the waitlist, or even show up on the day and see if there are no-shows. Or they may have donation tickets left

@Fermiparadox yep, generally f-bombs will get posts removed

the other ones that were removed - well, to be honest they read as a bit of a rant about how evil humans are, how evil spies are and an argument about justifying whistleblowing

I'm okay with the removal - it's the kind of conversation that in the past has ust led to escalation, suspensions and fights. We don't really need it

@RoryAlsop Is anything of what I said about spies false?

"an argument about justifying whistleblowing" - Do you mean it in a negative way? Are arguments in favor of wistleblowing worthy of removal from this chat?

10:23 AM

@Fermiparadox no, I don't mean it like that

@Fermiparadox in the way you wrote it, yes

and the way @forest wrote

Could you please help me understand so that I don't repeat it? My messages were consisted of 2 parts:
-factual statements ("a sizable portion of spies commit crimes"; fact)
-personal judgement ("Such actions are very unethical")
Are any of those false? Are any of those prohibited from expressing? Is the phrasing unacceptable and if so which messages in particular.

your factual statements bit - that isn't what you wrote

your personal judgement bit - that also is not what you wrote

I think to be fair, from the initial bit that forest wrote that was removed, the rest is a continuation.

Probably without that starter most of the rest would have been okay - but in context it's just something we'd rather not have

10:39 AM

@RoryAlsop What exactly is false? I'd like to get a more accurate view of their world.

11:17 AM

@Fermiparadox you did not write "a sizable portion of spies commit crimes"

11:38 AM

@RoryAlsop I re-read my comments carefully: 1 wasn't phrased well, implies "moral <50%" i guess? Not what I had in mind. 2 refers to the immorality quality-wise, not population-wise. So you are right, i didn't phrase it exactly the way I had it in my mind.

I guess his whole conversation is now obsolete and can be safely removed. Since you mentioned that the rest would be ok (assuming no previous context), i hope you don't mind me re-asking some of it

I think your questions regarding protection considerations for whistleblowers seems fine as a standalone question.

Would it also be on-topic as a site-question?