Replying to
@soatok@furry.engineer @christopherkunz@chaos.social damn it I knew it, grabbing my go-bag and heading for the woods for a couple of decades.
Remote
Arik
@pq1r@tech.lgbt
mastodon 4.7.2+glitch.techlgbtI'm human. Deal with it.
34 Followers
142 Following
50 Posts
Joined July 25, 2023
Species:
Human
Pronouns:
Any
Born:
Ancient past
Location:
Universe
Location, more granular:
The Netherlands
Replying to
@catsalad@infosec.exchange Productivity was definitely hacked. Slashed. Torn to pieces. Decimated.
Replying to
@Epic_Null@infosec.exchange @TindrasGrove@infosec.exchange exactly, these systems existed for years. I was using s/key 2FA in the 1990s when smartphones were still science fiction - just a piece of paper with (pseudo-)random codes with serial numbers. The computer would tell me which serial number to use and I would type the code. They were not reusable, but by default I got a single page with 100 of these, good for 100 logins. It would be easy to add since open source implementations already exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/KEY
Replying to
@soatok@furry.engineer @christopherkunz@chaos.social I don't want to throw shade unnecessarily and this goes into conspiracy theory area, but there have rumors that the NSA tries to insert itself into committees that deal with encryption and disrupt discussions that end up in stronger encryption; and that they've done exactly that in IPSec discussions.
Replying to
@neilmadden@infosec.exchange if your context is purely software distribution, I would agree that both formats are suitable in principle, but the caveat is OS support.
Windows didn't come with a tar utility until "recently" (I want to say Windows 10?) and couldn't open tar from the Explorer GUI until... 24H2 (I had to google that one). There's probably a decent install base without the ability to extract tar.
On the other hand, ZIP is not part of the POSIX standard so although the command line utilities are included in all the repos, and as far as I'm aware all of the desktop distributions have them by default both through the GUI and on the command line -the minimal installation of for example Rocky Linux (heavily used as a standard) or Alma Linux (used as a basis for many Docker images) don't include them by default.
MacOS being a desktop OS has them both since I think OS X.
You could argue that it SHOULD be standardised around one of the formats, but it hasn't yet.
Replying to
@hotsoup@infosec.exchange @jerry@infosec.exchange you could wear a kilt... without underwear.
Oldie but still good: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/going-commando-on-the-tsa-redux-a-kilt-wearer-speaks/
I completed #Celtix 701 using 12 walls.
#CellTower 1489
➡️➡️⬇️⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛➡️⬇️⬛⬛⬛
⬆️⬛➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️⬆️➡️➡️➡️➡️
I completed #Celtix 724 using 11 walls.
#CellTower 1466
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬇️⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️⏹️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️
I completed #Celtix 723 using 14 walls.
Replying to
@kagan@wandering.shop I know several people who immigrated using this One Trick ™️
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch%E2%80%93American_Friendship_Treaty
Replying to
@neilmadden@infosec.exchange These tools come from different heritages.
ZIP was designed to archive compressed files. Developed in the PC DOS era and came from that mentality - it didn't even have a path for each file, no file permissions. The directory of files is stored at the end of the file, unsuitable for streaming but enables fast random access. Modern versions have paths and per-file encryption.
The tar format was designed with the UNIX philosophy, originally for Tape ARchive. Streaming by design, no directory (each file has a small before it, which includes its path and permissions). Files are not compressed - if you want compression you have to pipe the output of tar into a compression utility, something modern tar implementations do themselves. Same with encryption.
If your goal is to just compress a folder, both will do a decent job - but try to stream ZIP and you'll hit a wall. Random access in a tar requires going over the entire archive, which can be long. There are use cases for both.
I completed #Celtix 698 using 14 walls.
I completed #Celtix 700 using 14 walls.
I completed #Celtix 727 using 14 walls.
I completed #Celtix 721 using 10 walls.
I completed #Celtix 699 using 13 walls.
I completed #Celtix 726 using 11 walls.
I completed #Celtix 725 using 16 walls.
I completed #Celtix 729 using 13 walls.
I completed #Celtix 722 using 13 walls.
I completed #Celtix 728 using 14 walls.