infosex.exchange <3
You are probably looking for the infosec.exchange Mastodon instance
This host is mostly for my random stuff, and in little part acts like a well-intentioned placeholder for the typosquatted domain.
Discoverability and Archiving
Currently I'm using this host for saving the items from my own feeds to the Wayback Machine and provide in-links for search engines. I hate that I have to do this, but the non-sense ideology of Mastodon pretty much ruined the search feature for Fediverse as a whole, and this wasn't changed by the fact that they owned their mistake and implemented search eventually.
Yes, I (or anyone else) could do similar things with other peoples published feeds, regardless of the tantrum. No, you can't defederate this, because the process doesn't rely on an instance.
Gluttony Section for Search Engines
@hanno As another datapoint, MOTW bypasses worth CVE's at MS (e.g. CVE-2025-24061). It's not the same ofc. as an automatic control is bypassed in such cases, but at the same time users could choose to bypass the control after a warning (which the CVE also bypasses).
@murb @bert_hubert @signalapp Great, that can be a checkbox then! I'm also sure that support/M.W. didn't have to deal with as many angry Europeans if the us-east-1 only affected users over the pond :)
@filippo @freddy @hanno I'll save this thread under "even your vendor doesn't approve CVSS" for future reference
@embedding_shapes @rickoooooo nix-shell works though, leaving you with tasks that are too complex for that but don't justify a container. Now I'm sure that can be a deal-breaker too, but it's worth keeping in mind that there is room for ad-hoc tasks.
@rislandr I had an account, forgot the pw, couldn't reregister the last time I tried...
@hanno I'm bringing this up exactly because when CVSS will be assigned it will either show 0.0 or some really weird non-sense. The former would be likely a better, but still misleading scenario,. My bet is on MITRE publishing some non-sense though.
@hanno Not saying it's not a vulnerability but I think you won't be able to score this with CVSS that would make CVE registration weird.
@bert_hubert @signalapp This is exactly why I think sharing some actual unmet requirements would be a good idea.
(FTR I was told they also used GCP as a fallback which apparently didn't work too well)
Thinking back to last year I remembered the us-east-1 outage, how it affected Signal and how the some of the users freaked out that they have to rely on US hyperscalers.
Wouldn't it be useful if
@signalapp (and maybe similar providers) published their infra requirements with little crosses and ticks, so alternative providers could aim for "good enough for Signal" service levels?
Related article by
@bert_hubert :
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-european-cloud-ladder/
Next Page