Latincom: > > Really nice post, thanks: > I have one [OT] question, i use Wheezy at work, but i tested Kodachi a > Debian derivative, and it took the HWID! Is it a security problem? Well, > a second question, are you saying, that when i use Tails, i must not > permit scrips?
Some of those systems are meant to run live or in vm and not installed on the hd. I don't know about Kodachi but tails is basically a debian package hardened into a live system with networking restricted through tor. It allows you to make a conscious decision and use the "unsafe" browser, which is more unsafe than tbb with scripts enabled. So I will propose to you to ask yourself, are those who you trust requiring you to enable scripts to read their information or participate in a forum? So, what is it they don't understand? Aaaahhh!! Stick with debian! >From your debian repository you can install forum, webmail, webpage, servers that function perfectly without scripts. So the question that comes to mind is does it have to be this way? enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2013/01/27/them-and-us-v-the-sixth#it doesn’t have to be this way I am not 100% sure of the internals of all this, I say what I trully can understand. Can you mount your hard drive through the use of tails? Can you read data off of it? If by enabling scripts you indirectly allowing an application to open ports on networking that were otherwise shut. Then data from you hd could potentially pass through on the network. What may be encrypted beyond your machine or your lan is not encrypted within your machine. You can read it. And you can never ever be sure who is on the other side of the connection ... can you bet your children that wikipedia today is what it was and it is not a wikipedia to you looking like a wikipedia? There is no limit to how paranoid you may get in digital systems when even your physical surroundings provide plenty of grounds to be paranoid about. You just take some "relative" good measures appropriate for your use based on a general consensus of those who deal with "the problem". Your definition of the problem is the definition of what you consider safe. Some distrust big-profitable corporations and distrust governments. Some are exactly the opposite. Some don't trust either but consider their political/religious safe-heavens to trust. And then there are those that do not really trust anything and anybody, and although I feel bad for them they have already lost in their own personal nightmare game. So, how many lights do you see Jean-Luc? Stay with us! There is what some may call ethical hacking which has stricter moral code than the Vatican, Jerusalem or Mecca combined. And then there is the scum of the earth who deal in child exploitation, of lives and exchange of contraband that benefit from all this. To answer some of these questions is to provide the child molester or the non-adult traffickers and poison distributors the tools to be more effective. Which is a moral dilemma. You can destroy a life with a hammer and the hammer is perfectly legal and socially acceptable, as a tool. > Lat kAt -- "The most violent element in society is ignorance" rEG
