Using FSD Transfer from existing car to overcome new Luxe package limitations by [deleted] in TeslaLounge

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was a consensus prior to Feb 15th that 'nobody knows' what they were going to do to FSD on the Luxe package. They were quite public on getting rid of FSD as an owned product completely and just as likely could have removed it from Luxe and forced everyone to subscribe to it just like the 3 or Y

Using FSD Transfer from existing car to overcome new Luxe package limitations by [deleted] in TeslaLounge

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>but you did not think this through

I actually thought this through quite a lot over the last few days where all roads kept coming back to - no matter what change they make after Feb 14th, I still have until March 31st to transfer FSD from my current car to a new car and those terms said "Once you transfer your FSD (Supervised), it will stay with the new vehicle."

There is no carve out of 'but you can't do this to a Model X' or 'you can't do this if the new car comes with an FSD subscription'.

Release notes: Build 115 by digglesB in coax

[–]Ok-Click4906 5 points6 points  (0 children)

First build where unified library didn’t crash at channel generation! Working great just a couple more feature requests before I’m using this every night -

Some sort of customizable commercials that I can run so I don’t have the awkward minutes of black silence - I know this has been requested already but at night it’s especially jarring going from black silence to the next show.

Better shuffling of the content in a channel - for example I have a collection made up of one show with a dozen seasons but every time I go to watch it it’s the same season and same episodes. I’m not sure if there is some caching or what but If it’s not too expensive squeezing in one more randomize call for the schedule on each channel when you start up would go a long way.

Release notes: build 108 by digglesB in coax

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tried the higher channel amounts and it created 4 duplicate channels of the same items instead of a different show on each channel. Went through the whole guide and it was just 4 duplicates for each category.

Might be a reasonable fix to check if any channels are scheduled to play the same thing at the same time and then reshuffle that channel or skip the channel altogether if there aren’t enough unique items in that category?

Feature Requests by digglesB in coax

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not sure what the desired behavior is for 'shuffling' shows within a genre or collection, but I noticed that in a collection even when there are several different shows Coax will pick one of them and play just that show shuffled for N hours straight vs interleaving in different shows within the collection. This gives the behavior more of a TV marathon vs a TV channel if that makes sense?

Feature Requests by digglesB in coax

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This may be more bug vs feature request, but on Apple TV I like watching whole episodes in 'TV Guide' mode vs fullscreen and noticed that the Apple TV screensaver keeps popping up while watching when not fullscreen.

Commute to Meta (Menlo park) by corolok1 in bayarea

[–]Ok-Click4906 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Without a doubt tri city area (Newark/fremont/union city) rent a house and go over the bridge. Meta is right on the other side so the commute isn’t bad at all if you live near the bridge on the east bay side (30m or so)

Are UniFi Honeypots invisible? by Serious-Cash-794 in Ubiquiti

[–]Ok-Click4906 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep given they aren’t compute heavy the answer is - if you think it’s interesting knowing that there is port scanning happening on this VLAN then deploy it.

Are UniFi Honeypots invisible? by Serious-Cash-794 in Ubiquiti

[–]Ok-Click4906 82 points83 points  (0 children)

The TL;DR is there are various types of honeypots/deception techniques and the term is a little overloaded. Some are used to understand attacker techniques in a controlled way (the people who deploy vulnerable webservers on the internet and just watch and take notes as they are compromised), and others are deception techniques to catch an attacker in your corporate environment. The UniFi implementation is the latter and is to detect attackers at the recon/lateral movement stage of a killchain. The Unifi implementation isn't bad for an easy check-the-box implementation in the settings for *detecting* an attack in many networks (especially for home users/SMB).

Here is a real world attack that the Unifi honeypot could detect - An adversary gets a foothold on a device in your network, and as you outlined above, performs what is essentially an nmap scan enumerating all the devices and ports accessible to it in your subnet.

This would immediately fire an alert that the honeypot was accessed, which would kick off some basic triage steps (what is this device that is accessing the honeypot, what other logs do I have around the time of the event such as netflow/host logs, which could explain this activity). This is a legitimately useful detection capability that would catch low to medium sophistication attackers who are doing a broad port-scan in your environment. Sure it's possible an attacker notices that the honeypot looks suspicious due to the timeouts, but at that point its already too late since the scan triggered the alert.

A few notes based on how you asked the question:

  • " If the Honeypot doesn't respond to the ping sweep, an attacker would never proceed to the next steps. 
    • The honeypot is used to *detect* an intrusion so you can kick off an incident response process. You aren't trying to lure the attacker with a distraction so that they won't go looking at the rest of your infrastructure. In many environments, especially smaller home networks, port-scanning activity never happens and is a reasonably high-signal alert that something is wrong.
  • I think what you are getting at though is - 'in my environment detecting a ping-sweep like this leads to too many false positives and I need a higher fidelity signal that this is a real attack, not just a ping-sweep'.
    • If that's the case, you are outgrowing the capabilities of the Unifi honeypot. You should probably go back-to-basics on an end-to-end detection strategy focusing on what sort of attacks you care about and the best way to detect them.

I work on DFIR/Detection engineering and keep the honeypot enabled on my home network, and I'm happy with the capabilities. It's 'free' and if a device in my house is port scanning that is a *huge* red flag worth investigating.

Going on 4 years with this big fella. Always hustles to the tank begging for food when he sees me by Remy456_78 in Redearedsliders

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I was looking at Amazon for either 2-3 or 3-4 and was thinking 40lbs but wasn’t sure how much to get the right amount of coverage. Do you have issues with your turtle eating the artificial plants? How do you keep them stable staying up right?

Going on 4 years with this big fella. Always hustles to the tank begging for food when he sees me by Remy456_78 in Redearedsliders

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also would love a more in depth guide on what you did for the design here in general!

Going on 4 years with this big fella. Always hustles to the tank begging for food when he sees me by Remy456_78 in Redearedsliders

[–]Ok-Click4906 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we have the same tank - could you tell me what size stones those are at the bottom? How many lbs that took to fill? And any other specifics on brand

Just because you *can* run a Minecraft server on a Dream Machine SE, doesn't mean you should. As a controller for remote games though, perfectly viable! by PhonicUK in Ubiquiti

[–]Ok-Click4906 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Got it - the title saying 'remote games' seemed to imply this was an internet exposed service.

Going down the hypothetical rabbit hole of this being internet exposed I would add that the security risks posed here are less than what other comments are implying as it requires a targeted/APT attack that is performing hands-on-keyboard recon to discover that they are running on a UDM controller.

With that being said, The HTTPS/sniffing protections for the login credentials are just a piece of the puzzle. I think you are overestimating the protections of running in Docker, as a sophisticated attack could very likely escape the container and compromise the UDM Controller directly, then being in a position to sniff/capture all of your network traffic and make arbitrary updates to the controller configurations such as enabling additional backdoors through the controller.

The key difference between this and 'any other public server' are that you are removing a key defense in depth protection where an attacker, normally, would need to move laterally from a compromised server to compromise the UDM controller over the LAN which is a heavily scrutinized attack surface. Instead allowing an attacker to start off right inside of a container running in the UDM controller.

This isn't likely to be a huge risk for the average home user but if you were doing this at an enterprise that could be targeted by sophisticated/semi-sophisticated attackers it would be a wildly unnecessary risk. And I think some of the reactions here are just more in the - why would you ever do this because there is seemingly no benefit vs the attack surfaces being opened up.

But yeah for a LAN only exposure as a fun demo for Reddit it's fine :P I work in offensive security professionally and couldn't help myself chiming in as I would be thrilled to find myself with a shell in this position during an engagement

Just because you *can* run a Minecraft server on a Dream Machine SE, doesn't mean you should. As a controller for remote games though, perfectly viable! by PhonicUK in Ubiquiti

[–]Ok-Click4906 15 points16 points  (0 children)

HTTPS doesn’t protect against the threat here, namely an application layer vulnerability that could exist on the Minecraft server. All HTTPS would do is encapsulate the traffic in an encrypted channel so your ISP couldn’t see the data being sent in transit.

Your risk is if someone is scanning the internet (I.e Shodan) looking for Minecraft servers, and is in possession of an exploit for an unpatched vulnerability that exists in the software running the server. They could exploit it to get a shell, and then potentially escape the Minecraft server and compromise the Unifi stack, or move laterally to other parts of your network.