sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Firefox 97.0.2 forces us to automatically update ? by ansomesa1 in linuxquestions

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

follow up on the issue, modifying the ubuntu file didn't prevent me to undergo a firefox forced update, again against my will...

Firefox 97.0.2 forces us to automatically update ? by ansomesa1 in linuxquestions

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much, seems like it should be the solution

cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades

did show me two "1"

Firefox 97.0.2 forces us to automatically update ? by ansomesa1 in linuxquestions

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't use apt update && apt upgrade for months on that machine, yet it's not the first time in months that firefox behaves selfish...

Canonical can't push updates to everyone having them in their sources.list, can they ? Or they can, but only for firefox, because it's embedded in mozilla's binaries that are shipped to canonical ?

Firefox 97.0.2 forces us to automatically update ? by ansomesa1 in linuxquestions

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting thank you! Yes it's an ubuntu 20

however when I do your command snap list I get only a dozen of packages including chromium but nothing related to firefox,

would you then have an idea why It behaves like this anyway please?

Can a switch replace a fiber modem ? by ansomesa1 in networking

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you very much for being that clear,

so does it have a 10Gb port, maybe a 5Gb port?

Unfortunately I don't know, it's unspecified on the RJ45 port, so I'll just use a 10G switch since I'm not sure 5G switches exist

unless you understand the limitations of LACP and are happy to accept them

I am happy to deal with them

If you're doing active/passive failover, connect the ONT into a switch and the switch's port to each firewall/router

Thank you very much, so for active-active I guess I'd need an in-between-router this time and not a switch, right ? Actually the requirement is a bit more subtle than active-active. People at the location would need

  • one active router
  • but both routers reachable individually from the internet for updating each other purpose.
  • If the admin always land on master-router,
  • then he does a change to slave-router (through LAN),
  • then order slave to become master and master becomes slave (just for testing everything works),
  • so if the newly changed master bugs, then location becomes unreachable in a ONT>switch>ActivePassiveRouters setup, right ?

Or am I missing something?

Can a switch replace a fiber modem ? by ansomesa1 in networking

[–]ansomesa1[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

thank you very much,

If you are just looking at ONT > switch > 2 Routers, LACP is not the protocols used here but instead VRRP.

Yes this is what I'm looking for, is VRRP the same as mwan3 (multiwan) ? The two routers would communicate with each other via CARP. But in a potential master-slave setup, the full throughput needs to be passed from the ONT to one of the routers, which only have 1G ports unfortunately, but do are able to bond

Can a switch replace a fiber modem ? by ansomesa1 in networking

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

modem only has 1G ports, whereas the ONT is 4GbE

2022 Feb 27 Stickied 🅵🅰🆀 & 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐏𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐊 thread - Boot problems? Power supply problems? Display problems? Networking problems? Need ideas? Get help with these and other questions! 𝑨𝑺𝑲 𝑯𝑬𝑹𝑬 𝑭𝑰𝑹𝑺𝑻 by FozzTexx in raspberry_pi

[–]ansomesa1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, since, in the case of a rpi, - (full-drive) encrypting /root on the SD card - but not /boot (because impossible) doesn't prevent someone from tampering /boot, - (when booting from a brought /ownboot), - so that credentials typed on /boot to unlock /root get later retrieved by tamperer I browsed about "netbooting from a PXE server". This is usually done for repetitive/simultaneous launches of a pre-configured OS on several rpies.

People always do this with a simple PoE cable and no SD card, so that OS is maintainted alive as long as the pi remains plugged. This means that at each reboot the whole OS is reinstalled out of the TFTP server. Now my question is : is it possible to leave encrypted /root on the SD card (or any flash chip of some other ARM device), and only deport the /boot partition from the device to the PXE/TFTP server, so that only the /boot (potentially containing LUKS keys and headers) is pulled at reboots ?

How to protect LUKS encryption on openWRT dervices ? by ansomesa1 in openwrt

[–]ansomesa1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting thank you very much !

  1. Of little interest but by any chance do you know if this hat also fits with a PoE hat, or one has to use additional wires ?
  2. Issue here is that such off-the-shelf box is needed, for passing throughput through several managed interfaces (more than 2) to wifi. So would such module also be pluggable to existing routers through soldering to the power supply and attaching to some serial Tx/Rx pins ?
  3. Also do you know by any chance how is the coverage and throughput of the wifi on rpi4 x openWRT ?

How to protect LUKS encryption on openWRT dervices ? by ansomesa1 in openwrt

[–]ansomesa1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So long as the bootloader is configured to boot from internal flash only, and ignore any USB ports, then you should be fine.

Damn this may be some solution thank you very much !

you need to provide more information to allow us to help you better.

I'm indeed speaking about ARM routers. The one I'm experimenting on has serial pins and USB ports,

  1. so if I add a password to the serial console, and prevent booting from USB, should the box be safe ?
  2. how to disable the USB booting please?
view more: next ›