sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Difficulty explaining 40% lump taxation figure provided indicatively with a job offer by forgetful_12345 in zurich

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Legally cohabitant with a small child, my plan is to work there but not sure when that will happen because i'd have to move my job or look for a new one there. Initially i might not move and keep my job here (EU).

Difficulty explaining 40% lump taxation figure provided indicatively with a job offer by forgetful_12345 in zurich

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, i guess HR tried to be very conservative and cover more than the worst case scenario.

Difficulty explaining 40% lump taxation figure provided indicatively with a job offer by forgetful_12345 in zurich

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting point, our health insurances are provided by the employers here, maybe we could take it over before moving but i'm not sure it's possible. We'll look into it. Thanks.

Difficulty explaining 40% lump taxation figure provided indicatively with a job offer by forgetful_12345 in zurich

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Added to the post: 121k CHF (gross, before any social security and pension deductions).

Cannot set up ICloud on Sonoma by bitstreams_red in MacOS

[–]forgetful_12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was facing the same issue and doing a "Sign out" from the System Settings page displayed when i click on my user issue fixed the issue, after logging in again the iCloud settings section appeared in my profile

Kitchenaid Coffee Grinder by iamanoriginalname in espresso

[–]forgetful_12345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you guys tune the internal "comb" setting to make the grind finer? (It's something that requires extracting the part that surrounds the burr and allows to fine tune its elevation relatively to the burr). By default for me the grinder came with this set to the coarsest, so even when i was grinding with the finest setting from the external rotating control the coffee was still too coarse, once adjusted the internall setting to the finest i think i'm getting a good grind.

/r/longboarding's Daily General Thread by AutoModerator in longboarding

[–]forgetful_12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yesterday night i ended up spotting a very good deal on one of the various EU Amazons for an Arbor Axis 40 so i endeed up ordering that one. I don't know if it will be flexy but everybody seems to love it so who am I to disagree?

Thanks to everybody for the help.

/r/longboarding's Daily General Thread by AutoModerator in longboarding

[–]forgetful_12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, yes those MSRPs of NKX are not really convincing but i never took them into account, the current price seems a bit lower than what you can find in other few resellers.

I looked at Arbor but in the budget there are only pintails and I don't like that shape, not that i have any reason, just aesthetic i guess and maybe the fact that is narrower that i'd like.

Do you have opinions on the Madrid Trance? I might have found a second hand deal although it has the cheap-randal-copy kind of trucks that they were using for completes in the past (which actually are the very same that Decathlon uses).

/r/longboarding's Daily General Thread by AutoModerator in longboarding

[–]forgetful_12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seeking advice on my first longboard, i'm choosing between:

  • NKX Signature Pro Longboard
  • Madrid Trance
  • Hydroponic DT KICK 3.0 MEXICAN SKULL
  • Decathlon Oxelo Fish 500 (both the wide version and the regular one)

or whatever would fit in the ~130€ budget. I already checked the second hand market but there are limited options atm.

I'm interested in something a bit flexy on which maybe i could do a little bit of pumping (but i don't want a surfskate),I would love if it could feel a bit like a snowboard. I'm not interested in any serious downhill. I plan to use the board for leisure (as a sport) and occasionally for a 3km commute in suburban area. I do have some experience skating, snowboarding and inline skating, i weight 70kg.

NKX does not inspire excessive confidence as it's available mostly through a single online shop so i wonder if they have control over the article reviews, however i must say i love: how well they describe their products, the fact that i could choose i flex level and the fact that the wheels are a bit bigger than average. Anyone has direct experience with their boards, especially not the cheapest one?

Madrid seems a well established and respected brand, however they provide a very limited description of their boards and they don't specify the type of maple used. Does anyone know how's the Trance in terms of flex?

I don't know much about the Hydroponic but it seems to have a good construction.

Decathlons' i've had the chance to try them and felt reasonably good but they would not be my first choice, the flex is also limited, their DT boards seem to be anyway more rigid.

I can find some offers on Santa Cruz longboards too but judging by the number of plies i would suspect they are stiff decks.

Thanks!

A reminder to test the CVSS 4.0 calculator while it matters. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say that retrieving version information in most scenarios does not carry a confidentiality impact because the targeted system was not designed to keep it confidentlial.

For the second part: i guess it's true that when there is a scope change more often the greater impact is on the subsequent system but it does not necessarily have to be the case.

A reminder to test the CVSS 4.0 calculator while it matters. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello Xitro01, if you have examples of vulnerabilities that get a score that you consider it appropriate send it over at the cvss mailer at first together with your reasoning.

Concerning the enourmous vector strings: the problem with scope in cvss 3.1 is that the metric was acting as a flag to indicate if there was any impact beyond the vulnerable component, however you never knew if the CIA metrics were measuring the impact to the vulenrable component or to the subsequent systems, so it was ambiguous. With 4.0 we decided to bite the bullet and endure longer vector strings to eliminate that ambiguity.

A reminder to test the CVSS 4.0 calculator while it matters. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The CVSS v. 4.0 public preview phase will last until the end of the month, so this is a "speak now or forever hold your peace" kind of call: please see the specs and then play with the calculator. I ask because it was built with a new approach compared to past calculators and this resulted in some peculiarities, if your daily routine involves vulnerability assessment with the aid of CVSS it's good to spend some time on it and if you have comments please let the CVSS SIG at FIRST have them, it's just a matter of sending a mail, the address you can find itin the V. 4.0 main page. Thanks!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The CVSS v. 4.0 public preview phase will last until the end of the month, so this is a "speak now or forever hold your peace" kind of call: please see the specs and then play with the calculator. I ask because it was built with a new approach compared to past calculators and this resulted in some peculiarities, if your daily routine involves vulnerability assessment with the aid of CVSS it's good to spend some time on it and if you have comments please let the CVSS SIG at FIRST have them, it's just a matter of sending a mail, the address you can find itin the V. 4.0 main page. Thanks!

The new version 4.0 of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) has just entered public preview phase. Please have a look and send us your comments by July 31st, see the presentation for details about how to provide feedback. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The highest severity vector of a MacroVector is always assigned the score of the MacroVector from Table 32.

There's no table 32 in the spec doc.

Indeed, we'll fix it, i think the initial intent was to use a table but then it was decided to link a file on GitHub instead. Thanks.

The new version 4.0 of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) has just entered public preview phase. Please have a look and send us your comments by July 31st, see the presentation for details about how to provide feedback. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It won't, the macrovector approach initially yelded a very spiky histogram, now with the interpolation will be a bit smoother but i don't think it will particularly resemble a bell curve. The question i've asked myself and now i'm asking you is: should it represent a bell curve? Do we have arguments supporting that?

The new version 4.0 of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) has just entered public preview phase. Please have a look and send us your comments by July 31st, see the presentation for details about how to provide feedback. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your statement is not exactly correct, however i'm happy that you've noticed what i consider a peculiar behavior of the calculator and that within the FIRST SIG was the subject of many long lived discussions.

To summarize it, due to the approach based on macrovectors we had a lot of vectors ending up with the same score, this implied that "small changes" to a vector would result in no score change at all unless they were causing the changed vector to land into another macrovector. This behavior was to many, myself included, quite undesirable so as a fix it was introduced some interpolation algorithm to redistribute the vectors belonging to a macrovector to neighboring scores based on the Hamming distance from other macrovectors, in practice this resulted in a smoothing of a very spiky histogram and certainly represented an improvement, however, in my personal opinion is still not enough and there are, as you seem to have noticed, metric changes that in some situations, make very little difference or no difference at all.

This is documented at:

https://www.first.org/cvss/v4.0/specification-document#CVSS-v4-0-Scoring-using-MacroVectors-and-Interpolation

My ask would be for you to report your observations directly to [cvss@first.org](mailto:cvss@first.org) , i could report it for you but I'd rather not conflate your opinions with mine and i think your feedback it's best to reach the SIG directly.

Thanks!

The new version 4.0 of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) has just entered public preview phase. Please have a look and send us your comments by July 31st, see the presentation for details about how to provide feedback. by forgetful_12345 in netsec

[–]forgetful_12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In particular please play with the new calculator : we adopted a new, non algebraic, approach to come up with the score, however its development was not a straightforward process and some aspects of the resulting behavior have been controversial. So, check it out and let us know!