Ohhh… No, not battlefield earth.
Mission Earth. 10 book series.
Ohhh… No, not battlefield earth.
Mission Earth. 10 book series.
The sheer number of different religions and the general talk about any religion, as well as the laughter at the idea of a god other than power, would have me disagree on that.
But that’s the fun thing about books - everyone gets their own interpretation of the message!
There are parts of it where he explicitly has the aliens talking about how stupid humans are for following dumbass religions, and how easily religious leaders - of any religion - can be bribed with power, money, and sex.
Its definitely not in support of any religion
Eh, maybe early on. Scientology was founded in the 50s, the Mission Earth series that made fun of religion and the people who followed it blindly was in the 80s just before he died, so I don’t think he bought into his own bs. I think that was him saying “You schmucks will still follow this crap after I die”.
I don’t believe in the slightest he though he created a novel approach to psychology.
He has other books he’s written where, plain as day, he points out the absurdity of religion and people following it. He put out a sci-fi book as a self help book because he thought it was funny and would make more money. He then made it a religion because he knew people were easily manipulated.
I am basing this on other things i’ve read from him, such as the Mission Earth series. I don’t believe in the slightest that he believed in any of it, from the junk science on up.
Was that the file transfer allowed for remote code execution one? That’d be the one that sticks out to me. 3 or 4 years ago iirc?
Edit: CVE-2021-27649 is the one that came to mind, not sure if that’s the one you’re referring to.
That’s my hope for my kids right now.
Still working out where to go, and of course the (lengthy) process of getting there, as well as an obvious step further than simply sending my kids off to college elsewhere…
But “Not the US” is the answer to far too many questions right now.
Correct!
Thankfully my kids school will also just load it up from cash, so we drop a $20 in when needed. I make lunch every day, but if she is still hungry or wants a milk its there, and every Friday we let her get a dessert.
There are also fees to pay online for school trips, the book store, etc.
So is mine.
The funny part? He’s a union guy, doesn’t understand (despite repeated attempts to show) that Trump is anti-union. I’m sure the key component for him is really just some of that good old fashioned bigotry.
Which is also silly since he’s Cuban, and got some Testosterone shots recently (you know - gender affirming care).
He’s just clueless and won’t change his mind.
You were responding to me, and I most definitely didn’t equate the two. Maybe you meant to respond to someone else.
In any case, you can route between vlans (and subnets), but without a route you aren’t communicating between those vlans or.between subnets.
Also, you can have multiple subnets in a vlan, but you can’t have a single subnet across vlans.
The range (x.x.10.x and x.x.20.x from your example) is only the subnet side, you could have both of those subnets in one vlan. But you could not, for example, have x.x.10.x/24 exist in vlan 10 and vlan 20.
Just to have a straightforward reply…
Let’s start with the concept piece, which you dont need to explicitly follow, but is a decent ref. You dont need to use this explicitly, this is more about how far/close to enterprise you want, whether its for fun, for practice, whatever. From an enterprise perspective, you’ll typically have:
There are MANY variations and unique versions of this. This is more or less a typical enterprise with we home media uses mixed in.
Now for structure purposes, you basically would have:
OK so there are the generics, let’s go back to yours.
192.168.1.x - sounds like default to me. Risky to use for proxmox and network management on a vlan generic endpoints will land in. If you have a different one for default - great! Ignore this. If its management, id move Proxmox into 200 instead.
192.168.100.x - solid choice to group up your externally facing riskier stuff and funnel it all through one connection. I’d make sure when that connection goes down everything else loses connectivity - confirm that kill switch works. Bind their network interfaces to the virtual network that goes to your VPN connection (I’m assuming a docker container here).
192.168.200.x - yup, logical group, makes sense to do. I’d probably put your hypervisor here.
Now LXC vs Docker… I’d call that mostly preference. I prefer LXC. I also keep things at a stable version and upgrade when needed, not automatically. If you want automated, your best bet is docker. If you want rock stable, and d9nt mind.manual updates, LXC is great. You can automate some with ansible and the like, but that can be a lot to set up for minimal need. YMMV.
Anything I build from source (honestly, most of what I do) I put in an LXC. Anything I take someone else’s image (rare, but happens), is docker. I have a local git repo I keep synced to projects on codeberg, github, and the like, so my setups are all set to build from that local repo. Makes sure I’ve got the latest if something is taken down, but also a local spot to make changes, test, etc for anything I may push back upstream.
Hope that helps!
Edit: Forgot to talk security!
OK first off, figure out your threat model. Where would threats come from? How serious would they be? What risks are worth taking, which are not?
Security is an ogre (onion) - its got layers. For example, I have zero concern with region blocking. No one is hitting my network from China, so I’m not allowing some random to try and get in.
What I am concerned about is user credentialing for access - one login for all services, MFA is hard required, and I don’t do text/email as MFA - that’s baby town frolics levels of security, I don’t like it.
Best way to think of it is a row of bikes. A thief is going to come by and steal one. Which one will they go for?
Do you need to have 7 bike locks and encase the whole thing in concrete? Or do you need to be enough of a pain in the ass (u lock, braided steel cable or chain looped through the wheel and frame) that the other bike (with a $5 cable lock you can pop open with a bic pen).
Take a networking class. You have numerous fundamental misunderstandings and make wild assumptions on bridging gaps that has specific requirements to occur, which also requires a complete lack of any other security methods.
Take a networking class, please. You need it.
Edit: You’re mad and still down voting, I want to point out you dont even understand the link you provided.
You should probably read that. But looooooong before then, you should take an actual class on networking.
You need it.
Take a networking class instead of spewing nonsense please.
HOW WOULD YOU GET SHELL ACCESS TO HIS ROUTER FROM A FIREWALLED OFF VLAN THAT DOES NOT GAIN ACCESS TO THE MANAGEMENT VLAN THE ROUTER IS ON.
Holy crap dude.
BASIC networking.
Thats my line.
I’m also done having any sort of discussion with you, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of logical network design here, and I have no interest in correcting that. Enjoy your day.
That’s not how any of this works… At all.
No, its managed by the firewall. The existence of a VLAN does not grant it access to egress. The firewall needs to permit that behavior.
Your entire understanding of how a logical network works is wrong. I’m not trying to be a dick - this is just really bad information that you’re sharing.
Your understanding is correct.
Multiple routers is irrelevant and ridiculous.
You are aware that a firewall rule is how you would address - in software, with logic - someone trying to get from VLAN C to VLAN A, right?
That its part of the method you’d use as a layer of security to prevent someone gaining access to.your router?
Assuming the router is compromised from the start is similarly just nutso.
Yes.
And to be clear about things, because that comment doesn’t make any sense for VLANs - a VLAN can contain multiple subnets. You will not have a single subnet across multiple VLANs.
Your config is fine in that regard.
Oh he is not a good author by any stretch. The sci-fi equivalent of eating sugar - technically reading, has that fun sci-fi bits, but nothing of real value underneath.
C.S. Friedman is a highly undervalued SciFi/Fantasy writer IMO, I think she played in a lot of the same themes as Hubbard but with way better writing and much more interesting stories.
Hubbard was good at churn and rock solid as a swindler, and Mission Earth IMO was just him throwing his last "screw you"s to the people he conned.
A stupid but moderately entertaining read, with insane alien sex scenes, mostly from the perspective of a (I swear I’m not joking) small dicked trickster alien who keeps screwing up his own plans. I think its Hubbard’s self insert.
I wouldn’t bother with it though.