Yes, exactly. The convention is to use the lowest address in the range (e.g. 192.168.1.0/24), since you’re allowing a range of addresses rather than a single one.

The reason to do this is that many firewall rules will be based on sets of addresses - you might want to allow traffic from any device in your local network without having to add individual rules for each

You might want to use either a /24 address or a /32 address in a firewall rule, depending on what you’re trying to do. The difference is that the /24 one refers to a set of IPs, while the /32 one applies to only one IP.

Say you’re adding a firewall rule like iptables -A - s 192.168.1.123/32 - j ACCEPT. This will accept all traffic with the source IP 192.168.1.123. If instead you use iptables -A - s 192.168.1.123/24 - j ACCEPT, you’ll accept all traffic with a source IP in the 192.168.1.123/24 subnet, which is all the IPs between 192.168.1.0 & 192.168.1.255.

In the case of your WiFi IP, the subnet does something different. It tells you which IP addresses you should expect to be able to contact directly, and which you need to contact via a router. 192.168.1.214/24 says that all the IPs between 192.168.1.0 & 192.168.1.255 can be reached directly, whereas IPs outside that range need to be sent to a router.

ip route will show you the routes a device knows about. It’ll look something like this (simplifying a bit):

default via 192.168.1.1
192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 src 192.168.1.214

The first line is the default route, which is used when no more specific route exists. It says that you talk to these IPs by sending your traffic to 192.168.1.1 (your wifi router) and it’ll send it on from there.

The second one says that for IPs in the 192.168.1.0/24, you directly talk to them using your wlan0 interface

Most UK house construction doesn’t really allow for retrofitting cables in the way that seems to be common in the the US

They tested using a green light for the front brake light, not a red one

Sure, but that’s not the setup you described in the original post. I think that’s probably where your confusion is coming from - people are responding about a setup that’s just a PiHole, not a PiHole plus router features to ensure that it’s used.

Ultimately any setup that allows the device internet access is going to introduce some opportunities for tracking/telemetry/ads. If the vendor really wants to they could just channel all that data through a single HTTPS connection, along with the useful data you want to let the device access. You won’t have any way to inspect that traffic and selectively block it, so you end up having to chose between blocking everything or blocking nothing.

Your setup sounds like it’s reaching the privacy/functionality trade off that you want.

With a Pihole, you aren’t preventing the device from reaching the internet, you’re just refusing to provide it answers to its DNS requests. That means that it can’t translate a domain name (example.com) to an IP address (1.2.3.4) using your DNS server. But there’s nothing stopping it from using a different DNS server whose IP it has hardcoded, and nothing stopping it from then talking to anything on the internet once it has the correct IP to use.

In contrast, the other poster sounds to be using a firewall to apply ACLs. That means that the only way to reach the WAN is by passing over the firewall, and the firewall can apply rules about what traffic it allows. That prevents the device talking to a hardcoded DNS server, or talking to something on the internet if it alreadt knows its IP.

The other poster also talks about adding specific exemptions to these ACLs for specific services. So, e.g. letting the TV reach Jellyfin, but only Jellyfin & not all the other devices on the network. That reduces the risk of an attacker using the IoT device as a way to attack the rest of the network, since there’s less stuff to attack. You’re right that this is a fairly marginal gain for an IoT device which doesn’t have WAN access anyway.

The downside of this approach is that the device enforcing the ACLs has to handle all the network traffic. That means it needs more processing power to take packets, apply the ACL rules and then decide whether or not to send it onward. The upside of a Pihole is that DNS is a relatively tiny amount of traffic, so it takes much less processing power to handle just DNS.

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.

The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.

I don’t think anyone but you ever said he was irrelevant, or bragged about not knowing who he was. You’re extracting a ton of meaning to a short comment which I just don’t think is actually there

https://socialblade.com/youtube/handle/asmontv says there’s over thousand youtube channels with more subscribers than him. He might well be large & influential in his niche, but it’s unlikely that people outaide his niche will know who he is. Do you think you’ve heard of 1,000 biggest youtubers whose channels aren’t about things you’re interested in?

Pewdiepie, by comparison, is the 12th most subscribed channel on youtube. I think you’re underestimating how much more famous that makes him with the general public.

#\s+ is:

• #: a literal #

• \s: any whitespace character (space, tab etc)

• +: the previous thing (here the whitespace), one or more times

In words: “a hash followed by at least one whitespace character”

#[^\s]. is:

• #: a literal #

• [^\s] : a negated character class. This matches anything other than the set of characters after the ^. \s has the same meaning as before, any whitespace character

• . : matches any single character

In words: “a hash followed by any character other than a whitespace character, then any character”.

https://regex101.com/ is really good for explaining regex

https://source.android.com/docs/setup/contribute/licenses says most of the Android userspace is Apache 2 licensed. While they can’t close source the Android branch of the kernel, they could close-source new userspace code and it would probably diverge from the last open source release quite quickly.

Realistically, that would probably be sufficent to make Android functionally closed-source, even if the GPL bits were still available.

I think this is maybe best expressed as pmOS development being controlled by the community, rather than a single organisation. I’d much rather use an OS where I have confidence that the developers are acting in the users best interest, rather than their employers best interest.

My opinion is that forks/downstreams of giant codebases like AOSP are largely going to have to accept choices made by the upstream. They can maybe pick and chose a few points where they maintain local patches, but that takes a lot of effort.

As an example, I think most chromium-based browsers will end up dropping support for uBlock Origin because Google dropped it upstream. That’s the kind of choice they [edit: i.e. google] can make in their own self-interest by virtue of controlling the project, and the reason I’d prefer to use community-developed software.

And they’re not going to pay millions to be the default for a browser that no one uses.

Yeah, its not unreasonable that you’d have a remote way to access the device to gather debug data with the customers consent. An SSH key in the firmware is a flexible way to do that, so long as there are good controls in place to ensure that it isn’t misused.

I think multiple people already have access to the databases that store the data the device sends. I don’t really care whether they get the data from the device itself or from the database.

Similarly, I think multiple people have the ability to make changes to the firmware build and the systems that distribute it. So those people already have the potential ability to gain access to the device.

One person or multiple people having unauthorised access are both unacceptable. I’m saying that the users have to trust the companies ability to prevent that occurring, and that therefore this particular technical detail is mostly irrelevant

I’m 90% sure it is not a single user. I just don’t see how that really affects the security of the product, given that the company that sells it can already do the things the author is saying can be done if you have this key.

To be clear, I wouldn’t buy this. I just don’t think the SSH key makes it any worse than it already was

A shared account doesn’t mean everyone who works there has access to it, or that those who do have access aren’t subject to some type of access control.

The article basically goes on to say that the existence of this key makes a huge difference to the security/privacy of the product. It argues that using it, someone could access data from the device, or use it to upload arbitrary code to the device for it to run. However, those are both things the user is already trusting the company with. They have to trust that the company has access controls/policies to prevent individual rogue employees doing the things described. It seems unreasonable to say that an SSH key being on the device demonstrates that those controls aren’t in place.

The email address attached to the public key, eng@eightsleep.com, to me suggests the private key is likely accessible to the entire engineering team.

This assumption is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the authors argument that this is a big deal.

This assumes that the reviewer who gave the rating wasn’t considering value as part of their scoring. I’d expect the reviewer to be scoring a TV based on his good it is compared to similarly priced competitors, not comparing to every other TV on the market