Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 20:51:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Rewriting SSA. Is This A Chance For GNU/Linux?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
References: <pan$54963$b3f3d4e6$ae35ff46$71fe05c9@linux.rocks>
 <vsksb5$3df6l$1@dont-email.me>
 <ZI2dnQjwJajG9XP6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <m581c7Fd22eU2@mid.individual.net>
 <DJOdnXslWrdAbHP6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <m58mnpFguqjU2@mid.individual.net> <vso5qc$31clb$1@dont-email.me>
 <E2WdnXiNaZ9CTXL6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <pan$f2307$df5236a$923c4908$a6fb4a1f@linux.rocks>
 <6BidndvG26Vec236nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vsr383$2421k$1@dont-email.me>
 <Tz2dnbEsYvaaHmz6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vss108$2vde2$6@dont-email.me>
 <MI-dnf3_6bzzM2z6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <vt1d6c$e0sl$2@dont-email.me>
 <TsudnYL_HJhO12n6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1834560e02e32793$90856$735129$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
 <vt3456$26qph$1@dont-email.me>
 <9PCcnTNvhsJdr2j6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vt40q3$2rc8f$4@dont-email.me> <f9iJP.1877219$t84d.916817@fx11.iad>
 <wv6dndwsnOkdRmj6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <vt6dl2$k23l$3@dont-email.me>
From: c186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 16:51:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vt6dl2$k23l$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <x2ydndjj6556QGv6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mTW5TCT6avZaeQ7O+AoI1lZFWbQ0jzuJrlgr+4Vc4eOMpimpNgTFGeZ9B9kXICledNOff5tzvEQl0W6!GiRgYGiJX7v+KcPCZVlFSYIFPldliKBEgVGPISnJtLsKBu5VuuxS2jaT+OTbw3gKVPyz4D1K4iQ/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4996

On 4/9/25 2:18 PM, -hh wrote:
> On 4/8/25 22:29, c186282 wrote:
>> On 4/8/25 7:18 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-08, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Plus front-loading it before you've run your in-house checks means that
>>>> your operating expenses to this contractor service go UP not down.  
>>>> Yes,
>>>> that's a deliberate waste of taxpayer dollars.
>>>
>>> You'd think someone would want to try to reduce that waste.
>>> Maybe set up a Department Of Government Efficiency or something...
>>
>>
>>    Hey ... humans are only JUST so smart, AI is
>>    even more stupid, and govt agencies .........
>>
>>    Likely the expense of the earlier checks do NOT add
>>    up to much.
> 
> It might not be, but in this case, the benefit of the change is 
> literally zero ... and the expenses are not only more money to the 
> contractor who gets paid by the check request, but also the cost of 
> higher bandwidth demands which is what caused the site to crash.
> 
> 
>>    I did mention one possible gain in doing the ID checks
>>    earlier - giving Vlad and friends less access to the
>>    deeper pages/system, places where more exploitable
>>    flaws live.
>>    In short, put up a big high city wall - then you>    don't have to 
>> worry AS much about the inner layers
>>    of the city.
> 
> I don't really buy that, because of symmetry: when the workflow is that 
> a request has to successfully pass three gates, its functionally 
> equivalent to (A x B x C) and the sequence doesn't matter:  one gets the 
> same outcome for (C x B x A), and (A x C x B), etc.
> 
> The primary motivation for order selection comes from optimization 
> factors, such as the 'costs' of each gate: one puts the cheap gates 
> which knock down the most early, and put the slow/expensive gates late, 
> after the dataset's size has already been minimized.


   I understand your reasoning here.

   The point I was trying to make is a bit different
   however - less to really do with people trying to
   defraud the system but with those seeking to
   corrupt/destroy it. I see every web page, every
   bit of HTML/PHP/JS executed, every little database
   opened, as a potential source of fatal FLAWS enemies
   can find and exploit to do great damage.

   In that context, the sooner you can lock out pretenders
   the better - less of the system exposed to the state-
   sponsored hacks to analyze and pound at relentlessly.

   Now Musk's little group DID make a mistake in
   not taking bandwidth into account (and we do
   not know how ELSE they may have screwed up
   jamming new code into something they didn't
   write) but 'non-optimal' verification order
   MIGHT be worth the extra $$$ in an expanded
   'security' context.