• 0 Posts
  • 79 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 5th, 2023

help-circle
  • You can go far below $300 with very little practical performance compromise, but I wouldn’t even look on Amazon with memory prices being what they are lately. Get an old DDR3 era Optiplex desktop on eBay, throw a $25 Quadro P400 in it for transcoding, and transfer your existing SSDs over. Tons of eBay listings have 2-4 day shipping. With DDR3 you can easily get 16GB of RAM for like $30 if it doesn’t have enough already. Avoiding DDR4/DDR5 will save a ton of money so it’s essential to buy used.

    The SSDs and hard drives for the array are by far the most expensive part. I’ve been using an underclocked and undervolted Ryzen 1700 in my server for 6 years now and have zero complaints around CPU performance. I did eventually need more than 16GB of RAM last year, but the only outright failures I’ve had are on the various component’s fans.



  • If this is really as straightforward as it sounds then I’d consider this the best case scenario. Google could have gone full Apple style lockdown or even just have implemented this flow on a per app basis, but needing to wait 24hr one time to enable unverified app installation isn’t a bad idea from a security perspective. It prevents a bad actor with temporary access from being able to do much while not getting in the way of us power users after the initial 24hr period.

    My bigger problem is how Google is leveraging their monopoly to implement this single-handedly and only for themselves. If they had instead gone through AOSP this perhaps could have been implemented in a better way to allow other parties than just Google to be the verifier, and that 24hr waiting period could be applied to any verifier that is not the phone’s default. I’d argue this would be an equally reasonable security measure considering how many scams are out there preying on those who aren’t technologically savvy, yet would maintain transparency.





  • These attacks are more around the encryption and all require a fully malicious server. It sounds like Bitwarden is taking these seriously and personally I’d still strongly prefer it to any closed source solution where there could be many more unknown but undiscovered security concerns.

    Using a local solution is always most secure, but imo you should first ask yourself if you trust your own security practices and whether you have sufficient hardware redundancy to be actually better. I managed to lose the private key to some Bitcoin about a decade ago due to trying to be clever with encryption and local redundant copies.

    Further, with the prevalence of 2FA even if their server was somehow fully compromised as long as you use a different authenticator app than Bitwarden you’re not at major risk anyways. With how poorly the average person manages their password security this hurdle alone is likely enough to stop all but attacks targeted specifically at you as an individual.











  • I operate my hard drives totally external to my old PC’s case with a 3D printed holder keeping them together (with a little space between each drive for ventilation). It’s a little ugly, but it lives in a closet so I don’t really care how it looks. More importantly with my old Neatgear NAS I didn’t realize just how much speed I was missing out on. I guess with a modern Synology unit with a SSD cache you’ll likely get similar performance, but it’s so convenient to be able to run Docker containers and VMs on the same machine.