Care sector in the UK is a dumpster fire. Corporations get paid often thousands per day per service user, hire incompetent staff at below minimum wage (if you count unpaid overtime) and pocket the massive margin. It desperately need proper regulation.
You have to spend a ton of time on writing comprehensive test suite. It can do so many subtle bugs you would otherwise only find from vague customer report and reproducing by chance.
Isn't better to run native VS Code and have remote SSH session? It very much works as if it was local (on fast low latency network). Only issue is moving files.
I know the prices of RAM are high, but 256GB RAM limit seems like omission. If they supported at least 512GB in quad or eight channel that would be something worth looking at for me. I know there is Threadripper but ECC memory is out of reach.
Isn't the problem with these emulations that they are not realtime and therefore will never give true feedback? As in the simulation will unlikely to translate to real world behaviour.
I have not used Cloudflare for ages, but remember the Cloudflare API key couldn't be restricted to just one domain, so if someone could get hold of the key, they could have gotten access to all your domains. So that made me not use them. Has anything changed?
There are more weasel words "we are not aware" - means they actually don't know if such attack was successful, "successful" - what is the definition of success? Maybe attackers got access, but didn't find anything interesting?
I think you are, the words make perfect sense. They know of a lot of attack attempts, and so far they have no reason to believe any were successful. Success can mean a lot of different things, why list it all out (were able to extract data, install malicious software, encrypt files with ransomware, delete any data, etc).
They have a legal department carefully directing what they say. In a court of law, their lawyers will successfully argue that they are beholden to only the precise letter of their statement. Are you arguing that their lawyers are incompetent and imprecise in their wording? If so, what evidence do you have that their lawyers are incompetent?
In light of the correct legal interpretation of their words, being only the specific letters, we can see that your interpretation is incorrect.
> They know of a lot of attack attempts
No, their statement says nothing about attack attempts.
> so far they have no reason to believe any were successful
No, their statement says nothing about their belief, only their explicit knowledge. Their statement says nothing about their investigation practices or whether they even attempted to investigate and learn about attacks. Their statement says nothing about non-mercenary attacks.
Their statement is technically correct as long as any successful attacks they know about are not explicitly known to be committed by mercenarys.
> No, their statement says nothing about attack attempts.
That's a good point. The best way not to know about any successful attacks is not to know about any of them. I also can definitively state that I'm not aware of any successful attacks, but for obvious reasons this is a basically meaningless statement. Without more data, it's not clear how meaningful the statement they gave is, and while it probably is more meaningful than mine, it doesn't make sense to jump from what they said to "there have definitively been no successful attacks" based on it.
I'm just going to ignore your entire first paragraph that tries to use hostility to overcome a clear willful misunderstanding, or strong evidence of a recent stroke.
> No, their statement says nothing about attack attempts.
Exactly, they're keeping the statement brief and correct. They have sent multiple batches of notifications to users on previous attacks.
The statement is clear, covers their primary use case for the product, and I'm sure is legally sound. You're grasping at straws trying to think up ways they can be lying to you. I would be very surprised if you ever have used their lockdown mode with any actual cause.
I am glad that you agree that their legal department’s explicit and intentional exclusion of known successful non-mercenary attacks is precise and legally sound.
It is advisable to not grasp at straws to think up ways that highly paid lawyers are not saying exactly the words they have approved. That is literally their job and they are good at it.
If they meant something more expansive they can do so. It is not the public’s job to do it for them while letting them retreat to the legally binding interpretation at their pleasure.
They can be perfectly aware of nation-state hacks. These are exactly the weasel qualifiers used by the NSA when they were claiming not to be watching the communications of US citizens. "No intercepts were made under program X" specifically sidesteps all the shady stuff under program Y.
They have very good reason to believe that - shareholders and public perception. Apple maintains image of their phone being secure and that is far from the truth. As long as general public don't know their phones have holes like Swiss cheese, the shareholders will be happy.
>"successful" - what is the definition of success?
At risk of stating the obvious, isn't success "hacked it and no one ever found out (at the time)"? By definition, Apple could probably only be aware of unsuccessful attacks. Though that's not guaranteed either, considering all the myriad failure modes that there must be.
reply