[–] 16 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

Klar ist das Verbot zu Betteln eine Lösung.

Genauso wie die Abschaffung von Vorsorgeuntersuchungen Krebs oder die Nichtverfolgung von Steuerbetrug die entgangenem Steuern reduziert.

Das Prinzip "Wenn ich die Augen ganz fest zu mache und das Problem nicht sehen, ist es gelöst" sollte eh spätestens seit Corona und den "Wenn wir weniger testen, gibt's auch weniger Fälle"-Argumentationen bestens bekannt sein...

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago

    If we assume the cost of bringing on jet into the air just to shoot down one drone is several 100,000€ than you would need about 10,000 times the amount to cover a short border like the Luthuania-Russia one with gun systems. That's before the operational cost of these guns that also need maintainance etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 22 hours ago* (2 children)

    Not OP, but it's two-way TLS. It's not only your server providing a certificate to prove it's the real thing and not just some men-in-the-middle device or your connection for redirected, but the other side of the connection using a certificate, too, to show they are actually the devices allowed to communicate.

    So this basically reverts the security. You are no longer trying to filter out access attempts when they show questionable behavior, but completely reject anything unless it's explicitly authorized. Which of course only works when you or (a small number you can manually manage of) others access that stuff from fixed devices that you can set up properly.

    PS: For me fail2ban does basically something similiar. I have several web interfaces exposed via reverse proxy. But I barely ever use those interfaces manually; normally it's via apps that access the services via that web interface. So things like failed authentifications or misstyped passwords don't happen (unless when setting up something new maybe and then I'm there to unban a device manually if I screwed up). So fail2ban is set up to aggressively bans IPs for hours just for a single failed attempt.

    That's keeping all those spammy bots looking for easy targets away very effectively, yet completely invisible for my legitimate use. After all that's always the core issue: security vs. convenience. You build the best possible security that also doesn't overly interfere with your normal use. Also the reason there is no on-size-fits-all solution because it's about your use-case.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago* (1 child)

    So you didn't do the math... Let's say we go with the 200k per interception of a drone (because there is more than just the spend missiles/fuel but also wear on the jet and a lot of work going into it for just a few hours of use). By above's cost for efficient gun-based systems those 200k get you about 20m of border covered. You would need 13,750 times that money just to cover the small Lithuanian border with Russia (pretending that flying object cannot jsut go around the direct route...).

    Sure, you can spend some more money on developing lasers (in fact they do - because that's peanuts spend anyway compared to the actual production costs in numbers) to decrease the cost from ~1000€ for a salvo of smart air-burst ammunition to a fraction of that. Doesn't change the base calculation. It actually only gets worse if those guns are more expensive because of the high energy systems required for each.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

    Russia is just testing our defenses now

    Correct, but not in the way you think. Covering everything in air defense (especially against low text/cost) wepons is simply not viable. The actual defense is deterrence, the ability to react offensively (in this case even as part of a big defensive alliance) to an act of war, while protecting only the most critical infrastructure and the stuff used offensively (the latter being the reason air-defense is mobile).

    So the actual and very real failure is our cowardly politicians being afraid to call an act of war by its name and react accordingly.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    its a government so they don’t have a profit margin?

    As long as the government pays public money on jobs in the public sector there isn't. The moment that government tries to replace workers with AI –that they definitely not build, train, probalby not even run themselves– there is a profit margin, for the AI companies. Also now for the first time the public money spend to provide public services is no longer going back the tax payers in the form of wages but flow out to private companies. And it's about AI so out of country, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    Einfach alles auf x Sekunden im Format eines Tiktok Videos verkürzen, dann wird das schon. Bonus: Dann bekommen diese ekligen Intellektuellen auch endlich mit, dass sie in unserer schönen neuen Welt von Verblödung und populistischen Narrativen unerwünscht sind. 👍

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

    This is the cheapest way to shoot them down, because the jets already exist and are available.

    Sure you can build more cost efficient (per drone shot down) anti-air alongside the border... for billions and billions that don't do anything but shoot down one drone every once in a while. That's much more expensive than the cost to get a Eurofighter in to the air to do it.

    (Reference: the first two Skynex units for Ukraine cost ~180 million €. That's one radar, the control unit and 4 guns, each with just a few kilmometers range. Say you want some overlap to not create gaps between them and you can assume to cover 10 km of the border for nearly 100m... you can do the math yourself.)

    Long story short: You cannot defend huge areas cost efficiently against single flexible threats with pre-build, often even static defenses. That's like equiping the whole population "cheaply" with bulletproof clothing because someone might get their hands on a gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    As this will -thanks to me being quite clueless- be a very open question I will start with the setup:

    One nginx server on an old Raspi getting ports 80 and 443 routed from the access point and serving several pages as well as some reverse proxies for other sevices.

    So a (very simplified) nginx server-block that looks like this:

    # serve stuff internally (without a hostname) via http
    server {
    	listen 80 default_server;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name _; 
    	location / {
    		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
                    \# that's where all actual stuff is located
    	}
    }
    # reroute http traffic with hostname to https
    server {
    	listen 80;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name server_a.bla;
    	location / {
    		return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
    	}
    }
    server {
    	listen 443 ssl default_server;
    	http2 on;
    	server_name server_a.bla;
       	ssl_certificate     A_fullchain.pem;
        	ssl_certificate_key A_privkey.pem;
    	location / {
    		proxy_pass http://localhost:5555/;
    	}
    }
    #actual content here...
    server {
    	listen 5555;
    	http2 on;
        	root /srv/http;
    	location / {
            	index index.html;
       	} 
        	location = /page1 {
    		return 301 page1.html;
    	}
        	location = /page2 {
    		return 301 page2.html;
    	}
            #reverse proxy for an example webdav server 
    	location /dav/ {
    		proxy_pass        http://localhost:6666/;
    	}
    }
    

    Which works well.

    And intuitively it looked like putting Anubis into the chain should be simple. Just point the proxy_pass (and the required headers) in the "port 443"-section to Anubis and set it to pass along to localhost:5555 again.

    Which really worked just as expected... but only for server_a.bla, server_a.bla/page1 or server_a.bla/page2.

    server_a.bla/dav just hangs and hangs, to then time out, seemingly trying to open server_a.bla:6666/dav.

    So long story short...

    How does proxy_pass actually work that the first setup works, yet the second breaks? How does a call for localhost:6666 (already behind earlier proxy passes in both cases) somehow end up querying the hostname instead?

    And what do I need to configure -or what information/header do I need to pass on- to keep the internal communication intact?

    view more: next ›