but an attacker isn't obliged to take on all the open ports, he could work with some of them - the ones that may seem the most interesting to him
Ok, back to this then:
If everything reports open then what ports do you focus on first?
I don't see an issue here. An attacker would be overwhemed with choise and excitement so that he wouldn't be able to decide which port to choose first, get stuck for a several months unable to decide? He'd toss a coin then.
My ports are always open for you, my son. And doors, and windows.
You can’t pretend-close it and still have that service work.
indeed, a service on a port would no longer properly work. However, pretending that an open port is closed is possible the same way when pretending that's open
Do you youself understand what you're talking about?
then focus on those ports with more expensive/slower scans to find out what is running on those ports.
What do you mean by "focus on those ports"? What are "more expensive/slower scans"?
If everything reports open
not every port gets reported to be open but only some of them
what ports do you focus on first?
me? or an attacker? he could work with any ports he wishes
it has nothing to do with it. Welcome to the real English
How could simulating the ports as open be useful?
I've read an article which describes how to simulate the close ports as open in Linux by eBPF. That is, an outside port scanner, malicious actor, will get tricked to observe that some ports, or all of them, are open, whereas in reality they'll be closed.
How could this be useful for the owner of a server? Wouldn't it be better to pretend otherwise: open port -> closed?
It's got CLI too - alright. But is it any de-facto, mature, well-known, widely used? What gurantees that it's as secure as openssl or gpg? It might have plenty of bugs and vulnerabilies.
- backups, non-incremental ones
- prevent others from viewing information that may be sensitive
- encrypted files and directories will then be copied over to external drives and third-party servers
"I don’t want to encypt them in-place because I’ll be uploading them onto a server, copying them on an external drive."
I don't want to encypt them in-place because I'll be uploading them onto a server, copying them on an external drive.
You mean? Or you say?
Simple and de-facto way to encrypt files and directories in Linux
Namely, de-facto, or one of, in Linux. Mature. No GUI. Open-source and free.
What is it? GPG or anything else?
For a separate file(s), or directory(ies), and not for the entire disk or partition.
that's why you should be logged out of Google and also delete your cookies periodically :) To reset the memory of Google
Nothing. But mentioning it, don't forget to mention Youtube as well.
As if Youtube didn't promote conspiracy theories and almost Nazi rhetorics that serve the country it's based in. They do, which they don't call as such. Everything else they'll call conspiracy theories and propaganda.
the fact that you like it doesn't make best or even decent in terms of privacy
. Some of them could also be implemented with native messaging.
Some? Or all?
uBlockOrigin would still loose some of its features and capabilities nonetheless, even if a sub-set of them could be implemented in other ways. Not?
Not in the direct war - correct. But in a proxy one. But even in it we haven't been to even match Russia's weapon production and which we have also admitted. By the margin of 3-7 times.
But that's about weapons. What about economy? Geopolitics? No major blow-ups for Russia, if not the opposite, either.