Awesome - love the removal of all the cruft.
Yes, if the “category” and “last edited” parts can be removed or hidden too, that would be a bonus. That information is always available in the special:special pages area anyhow (from memory) and I believe the “page history” button on each individual page.
Last modified gone.
Note to self: MediaWiki:Lastmodifiedat - Whonix
Category gone. Added:
__HIDDENCAT__
to Category:Documentation - Whonix as per Help:Categories - MediaWiki
“Daniel Alverson” has attempted to add himself as a past contributor again. Probably a legitimate person, so before you reject it, maybe you should make a forum post asking that person to contact or post in the forums re: their (previous) handle to confirm they actually made these contrbutions.
We don’t want to fail to acknowledge people’s contributions if they did actually undertake those activities.
Rejected the previous and current edit with a link to this forum post: Long Wiki Edits Thread - #2042 by Patrick
I’ve got contacted about this and while I shouldn’t copy and private e-mails, I think I can share my e-mail reply:
I don’t recall your previous pseudonymous account? See:
https://forums.whonix.org/t/long-wiki-edits-thread/3477/2042
Very much so.
Fair enough.
On a side issue - I wonder how Google Project Zero decides what to audit - their FAQ does focus on common software libraries, browsers etc, but their recent focus on Tor (which found 3 CVEs), makes me wonder if they’d ever look at little ole Whonix if a friendly email was dropped their way.
If anyone was to find major flaws, it would be that team. They have ripped apart M’soft, iOS, various browsers, Xen, the Linux kernel and various software apps in their history. I think they found 1,700+ bugs to date.
Since Whonix has never had a formal audit, experienced eyes over sdwdate and other Whonix packages would be very welcome. If Whonix is a high profile target (possible), you can be guaranteed any serious adversaries would have likely found flaws despite it’s relatively “simple” design/status.
It’s not completely out of the question; the team members get 20% of their paid time to work on pet topics/issues of their choice. Maybe one of them has an anonymity software bent.
Formed in 2014, Project Zero is a team of security researchers at Google who study zero-day vulnerabilities in the hardware and software systems that are depended upon by users around the world. Our mission is to make the discovery and exploitation of security vulnerabilities more difficult, and to significantly improve the safety and security of the Internet for everyone.
Could you review Surveillance Capabilities: Difference between revisions - Whonix please? @HulaHoop
Looks good.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Tor competitors - Orchid Protocol, Mainframe, Obsidian, Skrumble, Dusk, Marconi, Loki, Nym
Bridges: Difference between revisions - Whonix - I am not sure we should host such level of technical detail. Time consuming to review / maintain. Perhaps a case for Template:Contributor - Whonix?
I added that - not time-consuming IMO. Just needs keeping up with Tor blog posts (which I do already) when they mention it again in the future.
It also answers questions from anybody who talks about not being able to access Tor without bridges - the reason is their location is using active probing (probably), whch means their only hope is using obfs4 or other protocols.
To not delay further the publishing of your material, having looked at pages that have Creative Common-licensed material on the Internet, I believe all you have to do is the following:
That’s it.
Footer further simplified.
Would I have to put it in all pages or could I just add some text in the about section of the home page to say that everything on the site is licensed under it? My website doesn’t really have a footer and I don’t want it to look out of place.
Also, I’ve overhauled most of my articles now, primarily the Linux and Firefox ones.
So yeah, it needs to be on every page. [1]
That’s why Linux uses the SPDX license identifier for every source file.
[1] You could also add the licensing as a [HTML] comment (SPDX?) on top of every source file?
[1] Quote GPLv2 license:
(File /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 on Debian systems.)
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
Related:
Can you find anywhere a HTML file with SPDX-License-Identifier? //cc @HulaHoop
Researching SPDX a bit it seems to me that the following would be correct:
This would have to be added to every file that shall be licensed:
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 -->
Here’s the nomenclature for SPDX and its exceptions for source files, not necessarily HTML though it could be adapted within the tags
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/appendix-V-using-SPDX-short-identifiers-in-source-files/
Other choies to make it machine readable is using RDFA or json
Seems like I guessed correctly.
Updated add SPDX-License-Identifier by adrelanos · Pull Request #20 · madaidans-insecurities/madaidans-insecurities.github.io · GitHub to also add copyright.
Some examples, though none HTML.