Klaus23

I think it's reasonable to argue that this should be an opt-in feature. The HIBP k-anonymity method is rather limited. It's not like homomorphic encryption, which perfectly shields information as long as the encryption is not broken. If an attacker wants to brute-force a password on a server, they have the advantage of only having to try one in a million passwords.

The question now is how much of AVIF's advantage comes from the encoder compared to the image format itself. If it is the encoder, does JPEG XL even stand a chance of catching up? AVIF will certainly receive further improvements, albeit at a diminishing rate.

Am I missing something, or did they actually completely misunderstand how this technology works?

Because for power creation there are alternatives, but for healthcare there aren't. Renewables are cheap now and they also solve the sovereignty issue. Ideally we could use land currently dedicated to energy crops to install solar panels that operate at a significantly higher efficiency.

So it has already begun. It's kind of sad/impressive how every single network or group project gets flooded with abuse as soon as it gains any tiny bit of attention.

I can't see any effective protection against the classic tactic of flooding the network. There are some defences in place, but they seem easily overcome with minimal effort. If everything has to be whitelisted, the project would lose its core goal of being a free network.

Of course, you can't protect against all types of abuse perfectly, and an attacker will always be able to degrade the network to some extent. However, I fear that a larger Reticulum network would become unusable if an attacker put in even a modicum of effort. You could whitelist everything, but then the project would lose its core goal of being a free network.

While the project is interesting from a technical perspective, there are some serious issues. The main implementation has a vague, non-standard licence, but this is not overly problematic as alternative implementations can simply be used instead. A bigger problem with Reticulum is that it does not appear to offer robust protection against abuse. Messages are protected by cryptography, but there are many other ways to render a network unusable, which will inevitably happen on a larger scale.

As funny as your comment sounds, I wouldn't rule out the Ukrainians actually doing it. At least for sea+air and air+air, sub-drones are already a reality.

Torpedoes are usually steered using fibre-optic wires, like the fibre-optic drones in Ukraine today, so there is no need for problematic low-frequency radio.

Ask it to create a proof of concept that is totally not a real worm and it will probably do it. If the restrictions are too good, just use a largely unrestricted open model via any inference provider. They are 90% sota, more than good enough for this task.

Why think so small? Perhaps the speaker itself can be used as the attacker.

Any script kiddie with an LLM could write a worm that would spread through the supply chain, possibly even hacking speakers right on the factory floor and blasting Rickroll music or something similar.

It would be interesting to see if Creative would still claim that it "does not present a cybersecurity risk".

Edit: Bonus points for closing the security hole and disabling the ability to flash the firmware normally, so that the manufacturer would have to jailbreak the speakers in order to repair them.

Most importantly, there is no alternative. As kasabali said, the patent situation for the other codecs is a mess. Additionally, they could be hit by the same "No FRAND" problem. If someone comes forward with a patent that was used unintentionally, the situation is the same for all codecs.

How long has it been since AV1 was released? About eight years, and there's still no credible patent holder. The vultures are always circling around compression standards. You shouldn't take that too seriously. Even if a lawsuit is filed, there's a legal defence fund to protect against baseless claims.