mschempp

Not sure I understand you correctly, but the study I linked shows that mother's earnings drop significantly after the First child. That has nothing to do with the significant monetary cost of children, which are added on top of that.

Not sure where this "pushback" comment is directed at, but I was not trying to Push back - I am agreeing with you in general.

Just because institutions are oversimplifying doesn't mean we have to

"There is definitely social sexism being surfaced by the wage gap statistic, but it's against men, not women."

I would say against both genders.

As a father, I really can't understand how every article about this topic talks about as if fathers and mothers are just interchangeable. We are not.

Mothers carry their child for ~9 months, they give birth to that child. The bond between a mother and her freshly born child is bigger than that of the father.

Of course fathers are very important too, and yes fathers should spend more Time with their children in general.

But it's Just crazy to ask mothers to get back to work as soon as possible. Many mothers want to Work part Time, because they want to spend more time with their children. The issue is, that care work is not paid or valued nearly the same as work for money.

Also if you're feeding your young child like you are supposed to, the father simply can't feed the child, because we don't give milk.

Nearly all articles about this topic care only for how to get women back to Work instead of what's best for society and for families.

If that would be the Focus, we would talk way more about how to integrate children into the work Life and less on how to grow GDP.

btw.:

ruroco DOES prevent replay attacks, by saving the deadline (which is in ns) in a blocklist. It does not matter if the deadline has "passed", the deadline is added to the blocklist as soon as the packet reaches the server and is deemed "valid". So each packet is only valid exacly ONCE

a replay attack won't work, because every UDP packet data has deadline in nanoseconds.

Once this UDP packet reaches the server the deadline will be added to the blocklist.

If an attacker sends the same packet again, the server will check its blocklist for the deadline. It does not matter if the deadline has been reached or not. once the packet reaches the server, the deadline of that packet will be added to the blocklist.

hmmm just validated my implementation

the deadline that is sent from the client is being added to the blocklist after the command was executed, so sending the same packet again will not work, because the deadline (which is in nanoseconds) is already on the blocklist and therefore the command will not be executed again.

This effectively means that replaying a packet is not possible, because the server will deny it.

"Modern port knocking also incorporates secure cryptographic hashes."

Are you referring to fwknop? Thats not "port knocking" but Single Packet Authorization. That is very different from port knocking.

How can one incorporate secure cryptographic hashes with simple port knocking?

I think what rmholt means is that ruroco does not improve security in the sense, that it has stronger and safer encryption/algorithms/... but that it merely "hides" existing services.

I would argue that it does improve security in the way that it reduces the attack surface of potential vulnerable services, because they are simply not accessible for adversaries.

On the other hand, having another tool running increases the attack surface, but imho that's very small.

Thanks for the feedback and pointing out ostiary. Fixing replay attacks is on my todo list, maybe I can learn some things from how ostiary does it.

Kind advice from my PoV:

Your comment could be read as "your project is shit, there is ostiary which has replay protection and yours doesn't".

I'm sure you didn't intend for you comment to not come across that way, and I also did not read it that way, but others could have.

Also keep in mind that ruroco is a very young project and is by no means finished. I was thinking about using one-time-pads or other encryption algorithms as well. I also posted this here to get feedback to improve my project.

So hopefully when I release version 1.0.0 all the issues that this project has atpit are resolved ;)

that is correct. The configuration is not even ufw specific, you could run any command that you like. This means you could also, for example, disable or enable certain nginx configurations.