> I'm always afraid I will be missing part of the text or the pictures
As for missing pictures, my argument is, either the text is referring to an image that cannot be seen in reader mode, then I'll notice and switch back to normal mode to see the image, or the image is not relevant to the text, so I just don't care for it.
You can even submit your domain to the list [1]! This is useful when your domain has user-alloted subdomains and you want to enforce a stronger subdomain isolation. Ghost.io for example is there because the Ghost Foundation has sent a submission.
IIRC civil GPS chips won't work above a specific altitude or when moving above some speed limit. I think the idea was to prevent people from guiding missiles using those chips.
If the ransomware operators follow best practices, their C2 is in those backups too. The data's not encrypted, but without good IT, not for long.
Maybe go two weeks' back and you'll get a clean instance, but that's two weeks' data loss, I've seen (non-tech) institutions hit where an hour of data loss is worth paying a ransom for.
Not executable. Text. Readable by humans. Inspectable by humans so you can root out rootkits. Not even the valuable data that cyber criminals go for anyway - they go for personal and financial data, not k8s config files.
Neither of those are relevant. You don't back up virtual machines or image disks - you take afore-mentioned plain-text, audited config files and spin up new instance from scratch.
This is irrelevant snark. If you back up a data file, it doesn't matter that it's stored in the memory of a Von Neumann architecture - it's only going to be used as a data file.
> Separation of code and executables is a nice idea that approximately 0% of organisations fully adhere to.
Citation needed. Also, you just said:
> If the ransomware operators follow best practices
...so are we considering the ideal case, or not?
> I'm really not sure that has a serious answer.
Being snide is bad by itself, but it's even worse when you're wrong on top of it.
That's kinda the point. Most drugs are not bad/evil in themselves. They can be used irresponsibly.
Many classic drugs (as opposed to research chemicals which introduce small molecular changes to circumvent banns on another substance) are pretty safe or at least have a well known safety profile.
Switzerland started a program in 1995 where they give medical grade heroin to people suffering from addiction. From the people taking part in this program, none have died from heroin overdoses or due to toxic contamination in the drug.
So heroin is actually pretty safe if used correctly.
Indeed. If one reads the adverse effects of heroin (e.g. in Wikipedia) and ignores the ones caused by dirty injection, lacing and overdose, you are left with no long term effects other than a blurry "brain impairment to make decissions". On the short term, respiratory depression. That's it.
Not many legal drugs has such short list of side effects.
The actual way this should be implemented, if they wanted to be morally irreproachable, would be this: a consent popup always available, tucked down somewhere in the corner of the site. It defaults to opt-out from everything, you can click on it to expand it if you want to opt into something.
An acceptable option is to pop up a consent form as needed, and set a cookie recording whether user made a consent decision. That can be classified as essential cookie to fulfill a legal obligation.
As for missing pictures, my argument is, either the text is referring to an image that cannot be seen in reader mode, then I'll notice and switch back to normal mode to see the image, or the image is not relevant to the text, so I just don't care for it.