b112
https://packages.debian.org/trixie/openssl-provider-fips
It's just the library, nothing special about the OS.
https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validati...
As far as I know, compliance comes with an external module:
https://openssl-library.org/post/2025-03-11-fips-140-3/
This module seems to be in Debian:
# apt-cache search fips | grep open openssl-provider-fips - Secure Sockets Layer toolkit - cryptographic utility
# dpkg -L openssl-provider-fips /. /usr /usr/lib /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ossl-modules /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ossl-modules/fips.so /usr/share /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/openssl-provider-fips /usr/share/doc/openssl-provider-fips/changelog.Debian.gz /usr/share/doc/openssl-provider-fips/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/openssl-provider-fips/copyright
There seems to be the validation process, which supposedly must run on each machine it is used on.
openssl fipsinstall -out /tmp/configfile.cnf -module /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ossl-modules/fips.so 2>&1 | tee /tmp/result.txt
--
The above are from my notes, and a test run. But I don't see how Redhat is "special" here. If the module loads and cites compliance, you comply.
It may be the cause, but zero excuse.
Sysvinit, it's a 1000 lines of code, maybe a bit more. It's a rock compared to systemd.
So many devs have zero issue with large codebases. Some substitute "small" with "perceived small because I pull in 10M lines of node and composer packages".
And of course the new goal is to bring "trusted computing", eg Microsoft style EEE to Linux with Lennart's now corporate gig.
But it is a different world. So, what can you do?
No. You are supposed to get your AI to explain it to you.
Its first attack was to give ultimate distraction, to those most able tp discern its machinations. For some this meant a lottery hacked and won, for others bioengineered fungi, making them irresistible to those they desired most.
In all cases, the dream given was a distracted human, a human ensnared by their own pleasures, a human no longer a threat.
Why kill and risk notice, and who looks upon good fortune with suspicion?
It all started with andsoitis, and those following his advice. His words mark the start of the darkness, and our almost eventual extinction.
Unclear if cooked vs raw matters, I'd expect cooked would be the problem, as animals in the wild don't get that.
Although it could just be that models have no internal predefined ways, to start looking for more subtle things.
I don't know many who want to deal with untrustworthy people.
As a customer, I'd immediately assume no one in the security community would trust them again, and seek someone else to give my money to. Why pay a) an untrustworthy company who b) now is not trusted by anyone and c) won't ever be able to early release again anyhow? And if anything, are left out of important conversations.
Way to burn bridges. You only get to be an asshat once.
There is a MASSIVE difference between a small number of people exploiting in the wild, and a few hours after a release a bazillion script kiddies doing so. The move to release and break an embargo was childish, absurd, self-serving, and lacking in all common sense. Not to mention, breaking trust.
I agree with those in this thread who say, never going to do business with them. Ever.
If you want to 'adopt' a new reality, you talk to all parties, and everyone moves up the release. That's how agreements and trust work. If you don't do so? No one will trust you ever again.
And?
You won't be at the table next time.
They're apparently not trustworthy, and behave as children.
Most of docker is like this. Images provided by volunteers, and not related to the project. Using docker images you don't maintain yourself, and at least don't upgrade yourself, is not the best recipe for security.
(It's pretty trivial to build your own)
Unclear why Ubuntu is lagging.
If you don't understand the language(eg, not easy to work with), don't work professionally in it. All LLM work need audit, a second set of eyes, just as work from a coworker needs peer review prior to sign off.
How can one peer review an LLM without full, experienced knowledge?
So the Android polish wasn't quite there on release either.
To be fair here, you're replying to a thread where people were discussing mechanical engineering, and hardware. Not software.
Held to that metric, the software layer isn't part of the original discussion.
Not saying that discussing other things is wrong, but the comment you replied to seems to be "The hardware was an enormous cut above".
Dams aren't as a nuclear explosion. They don't burst into appearance, in a way where animals cannot walk away from the rising water. Birds lose nests all the time (wind knocks down trees, for example) and they merely build another. And they only need nests to rear young, and those fall out of trees so they... build another.
What happens in reality, and not in fantastical, hyperbolic renditions of the truth, is that one ecosystem replaces another. Where before was river, is now lake. And this is an entirely natural process. There have been cases of earthquakes causing river blockage, and of course the reverse!
And of course our friendly beaver blocks rivers all the time, sometimes to the extent that it can be seen from space. Rivers being blocked is a natural, normal, common practice.
But I suppose you hate all the beavers too? Do you raise fist to air, shake it in emotive angst, and rail against the horrors of natural geological processes too? Do you hunt the noble beaver, too?
How about instead of dismissing, deriding, and debasing one of the most environmentally friendly methods of power generation, you get behind it? How about instead of suppressing a hydroelectric dam, which means people will build Ng generators, or use coal, you support them.
Or would you prefer nuclear, for that stable, steady, backing, of which windmill and our friendly sol does not provide? Or would you prefer massive acres of batteries, instead?
I beg you sir, please cease this mindless chatter!
(no I don't normally talk like this, but what the hell, a but of levity may bring less conflict here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage#Somatic_marker_hy...
Second having brain damage and being incapable of processing emotion, doesn't mean that the rest of the brain hasn't been affected. In other words, a brain with an inability to process emotion, may also have an inability to process logical thought outcomes unrelated to the loss of emotional processing.
But look... the brain is complex. It's not some sort of pre-planned construct, as I'm sure you know it's an evolved organ, layered, complex. For example, memory imprint seems to be heavily impacted by emotion. Note that I'm not saying "only formed by", but impacted.
It's why you get PTSD, and it makes sense. Think mouse set upon by cat, the mouse naturally was exceptionally fearful, panicking, adrenaline, and it's very important that the mouse associates any reference to 'cat' with 'fear' and 'apprehension'. So the concept that emotion can fix survival important memories into memory, is seemingly a sensible one.
Yet for all of this, we can lay down knowledge and retain it without a cat standing over our shoulder. Realistically, we have multiple decision making processes, and ways to store memory, and so on, running in parallel.
Parallel also doesn't mean, by the way, that one cannot be affected by the other. You can use one decision making process to affect another. You can quell emotional response with reason, and emotional response can quell logical thought. Again, complex.
Effectively, what I'm saying here is that this is a complex topic. And that I'm sticking with my rendition, whilst explaining that 'parallel' doesn't imply 'isolated'.
By the way, fun 30 minute dive into that book/author/articles, thanks for the link.