tgayton

Typically management at financial institutions see "security reasons" as a quick way to end questioning from a customer.

Legacy software or partner integration requirements are almost always the reason for arbitrary changes within financial institution.

Anecdotally, I've never seen a scenario myself where this wasn't referred to as a "security measure" or similar. This includes within the institution to all non-technical employees.

To be clear: sshuttle is more comparable to redirecting system traffic through a proxy than a VPN.

UDP is not tunneled at all.

VNC isn't bad, especially if you needed it to be interoperable, although there are much better options performance wise.

For performance, NoMachine[0] offers a near native experience on most connections, especially locally or in situations with sub-50ms latency.

For a portable client, AnyDesk[1] is created by an ex-TeamViewer developer and is very straightforward, while still maintaining better performance than VNC.

For general use, TeamViewer[2] is still a good choice.

Radmin still outperforms VNC in most cases, however it's competitors seem to currently outpace it, and many things about the company and software feel like a legacy environment.

[0] https://www.nomachine.com/

[1] http://anydesk.com/remote-desktop

[2] https://www.teamviewer.com/en/

[3] http://www.radmin.com/

Interesting concept. Would it be possible to share a demo of what a signed document looks like?

It's definitely possible from a technical perspective. It's very similar to the way echo cancellation works on phones already.

Since the output is known, similar input can then be stripped. This only works when both the output of the speaker and input of the microphone are known.

This can't be done to determine whether another speaker, such as a TV, generated the output.

Visual aid on echo cancellation: http://i.imgur.com/m2LSIz9.png

They've clarified, in their intellectual property policy[1] that this is exactly as you speculate, for quality control in relation to use of their trademarks.

Canonical doesn't want someone to release a derivative which is unstable due to modification and call it "Ubuntu 16.04 LTS", therefore potentially resulting in blame being placed on them.

Regardless of personal opinion, it's an interesting situation considering the differing opinions on the separation between brand IP and source code IP.

[1] http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/intellectual-...

Keep in mind, as is mentioned in the previous discussion, this is only because OVH is distributing a modified version of Ubuntu.