How effective is the ProxyGambit at allowing access to the internet without revealing true location and IP?

I’m very interested in purchasing or manufacturing this device on my own and maybe using it in conjunction with Tails/Tor:

https://samy.pl/proxygambit/

According to the site:

ProxyGambit is a simple anonymization device that allows you to access the Internet from anywhere in the world without revealing your true location or IP, fracturing your traffic from the Internet/IP through either a long distance radio link or a reverse tunneled GSM bridge that ultimately drops back onto the Internet and exits through a wireless network you’re no where near.

While a point to point link is possible, the reverse GSM bridge allows you to proxy from thousands of miles away with nothing other than a computer and Internet with no direct link back to your originating machine.

A high speed (150Mbps+) link is available with direct line of sight from 10km+ away, or if further away, a 2G GSM connection produces a reverse TCP tunnel serializing a shell into the device accessible from anywhere in the world via the Internet or GSM. Either method proxies your connection through local wifi networks near the device, shielding and making it more difficult to determine your true location, IP and identity.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be sold anywhere online and it hasn’t been discussed online since 2015.

My apologies for asking so many questions, but there appears to be no info on the actual workings of this anonymizing device, apart from a few stories in the media. For all those with some technical aptitude:

Has this device been extensively field-tested? Have there been any recent technological developments that have improved on the device? Does the device do what it says it does? And how would this compare to a directional long-distance wifi antenna to bypass need for an ISP and conceal physical device location? Would it be more or less secure or anonymous?

SMB drive appearing but not allowing write access

I have FreeNAS version 11.2 and I have set up a public directory for all users and individual directory for each user, the individual directories work fine but the public directory will let you access it but deny write permissions.

The directory is bound to the user ‘nobody’ and the group ‘Public’ which I made and added all the users to as an auxiliary group.

I did notice that the 3×3 grid for permissions lets me give the user group write permissions but if I save it and go to the permissions again it reverts my changes.

Consequences of allowing more than one Lore Sheet

It is my understanding that the core rules intention is that every PC have one and only one lore sheet.

What is the consequences of allowing a player to access more than one lore sheet? The things that I’m worried about are:

  • Is the lore sheet advantages unbalanced so that by allowing one player to access more than one sheet he will get a significant advantage?
  • Is the lore sheet advantages prone to grab the limelight, so that by allowing a player to access more than one sheet, he will get too much attention in play?

The best answer would be based on practical experience, but as this is a new game, I’m also happy to accept an answer based on analysis of the rules.

Allowing a dynamic list of IP addresses to access a specific port in an AWS EC2 Instance

The problem I am trying to solve today is DDoS. I am working on a game project which is hosted on a TCP port (7777). The game is known to have a community full of idiots (pardon the language) that do not like competition among communities, so they just like to DDoS servers to… kill the competition instead. Depending on the attack, it could cause the game server to crash, or even overload the bandwidth of the entire machine.

My theoretical solution to this problem is creating a dynamic firewall containing the IPs of registered users. Only allowed IPs would be granted the access to the 7777 port. In this way, botnets would be prevented to even reach the server and cause damage. Practically speaking though, I have no idea on how to reach this solution.

I am using Amazon Web Services and their firewalls are Security Groups. The problem is that they have a limit of 50 entries in the IP address inbound list, which is not an acceptable an amount since all users would need to be inside that table.

How can I solve this?

Notes:

  • Assume all the other ports, SSH excluded, will be blocked.

(not sure if this is the right site, feel free to move to ServerFault if it’d feel like a better place)

Allowing minors to register from foreign countries

My forum (germanglish.org) is meant for German and English speakers to help each other, so that someone can get individualized help from a native speaker.

So I'm going to have people of all ages, but primarily students university age and under, from all over the world registering. Primarily, it's going to be people from the US and Germany, but there will also be people from Austria, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, GB, etc.

What do I need to do to make sure I'm complying with the various laws?

Web service allowing live streaming of audio podcasts with guest call-in functionality

I am looking for an application which allows one to start live audio (optionally also video) podcasts. A requirement is that this application allows for listening guests to call into the show and be live with the host. Another requirement is a live chat.

The only one I am aware of is blogtalkradio.com but that one is not an option at this time. Are there any other ways? Maybe on YouTube live but I haven’t figured out how to achieve the guest-call-in feature.

Does allowing death saving throws after being stable break the game?

After you roll three saves on a Death Saving Throw, you are stable and do not make other death saves. However, one of my player pointed out that if they keep rolling death saves, they might get a 20 and become conscious and be able to participate in combat again.

I’m planning to implement this rule:

After being stable, optionally you can roll a death saving throw on each of your turns. On a 20, you gain 1 HP and become conscious. Failing death saves does not destabilize you, including rolling a 1.

I don’t expect this to change things much. My goal is to give characters a chance to participate in combat again without being healed by others (we don’t have any healers other than a bard, who focuses on buffs/debuffs instead).

Are there any problems I should watch out for when implementing this rule?

Is there a pattern name for allowing users to add fields?

Example one.

Example two.

When a user is allowed to add/remove additional fields (or field groups) within a form, what is this interface paradigm called?

EDIT: in the example screenshots, each “row” of field(s) can be added/removed by the user, building up a list of “things”.

There’s a separate question about this type of input paradigm (Allowing the user to add input fields). It’s asking about design/workflow, but not the name of the pattern. However, all/most of the screen examples on that question are relevant examples for my question

Allowing both hover and select state on a section / component

Do you think allowing both hover and select on a component makes sense in the bellow context?

  • The tool is a drag & drop application builder (UI builder).

  • Configuring objects (sections in the page or components such as buttons, checkboxes, inputs, etc) is done by first selecting the object in the page.

  • The user can always select another object or multiple by also clicking on Command.

  • Each object also has a hover state

I was thinking that once something is selected it doesn’t make sense to have the hover state anymore, as hover is an indicator that it can be selected/interacted with. (once selected objects can also be dragged and repositioned in the layout)

Would you approach this differently?