Host filesystem manipulation from docker vs. virtual machine

When reading about docker, I found a part of the documentation describing the attack surface of the docker daemon. From what I was able to understand, part of the argument is that it is possible to share (basically arbitrary) parts of the host filesystem with the container, which can then be manipulated by a privileged user in the container. This seems to be used as an argument against granting unprivileged users direct access to the docker daemon (see also this Security SE answer).

Would the same be possible from a virtual machine, e.g. in VirtualBox, which on the host is run as an unprivileged user?

A quick test where I was trying to read /etc/sudoers on a Linux Host from a Linux guest running in VirtualBox did produce a permission error, but I would not consider myself an expert in that regard in any way nor was the testing very exhaustive.

manipulation of hardware or software is what active troubleshooting is all about

manipulation of hardware is what active troubleshooting is all about simply put you must know something well enough to manipulate it to a fine degree if you want to be a technician this means having the books, schematics, secrets or whatever necessary to exercise the entire device one piece at a time. Some persons can be much smarter than others at this. today the world is so overcrowded the bosses can pick and choose at will so this world is no longer in the hands of the common man. It will take a world war to give control back to the average human being. These so called bosses are now treating humans like they are in fact machines to be manipulated.

Parallel Matrix Manipulation: find eigenvalues and construct list

I’m having some trouble with the Parallel commands in Mathematica 12.1:

I need to construct a table where its entries are {M, Eigenvalues of X[M]}, where X is a square matrix of dimension N with N big (>3000) and M a parameter. Specifically, I do the following:

AbsoluteTiming[BSg1P = Table[M = m;      {M, #} & /@ (Eigenvalues[N[X]]), {m, -2, 2, 1}];] 

and I compare with

AbsoluteTiming[BSg1P = ParallelTable[M = m;      {M, #} & /@ (Eigenvalues[N[X]]), {m, -2, 2, 1}];] 

The computing time is similar for both cases: the difference is around 6 sec. for a total time of 300 sec., which makes no sense if the parallel evaluation is performed. Since I have 2 processors, I would expect half of the time or a considerable fraction for the computing duration.

Am I doing something wrong? Or is there something about parallelization that I don’t understand?

On the other hand, if I don’t want to use ParallelTable, is there a way to compute the eigenvalues of X[M] in a faster parallel form?

Thanks.

Can TLS defeat the manipulation of TCP sequence numbers?

Assuming there is a powerful adversary who can arbitrarily manipulate the sequence number of each tcp packet, then the following packet-reorder attack should be possible, right?

Assuming the packet the attacker wants to disorder has the tcp sequence number n, he first allows the n+1, n+2, …, n+m packets to be sent out but modifies the sequence-number fields to use numbers n, n+1, …, n + m -1. Finally, the attacker uses the sequence number n+m to send the detained packet.

Is the attack still possible when TLS/SSL is used?

DNS manipulation attack

Imagine an attacker gained control over our DNS by changing it’s address to his/her DNS Then we want to connect to facebook.com but because of that DNS attack, the attacker forward us to his desired IP. (how this process will happen?)

then how does it possible because facebook.com is registered and he has to change the name server in his domain registrar and facebook.com address is not available so the user simply find out that ns1.facebook.com address is kind of weird Or a simple change like @ IN SOA facebook.com. in attacker’s DNS settings is enough for this kind of attacks? if it’s enough so what will be happen to ns1.facebook.com. how does it resolve for the end user (the end user will see the www.facebook.com or facebook.com in his/her browser address bar?

Bit manipulation involving and operator

Given a special function

F(X,Y,Z) = (X ∧ Z)⋅(Y ∧ Z) where ∧ is bitwise AND operator; X,Y,Z are non-negative integers; and ‘.’ represents product

We want to maximize the function F(X,Y,Z) for given X and Y by choosing an appropriate Z. Additionally we have been given limits L and R for Z

To summarize, we need to find a non-negative integer Z (L≤Z≤R) such that F(X,Y,Z) = maxL ≤ k ≤ R(F(X,Y,k)) If there is more than one such value of Z, we should find the smallest one in the range [L,R]

Note: X, Y, L and R are chosen in such a way that maxL≤k≤R(F(X,Y,k)) never exceeds 262

Example: For X, Y, L, R = 7, 12, 4, 17 respectively, answer = 15

I understand the problem, but need help to find an optimal solution for this.

Should we do request manipulation or network packet manipulation for SDN vulnerability analysis?

I am planning to do vulnerability analysis of a Software Defined Network. Since the connection between the business apps and the controller of the SDN would be done over the application layer, I would assume web attacks can be explored through request manipulation in Burp Suite. Since the connection between the OpenFlow switch and the controller is over SSL, will the vulnerability analysis involve packet manipulation too?

Why is Manipulation not creating a graph?

Why does manipulation not give a graph?

Remove[y]; Remove[b]; n = 1; k = 1; j = Solve[k*y*(1 - y/n) - b == 0, {y}] o[b_] := Evaluate[y /. j] s = DSolve[y'[t] == k*y[t]*(1 - y[t]/n) - b, y[t], t]; f[t_, b_, c_] := Evaluate[y[t] /. s] sol = Table[f[t, b, c], {c, -5, 5}] d=Manipulate[Plot[sol, {t, -5, 5}], {b, 1, 5}] 

Image

How do we correct this? How would I turn this into a gif?