×
Online MAGA cope is now Congressional strategy

Online MAGA cope is now Congressional strategy

Tech-news , , , ,

When it comes to defending Donald Trump from the worst accusations, the MAGA influencer-industrial complex, whether out of loyalty or self-preservation, often defaults to whataboutism, arguing that the Democrats are just as guilty as Trump, or (ideally) worse. This principle has held true with the current Jeffrey Epstein saga, and as their audience’s anger against the Trump administration skyrockets, the MAGA influencer world is trying a new tack: blame the Democrats, not Trump, for keeping the “Epstein Files” under lock and key.

Trump, the person who could feasibly order the release of said documents, has spent the past few weeks trying to smother the drama from a few different angles, ultimately only fanning flames every time he attempted to deemphasize Epstein. He tried dismissing it during a Cabinet meeting (“Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?”), downplaying it on Truth Social (“Let’s … not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about”), and criticizing a reporter for asking about Epstein (“Are people still talking about this guy?”).

But there’s no indication that the MAGA-influencer complex will ever stop talking about Epstein, or that their audiences will ever let it go. But over the past week, the influencer class, and subsequently the GOP, has started to maneuver Trump’s spin into a more acceptable talking point, inspired by a recent Wall Street Journal bombshell reporting that the Justice Department had told Trump back in May that his name was in the pile of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. “Of course there’s going to be mentions of Epstein, who was a member of Mar-a-Lago until Trump kicked him out” over a decade ago, said Alex Jones, the Infowars host who’d spent the past several days raging about the Epstein Files. But while he had been calling for the head of anyone in the administration for failing to deliver, it was much easier to circle the wagon around Trump the moment that a mainstream publication tied him to bad behavior.

Laura Loomer, another prominent influencer who’d been criticizing the administration for its underwhelming response, also took the opportunity to try coming home by questioning where exactly Trump’s name appeared in the files, while also glazing Trump. “Are they trying to say that a file is somebody’s name in an address book?” she rhetorically asked Politico Playbook on Thursday, adding that she, too, had a large address book. “Some of those people in my address book have committed crimes. Does that mean I’m implicated in their crimes? President Trump is not a pedophile. And I look forward to seeing him sue every journalist and publication that is trying to imply that he is one.”

Either cater to their audience’s demand to keep asking what the elites are hiding about Epstein, or maintain their relationship and standing with the White House

In the days and weeks since the Trump administration released their brief memo about the Epstein files, the MAGA influencer world — specifically, those who built their careers “just asking questions” about Epstein while also cozying up to Trump — has grappled with a difficult choice: either cater to their audience’s demand to keep asking what the elites are hiding about Epstein, or maintain their relationship and standing with the White House.

Some have chosen their audiences, gambling that their following is loyal beyond Trump, and that their influence isn’t contingent on their White House access. (Tucker Carlson, for instance, published a two-hour episode that was entirely focused on the Epstein conspiracies — one week after he implied that Epstein was a Mossad agent.) Others have completely flipped back to Trump, such as the influencer Catturd, an onetime Epstein truther who began implying that “the podcast bro ‘influencers’” now criticizing Trump may have taken Russian money to do so. (In 2024, US prosecutors indicted two employees of RT for illegally funneling money to spread Kremlin propaganda, alleging that they had put $10 million into a Tennessee-based media company whose description matched up with Tenet Media, which worked with Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and others.) Catturd then tweeted that he was “never abandoning Trump”, and spent the subsequent week calling for Barack Obama’s indictment and posting memes of press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

But for everyone else, it’s been difficult to have it both ways. Loomer’s attempt to pin the blame on Attorney General Pam Bondi, for instance, failed when Trump refused to fire Bondi, while influencers who attempted to convince their audience to move onto different topics saw their audience revolt (particularly if those influencers, such as Benny Johnson, cited their conversations with government officials as reason enough).

Normal, everyday constituents also hold deep suspicions about the entire Epstein matter

And before you dismiss it as sturm-and-drang on the internet, the very same dynamic can be seen in Congress, where the Republicans are trying their best to satisfy the base while appeasing the President — a task made difficult because their normal, everyday constituents also hold deep suspicions about the entire Epstein matter. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found that the vast majority of voters — including a majority of Republicans — believe that the government is hiding information about the infamous “client list”. And tellingly, only 35 percent of Republicans believed that the Trump administration was handling it well. (30 percent said Trump was not, and 35 percent were unsure.)

On Wednesday, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Department of Justice for the Epstein Files, with a majority composed of five Democrats and three Republicans. The two Republicans who opposed the subpoena ended up tacking on other requests for Epstein-related communications from Biden officials and the DOJ. Per ABC News, the “officials” included the Democratic subjects of MAGA’s most enduring conspiracy theories: “Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.”

In other words, no one seems to be able to run with Trump’s assessment that Epstein is “somebody that nobody cares about.” Unable to quell the belief that there’s a conspiracy afoot, the only thing to do is try to implicate Democrats. Even Speaker Mike Johnson, who abruptly called a five-week recess last Thursday to prevent his Democratic counterparts from voting to release the Epstein files, leaned in on a potential conspiracy. “One of our concerns is, of course, that it was held in the hands of the DOJ leaders under the last administration, the Biden-Harris administration,” he told a Newsmax reporter on Wednesday. “And we all know how crooked and corrupt so many of those officials were, how they engaged in lawfare against President Trump. He has a concern, and I do as well, that things could have been doctored in those records.” When it comes to right-wing talking points based on sordid, unproven allegations, it’s best to start winking early — and in sync with the president, too.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.


Source link
#Online #MAGA #cope #Congressional #strategy

Tag

Related Posts

Why Remote Server Access Is a Common Attack Vector

Every cloud server exposes at least one remote access point – usually SSH on port 22 – and that port is scanned constantly by bots looking for weak credentials. Password-based login is the most common way a system can be attacked by brute force, and it is quite common with a standard setup that the system is left in a state where an admin/user of that system – “root user” – can log in directly by guessing the user ID and the password combination. Add in shared team credentials, forgotten firewall rules from old projects, and staging servers left publicly reachable, and it’s clear why misconfigured remote access – not zero-day exploits – is behind most cloud server compromises. The fix is simple, though you’ll need to do some setup yourself instead of trusting the default setting.

How to lock down SSH access in the right way

The best way to secure remote access is through a series of small improvements rather than one major overhaul. The following is a real working method:

  1. Switch to SSH key authentication, then turn off password login completely in the same location: sshd_config. Keys are far harder to brute-force than passwords.
  2. Disable root login over SSH and require a non-root user with sudo privileges instead; this is a security advantage that even without any change, one key compromising would limit the impact.
  3. Change the default SSH port away from 22 to cut down on automated scanning noise (not a security measure on its own, but it reduces log clutter).
  4. Restrict access by IP using your firewall or security group, allowing SSH only from known office or VPN IP ranges rather than the entire internet.
  5. Add a VPN as a connection layer for anyone accessing servers from outside a trusted network – a VPN like Planet VPN’s free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks.

Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates.

Why Do I Need a Bastion Host?

When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler.

Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort.

Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open

The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to.

Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them.

System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access 

Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication

  • Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication 
  • Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks
  • A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins 
  • For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host
  • Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists
  • Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access?

By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open.

Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication? 

It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection. 

Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys? 

A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data.

Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server? 

The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle. 

How often should SSH keys be rotated? 

The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves.

Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port?

Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules.

#Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access">How to Secure Remote Access to Your Cloud Server in 2026 Protection against unauthorized remote logins to your cloud server is a matter of SSH key-based authentication, a strict security policy on the firewall, two-factor authentication, and a secure communication channel – no individual component will give adequate protection by itself. The major risk point in breaches is not the server but the open door to remote login. To patch that vulnerability, you need a series of countermeasures, not a magical setting. Why Remote Server Access Is a Common Attack Vector Every cloud server exposes at least one remote access point – usually SSH on port 22 – and that port is scanned constantly by bots looking for weak credentials. Password-based login is the most common way a system can be attacked by brute force, and it is quite common with a standard setup that the system is left in a state where an admin/user of that system – “root user” – can log in directly by guessing the user ID and the password combination. Add in shared team credentials, forgotten firewall rules from old projects, and staging servers left publicly reachable, and it’s clear why misconfigured remote access – not zero-day exploits – is behind most cloud server compromises. The fix is simple, though you’ll need to do some setup yourself instead of trusting the default setting. How to lock down SSH access in the right way The best way to secure remote access is through a series of small improvements rather than one major overhaul. The following is a real working method: Switch to SSH key authentication, then turn off password login completely in the same location: sshd_config. Keys are far harder to brute-force than passwords. Disable root login over SSH and require a non-root user with sudo privileges instead; this is a security advantage that even without any change, one key compromising would limit the impact. Change the default SSH port away from 22 to cut down on automated scanning noise (not a security measure on its own, but it reduces log clutter). Restrict access by IP using your firewall or security group, allowing SSH only from known office or VPN IP ranges rather than the entire internet. Add a VPN as a connection layer for anyone accessing servers from outside a trusted network – a VPN like Planet VPN’s free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks. Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates. Why Do I Need a Bastion Host? When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler. Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort. Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to. Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them. System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access  Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication  Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins  For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible Frequently Asked Questions What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access? By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open. Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication?  It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection.  Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys?  A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data. Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server?  The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle.  How often should SSH keys be rotated?  The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves. Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port? Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules. #Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access

  1. free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks.

Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates.

Why Do I Need a Bastion Host?

When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler.

Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort.

Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open

The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to.

Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them.

System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access 

Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication

  • Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication 
  • Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks
  • A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins 
  • For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host
  • Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists
  • Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access?

By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open.

Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication? 

It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection. 

Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys? 

A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data.

Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server? 

The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle. 

How often should SSH keys be rotated? 

The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves.

Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port?

Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules.

#Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access">How to Secure Remote Access to Your Cloud Server in 2026

Protection against unauthorized remote logins to your cloud server is a matter of SSH key-based authentication, a strict security policy on the firewall, two-factor authentication, and a secure communication channel – no individual component will give adequate protection by itself. The major risk point in breaches is not the server but the open door to remote login. To patch that vulnerability, you need a series of countermeasures, not a magical setting.

Why Remote Server Access Is a Common Attack Vector

Every cloud server exposes at least one remote access point – usually SSH on port 22 – and that port is scanned constantly by bots looking for weak credentials. Password-based login is the most common way a system can be attacked by brute force, and it is quite common with a standard setup that the system is left in a state where an admin/user of that system – “root user” – can log in directly by guessing the user ID and the password combination. Add in shared team credentials, forgotten firewall rules from old projects, and staging servers left publicly reachable, and it’s clear why misconfigured remote access – not zero-day exploits – is behind most cloud server compromises. The fix is simple, though you’ll need to do some setup yourself instead of trusting the default setting.

How to lock down SSH access in the right way

The best way to secure remote access is through a series of small improvements rather than one major overhaul. The following is a real working method:

  1. Switch to SSH key authentication, then turn off password login completely in the same location: sshd_config. Keys are far harder to brute-force than passwords.
  2. Disable root login over SSH and require a non-root user with sudo privileges instead; this is a security advantage that even without any change, one key compromising would limit the impact.
  3. Change the default SSH port away from 22 to cut down on automated scanning noise (not a security measure on its own, but it reduces log clutter).
  4. Restrict access by IP using your firewall or security group, allowing SSH only from known office or VPN IP ranges rather than the entire internet.
  5. Add a VPN as a connection layer for anyone accessing servers from outside a trusted network – a VPN like Planet VPN’s free VPN service can encrypt the connection between a remote worker’s laptop and the server before SSH traffic ever leaves their device, which matters especially on public wi-fi or shared networks.

Every step you take closes the doors that the attacker may open slightly, and when you combine everything, you would have a door to a series of locked gates.

Why Do I Need a Bastion Host?

When it comes to teams working with many servers, deploying a bastion host (jump box) may be a clean and effective way to solve the long-term problem. With this method, you only expose SSH to the bastion, and the other servers accept it only when it’s from the bastion’s internal IP. This centralizes logging and makes auditing access far simpler.

Using a virtual private network (VPN) and a bastion host together is perfectly fine – and many solutions use both: a safe way to access the private network via a VPN, followed by use of a bastion host to restrict which servers can be accessed. Some teams may decide to forgo the bastion because they don’t have the manpower to manage one, and so use a combination of a VPN and a set of firewall rules that still quite a bit lowers the exposure, but without the extra effort.

Mistakes Leading to Leaving Cloud Servers Open

The Mistakes That Cause Leaving Cloud Servers Open: Even the safest development teams may have slip-ups from time to time. One of the most frequent is leaving staged, or test servers with relaxed firewall rules equivalent to those of the production environment – hackers don’t concern themselves with which environment they first land on. Another frequent error is reusing the same SSH key on several servers and clients, causing one hacked laptop to compromise all servers that key has access to.

Another common human error is not removing or changing access when someone leaves the team, so stale credentials remain valid and accessible. At last, putting trust in the strategy of “security through obscurity” – meaning one thinks that setting up the unusual port or hiding the hostname from the public is actually sufficient security – creates a wrong impression of security. This is mostly true; in reality, modern-day attackers scan all ports anyway, and there is no way to hide from them.

System Administrators Guide to Secure Remote Access 

Prohibit SSH password logins totally and depend exclusively on key-based authentication

  • Surely no one wants to type in the password every time; because of this, use only key-based authentication 
  • Deter the user from logging in as root by default and instead use the sudo command to do root tasks
  • A firewall or security group rule can provide great help with IP address-based restrictions on SSH logins 
  • For access that comes from untrusted sources or external networks, use a secure tunnel like a vpn or bastion host
  • Periodically change SSH keys and inspect access lists
  • Maintain records of login attempts and detect brute-force attacks as quickly as possible

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the principal means by which cloud servers suffer break-ins through remote access?

By far the biggest reason why this can happen is unauthorized password-based SSH logins that have been cracked by brute force. The scenario is most likely to develop where the administrator allows root login via password and leaves the default port open.

Sufficient security measures for the server via SSH keys: Do you think it is safe to rely only on key authentication? 

It is true that SSH keys drastically decrease the danger of a successful brute-force attack. However, if there is only key authentication on the server, there are still risks – the server administrator can always enable root login or disable the IP-based login restrictions. So it is recommended to always have these three in the server configuration: disabled root login, restricted access to known IPs, and rotating the keys regularly as the main components of meaningful protection. 

Is it really necessary to set up a separate VPN network while I am able to connect via SSH keys? 

A VPN gives extra security by first encrypting your computer traffic before it reaches your network, where the SSH connection will be used. This is mostly important when working on untrusted networks – like public wi-fi – where there is a threat of a potential hacker in your local network looking at your data.

Bastion host vs VPN as methods of accessing the server? 

The bastion host works by funneling SSH sessions from many users through a single, carefully monitored server point while the rest of the network (and mostly the servers) remains protected from the internet. At the same time, a vpn will fully encrypt the communication between the user and the corporate network or servers. The combination is very common among larger security teams as a part of the defense-in-depth principle. 

How often should SSH keys be rotated? 

The ideal period to change your SSH keys depends on the security practices of your organization, but generally a good practice is to change SSH keys between 90 and 180 days, or in the case that the user who had access with the key leaves or is no longer able to be contacted, such as when a team member leaves.

Why is only changing the port number for SSH enough to secure that port?

Changing the port reduces automated scanning noise in your logs but isn’t a real security control on its own — port scanners check all ports, so it should never replace key-based auth and firewall rules.

#Secure #Remote #Access #Cloud #ServerCloud,remote access

Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film.

That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“

Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well.

Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate">Lionsgate Is Trying to Bring ‘Leprechaun’ Back to Life (Again) Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film. That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“ Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well. Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. #Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate

the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film.

That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“

Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well.

Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate">Lionsgate Is Trying to Bring ‘Leprechaun’ Back to Life (Again)Lionsgate Is Trying to Bring ‘Leprechaun’ Back to Life (Again) Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film. That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“ Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well. Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. #Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate

Do you remember a few years ago when it was reported the Leprechaun franchise was coming back? Lionsgate apparently means it for real this time, as it’s brought on two writers to script its new film.

That would be Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, according to Deadline. After previously teaming on 2022’s Unhuman and the screen story for 2019’s Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, the pair have reunited to revitalize this dormant franchise. In the producer’s chair are father-and-son duo Oren and Miles Koules—longtime producers on the Saw franchise—with the latter telling Deadline he was ready to work on “a terrifying new way into the rich world of Leprechaun.“

Last we heard in 2023, Lionsgate had filmmaker Felipe Vargas on hand to direct a new Leprechaun in what would’ve been his feature film debut. (Vargas’ takes comes after Jane Schoenbrun was approached to helm a reboot a year prior, which they ultimately passed on in favor of I Saw the TV Glow.) Plans with Vargas fell through, but the studio’s not given up, likely because of the success Alien and Predator saw when they came back to theaters. And they’re not the only ones: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street aren’t far behind, and Saw could be joining them as well.

Plot details on the Leprechaun revival are currently under wraps, but we’ll have more as news emerges—including whether Warwick Davis is game to make a return of some kind.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Lionsgate #Bring #Leprechaun #LifeLeprechaun,Lionsgate

The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.

The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.

The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”

This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.

The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.

“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.

“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”

Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”

Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.

An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”

The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.

#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+">Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual OrientationThe US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+

Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.

The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.

The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”

This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.

The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.

“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.

“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”

Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”

Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.

An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”

The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.

#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+">Census Proposal Would Stop Counting Undocumented Immigrants—and Ignore Race and Sexual Orientation

The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau, is circulating a proposed rule that would cease the collection of demographic data on racial minorities and LGBTQ+ people and prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2030 census, according to documents viewed by WIRED.

The decision could have far-reaching implications for federal funding, particularly in states where there are substantial numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as on immigrant communities across the country.

The proposed rule, which is being circulated across government agencies for review, says the census will eliminate questions about race and sexual orientation “to protect from any distortions created from the inclusion of personal questions.” The memo also states that “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politics [sic], or persons with ‘usual residence’ in the United States.”

This would likely require the reintroduction of a census question about a respondent’s citizenship. During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Republicans attempted to add a citizenship question to the census for the first time since 1950. The effort was struck down by the Supreme Court, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court’s then-larger liberal bloc on the grounds that the justification for adding the question was “contrived.” The decision did not, though, find that citizenship questions are inherently unconstitutional.

The Department of Commerce did not reply to requests for comment.

“This is about the Voting Rights Act,” says Danah Boyd, a professor at Cornell University who studies the census, referencing the landmark voter protection legislation that the Supreme Court dismantled earlier this year. Eliminating the collection of these data, she says, would make it difficult to make basic assessments, like whether a congressional district is predominantly made of minorities.

“If we don’t know certain things, we can’t challenge them politically,” says Boyd. “If we don’t know that certain peoples live in a particular geography, we can’t say, ‘Oh my gosh, here’s some massive inequality.’”

Republicans and the Trump administration have long taken aim at the census. More recently, members of the Trump administration have attacked a little-known statistical method called “differential privacy,” which is used to prevent census data from being used to reidentify individual respondents, claiming that it makes the results inaccurate. In August 2025, Republican representative August Pfluger made another attempt to reintroduce a citizenship question on the census, sponsoring a bill called the COUNT Act, and in October, Republican senator Jim Banks of Indiana published a letter to Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, writing, “There is a credible argument that the framers of the Constitution designed the Census to cover lawful inhabitants and not those who are present illegally.”

Census questions are set between two and three years in advance of the actual survey, based on priorities set by the administration. The data from the census inform everything from the apportionment of congressional seats to federal funding that is allocated based on the size of a population.

An employee at the Department of Health and Human Services, who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak to the press, tells WIRED that “many HHS programs use Census data to appropriate funding. Removing undocumented individuals from the census will cause localities with high numbers of those populations to lose critical federal funding.”

The employee says that removal of racial categories could specifically impact Native populations, which sometimes receive specialized funding. “Some programs use the ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ category from the Census to make determinations of grants set aside for Tribal entities,” they say.

#Census #Proposal #Stop #Counting #Undocumented #Immigrantsand #Ignore #Race #Sexual #Orientationus census,immigration,undocumented immigrants,race,lgbtq+

Post Comment