If NAT is security, double NAT must be double security!

[chronovore@infosec.exchange]

@ij @catsalad actually... recent advances in processing has made double ROT13 trivially defeatable. NIST now recommends quadruple ROT13.

[ij@nerdculture.de]

@chronovore Wasn't that recommendation Double-ROT26 instead?

@catsalad

[feld@friedcheese.us]

@catsalad

[toasterson@chaos.social]

@catsalad From 2FAto 2FNAT? To 12 Factor NAT?

[chronovore@infosec.exchange]

@ij @catsalad Fair play. I've been beat at my own game. Your mastery of bad advice is commendable (dubious honor I know, but an honor nonetheless)

[ij@nerdculture.de]

@chronovore You know... the 13 in ROT13 stands for v1, 3rd grade encryption. So the improved version is v2, 6th grade encryption, hence: ROT26 of the Rorschach-Ohm-Tyson algorithm...

@catsalad

[ij@nerdculture.de]

@chronovore Oh, maybe I should add this to my CV: Master of Bad Advice.

Maybe not. Hmmm...

@catsalad

[cinebox@masto.hackers.town]

@catsalad good luck, I’m behind seven NATs

[dcoderlt@ohai.social]

@ij @catsalad
Hear me out: 13 rounds of ROT13

[badsamurai@infosec.exchange]

@jiub @catsalad

[m3t00@app.wafrn.net]

if i'm not mistaken, https is end-to-end encryption for everything already.

[infoseclogger@infosec.exchange]

@ij @catsalad

Save the cycles and just ROT26 out the gate.

[catsalad@infosec.exchange]

@badsamurai @jiub 3 Extra Natties!