Tag: psychology

Kubernetes – a psycho-political view

It is said before in this blog, that people create stuff “in Image and Likeness, which is a bible reference for how god created the mankind. While god (as a figure and idea) is not really my cup o’ tea, I do find this part of bible a bit intriguing. It is intriguing how we (the mankind) created god’s idea in our own Image and Likeness (and other gods and goddesses and in-betweens). For example, christian god gets angry, or pleased, or creative, while it presumably is (or is not) the Super-Duper extra-terrestrial being that created everything and exists everywhere. It is the same need to make stuff out of a known template, that makes god of Pokemon, an equally Super Duper being, still catchable in a regular Pokeball (like all other Pokemon).

This same urge to follow our own template is around us in many things humans create. When one crosses the Rubicon to the world of computers, this resemblance that makes everything look like something else, has its root to humans really. And the reason this happens is the amazing fact that when a computer has to be programmed to solve a problem, we tend to get into the computer’s shoes, try to solve it and keep a record of our steps. Then code these steps in a programming language and that’s it: Let there be software (or hardware). The examples are too many to handle, but the central one is the Von Neumann architecture altogether, that computers still follow.

The catch with this approach is that humans have problems. And recreating the original conditions for these problems in a computer, can lead to these same problems – unless some other axiomatic truth is interfering with the results (demonstrated with the sentence “humans/computers have to work – computers do not question what they have to do“).

Human problems are of multiple types. Personal problems are one type. Problems that have to do with how one is managing oneself. They have clear boundaries, and exist without depending on external stuff, while they can get solved without involving external entities. Yet, I propose that, humanity as a whole is suffering way more from a different kind. The Social ones. The ones that cannot be solved atomically, and not generally by the ones having them. Homelessness, Climate Change, Capitalism are trending in this category.

Computers do not directly inherit social problems from humans, as they are not social animals (and they didn’t get their own Aristotle yet), but they get programmed to eventually be. Think of the Internet, think of networks and distributed computing. And this brings us to the topic. Think of Kubernetes.

Kubernetes has been created to distribute workloads across computers. Its heart is a component called scheduler that basically orders the hosts to run containers, depending on their current workload. To make it graphic, imagine the below:

but with computers.

Yet, you won’t find the scheduler in the above photograph.

He is in this one:


Kubernetes is Greeklish for “Κυβερνήτης” a Greek word for captain or governor, with the latin root of “guberno” which is the word that “government” comes from. So far so good! That thing went political instantly. So let’s dive in a bit more in this technology called Kubernetes.

A Kubernetes cluster consists of a bunch of computers connected through a standard TCP/IP network. The computers are divided in 2 roles. Masters and Workers. And these are actually official terms, not some kind of jargon – “Kubernetes Master” is pretty googlable. We somehow programmed class division at the root of that system as well. Oh, and there are no elections (like e.g Elasticsearch clusters) – Workers will stay workers until they fail out of existence.

So deriving from the names the following is not really clear: “Workers” or “Worker nodes”, well, “work“, but what do Masters do? They don’t rip the “surplus value” as this would make Kubernetes a system analyzed through Marxism and close the case, but they “work” too. Yet, what they do is not general “workload”. The “scheduler” runs in the Master nodes. The Masters order the Workers. We are at least consistent on how we design co-existence for people or computers, aren’t we?

Finally, we, the Kubernetes Users – or should I say stakeholders – only talk with Master nodes. This scheme looks a lot like the 1900 movie where the Padrone (Robert De Niro) has his selected overseer (Donald Sutherland) (who is also initiating fascism in the movie and also kills a cat – what’s worse?) to order and keep in-check the villagers working on his fields (Gérard Depardieu’s family). The reason I do this uncalled-for parallel, is not to pitch a ~50 year old movie. Is to prove the point that this scheme is familiar over 1900 (the movie and the real century), has led to some bad stuff (with Wars of various temperatures and revolutions), and looks very similar with what happens in our cloud computers every day.

The good part is that computers don’t really get depressed. They -at most- fail and get decommissioned, but they don’t get abused by the capital in a way that gets into their psychology. So there’s no sense of Hegel’s dialectic duo here: a slave that gets minified by the master just enough to keep existing only to re-assure the master’s role. Masters and Workers in Kubernetes do not have such issues. They do not indulge in any class struggle, they co-exist without any existential angst – but peacefully. So what is the point of all that?

Back to the Big Picture

What happened here is that some people started creating a Container Orchestrator. When they faced the who-runs-what-depending-on-what they took the old trusted path: one orders – rest obey. If the ordering entity has enough info (metrics delivered by the kubelet of Workers) the system will run smoothly. And it did and it is called Kubernetes and conquered the clouds.

The problem with this design is not any lack of efficiency. It is lack of imagination. And given that we indeed create stuff “in image and in likeness“, this design might have something to say for us, humans, and our society. The fact that when we face a leadership problem we fall back to that “old trusted path” – dictatorship, might indeed mean that our inner deep-rooted values are reflected. And it works both ways. Seeing such designs as so familiar (Kubernetes has dominated the cloud – it is everywhere), can deprive our imagination from other, more creative and less master/slave (for god’s sake) designs.

Finally, if we want to eventually see a more equal society, we have to design stuff towards it. So we don’t see inequalities and divisions whenever we rest our eyes on our creations. And our mind will eventually flip the switch. And out society might (just might) follow.


I have worked a lot with Kubernetes while wearing my SecDevOps hat. I have done all kinds of stuff with it. Worked on Cloud SIEM designs, open-sourced some, created tools for it, and even tried it out as a game engine. This is to ensure you that I am not into a tech savvy rant for some trying-to-be-original issue. I am not canceling a technology, and I am not gonna suggest Nomad as a “Communist Alternative“.

This is (as always) a tongue-in-cheek approach of how we recycle ideas in sectors that seem pretty much irrelevant (IT), preventing us from thinking out-of-the-box, repeating ourselves, our surroundings and the collective unconscious on original fields, maybe tainting them and depriving them from the possibility of developing something new and unseen. Depriving them from the possibility to inspire us back.

Thoughts on an “Obsessive Simulation of a Critical Procedure”

The Email

Some days ago I got a very weird email:

OSCP mail

I felt like something was very wrong. What with the “Professional” word in there (“Offensive Security Certified Professional“)? I don’t feel that professional. Specifically, this XKCD is so much expressing me:



A professional?

So, as I’m not feeling that professional, this organization must be wrong to call me one. Yet, I actually pwned the machines required to “pass”, and be considered one. So, what am I?

Am I an OSCΗ (Offensive Security Certified Hobbyist)?

Being an OSCP means that you can do an Internal Penetration Test, and deliver some report. While the report requirements are too low (IMHO), the market is full of bad actual Penetration Test reports anyway, so it’s only fair. Yet, does this make you a Professional?

It (at least) makes you *Professional* on Capture The Flag

The infamous OSCP Lab and the Exam itself are basically CTFs. Nothing more. So, you don’t need to be a professional to play CTFs. I know 16-year-olds that play CTFs. And they think about batman half of the day. They could skill-wise earn an OSCP most probably.

But, then, skill is not the only thing needed to earn an OSCP. Far from it…


The ingredients of the OSCP recipe

The Exam

Well, to know computers is the easy part of the OSCP. In case you don’t know the well known process of OSCP exam, it goes as follows (as of 5/19):

  • You have 24 hours
  • You are presented with 5 hosts (Windows or Linux)
    • 25 point host – considered quite difficult
    • 25 point host with BoF – considered a gift from OffSec
    • 2 x 20 point boxes – difficult enough but doable
    • 1 x 10 point box – single remote exploit to root
  • You have to get root or Administrator/SYSTEM to 4 out of 5 boxes – 75/100 points to pass
  • The process is proctored
    • You are being watched and recorded for the whole 24-hour thing
    • Your screen is also watched and recorded
    • You have to write on a chat and get permission to take a break, even for a minute.
  • Metasploit and meterpreter can be used (successfully or not) only to one box.
  • When you finish, you get 24 more non-proctored hours to write a report and send it over to OffSec, with very specific/intimidating rules for packaging it.
  • If you have a report from 10 machines of the Lab and **all** the PDF exercises, you can submit them for 5 more points.

So, which part of this is something that makes you a Professional?



For me, what made the whole exam a bearable experience that didn’t result in a mental breakdown, was handling it Professionally altogether. And by that, I mean bringing it to its logical proportions, evaluating what the exam actually means for me, my skills and my life in general.

Being a Professional on Penetration Testing some years now (without being OSCP), I’ve learned that there is a possibility that I won’t “hack” my way in some company. It happens. To even the best, and I don’t claim to be one of them. So there is some fat chance that I won’t get the enlightenment needed to get the Privilege Escalation for the 25 point box. Or find the exploit for the 10 point box (which was actually the case for me). And this is not a moment. This can be a 6-hour state of not finding this Privilege Escalation, that keeps you under the 75 passing points.

The ones that can patiently accept their not enlightened selves for 6 hours, falling back these 75 precious points, while calmly and constantly trying their best to earn them – these are Professionals.


Flawed Psychology Fucks People (FP2)

Given the situation of someone having 70 points (just under the passing line) for 6 hours (with the exam finishing in 2 hours) many bad things can cross one’s mind. It vastly depends on the background, but for me, problematic parenting (that happened long ago anyway), combined with bad school environment, some moderate impostor syndrome, a huge expectation from everyone I know that it’s a piece of cake for me (hence pressure), gave me plenty of triggers for bad thoughts.

Some of them:

  • I’m not enough / I’m not made for this (classic impostor syndrome verse)
  • If I had done the PDF exercises and Lab Report I could have the 5 points that I now miss (pointless regret)
  • “You can’t do it, it’s very difficult” (typical bad-fatherish voice)
  • I’m gonna fail and all my friends will realize that I’m not that good at hacking.
  • I had to study Windows/Linux Privilege Escalation more. It’s my fault. (another pointless regret).
  • If I fail this then I’m not a good hacker. And I haven’t invested to anything as much as hacking.

Continuing to look for the correct Privilege Escalation vector, while these thoughts knock your head’s door is not a simple task. It is not only about not opening to them. It is about minimizing them out of existence. About fortifying and allowing yourself to care only as much as needed and no more. Plus, all these thoughts count towards your thinking capacity, and you need all of it anyway.

What with the non-stop 24 hours?

There is no direction. It is 24 hours and a .ovpn file. Everything is up to you. You can sleep, eat, go out for beers, go pee every five minutes or get on an LSD trip. If somewhere in there you manage to get 4/5 root flags, and the next day you report it slightly better than a young monkey, you are an OSCP. That’s it. That’s the deal.

So it tests the maturity of your time managing skills. Do you get into rabbit-holes a lot? Do you stay in rabbit-holes out of stubborness of investing time to them? Do you have the tendency to procrastinate when you are looking up something on Github? Do you maybe check your phone every X minutes (X < 10)? These things are gonna cost. They cost in life anyway, but this 24-hour exam they are gonna cost X100.


“Try Harder”

Handling all the above while pwning 4/5 boxes in 24 hours is not easy. This is what makes you a Professional. This is OSCP.

The Trying Harder, the classic quote of OffSec is not about the boxes. Is about fixing the flaws that plague oneself, to refine the person as a whole. The challenge could very well be anything else. Yet, it’s not out of coincidence that the subject of a test that goes so deep into one’s psychology is an IT Security one. It has been well proven that IT Security and Human Psychology are well connected. I found somewhere a blog just about that. I think it was called securo-something

A Git Tutorial of Human Psychology

In Image and in Likeness

Catching Paragraph
that uses several seemingly irrelevant pieces of information to hook the reader.

Bible says that [G|g]od created humans “In Image and in Likeness“. While I am not that huge fan of Bible, I do believe that some things are not randomly written in this book.

In Image and in Likeness” is the only way to structure, design, and create something. No wonder, that God created people “In Image and in Likeness” himself. He couldn’t do it any other way…


Git is no Εxception

Creating Git Version Control was also a miracle (thanks again Linus). And it was created to resemble human nature and psychology as well. I don’t claim that the author and developers had this in mind when they started their codebase, but I do believe that they couldn’t help it.
Humans are doomed to duplicate themselves. With more than one ways…


Today’s Proof of Concept

All Git operations have human-side equivalents. Equivalents that resemble life choices and personal mind tricks. Branching, committing, rebasing, all are ways a person feels and acts about things.


The Childhood

Git init

Let there be light” (this is the last biblical reference, promise).
We can parallelize a person as a git repo. So here is what happens when a person is born:

God@Earth# NEW_PERSON="person-$(date +%s)-3"
God@Earth# mkdir $NEW_PERSON; cd $NEW_PERSON;
God@Earth# chroot . start_life $NEW_PERSON &

(the start_life executable starts by setting UID != 0, to avoid creating a new god.
This was the bug that created the Titans, Pantheon, Egyptian Gods and more, in the early years of development)

Because god runs Linux, and that’s for sure…

Then the person has its own process… It is alive! And this is what happens…

$ ls
$ ls -a
. ..
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /.git

Here, we have a new proje… person! All initialized and ready to fulfill its life goals…


Git add

As a new project, at first, a person adds everything that is inside the directory inside the repo. And this isn’t always good…

$ ls
mother.love    old_sister.love    father.love    mother.tongue    mother.bad_habits    father.drinking_problem
$ git add *
$ git status
On branch master

Initial commit

Changes to be committed:
  (use "git rm --cached <file>..." to unstage)

    new file:   mother.bad_habits
    new file:   father.drinking_problem 
    new file:   mother.love
    new file:   old_sister.love
    new file:   father.love
    new file:   mother.tongue

A child sucks everything in its environment to slowly develop a personality. And carries all added things with it. But a personality isn’t actually created before the…

Initial Commit

And here we have the end of Childhood… A child with a discrete personality is a teenager. Almost not a child anymore…
And here is the line that differentiates the two:

$ git commit -m "Built personality PoC"
[master (root-commit) 46ae33f] Built personality PoC

 6 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 father.love
 create mode 100644 mother.love
 create mode 100644 mother.tongue
 create mode 100644 old_sister.love
 create mode 100644 father.drinking_problem 
 create mode 100644 mother.bad_habits

The Early Years

git commit

A commit happens every time a personal decision is made. As the commit is the most common command in git, it is also the most common mental condition in a person’s life. You commit every time consequences of your actions will affect you as a person. Just like a commit in git. It is a command that defines a state of you.

The .gitignore file!

A teenager starts to be more selective when adding things to his/her life. Tries to evaluate whether something is crucial for its development, or not.
A typical example of this is the following:

$ echo "mother.*" > .gitignore

This way a teenager permanently ignores all changes on its mother behavior, effectively carving its own way. One can add things to the .gitignore file as experience comes:

$ echo "*.assholes" >> .gitignore

Here we added the line to ignore all assholes, and prevent them from changing our life.


git branch

There are circumstances that you have to treat like a whole new person. There are events that need a whole fresh you when you first get into them, like relationships or hobbies. Events that every change they do to you, won’t affect you in other aspects of your life.

Let’s say that the teenager we left of, is a boy and is now ready to meet his first love “Lily”:

$ git status
On branch master
Untracked files:
  (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)


He is going to be a boyfriend, trying to leave the rest of his life intact. He has to create a new life branch.

$ git branch boyfriend_of_lily

git checkout

Now, every time he is with Lily he can just:

$ git checkout boyfriend_of_lily

and develop his relationship with her. Adding some Lily-specific files, or changing some already created ones. Also all commits done when with Lily, will affect their relationship only, not the rest of his life (hopefully).

People have countless branches. Think about hobbies, jobs and people that need a specific version of us to operate us expected… I do not treat my colleagues like my parents and I don’t cook with the same attitude I play basketball.

Sometimes, a hobby, a person, a general condition becomes so vital to us that is not “yet another thing” we do. It is something special, something really important to us… When this time happens for one of our branches we have to…

git merge

Here is why git shines. When we have a great hobby, that really means a lot to us, we have to merge it into our master branch.

$ git checkout master
$ git merge hobby_that_defines_you

after that, our hobby is included in the master branch, meaning that is an essential part of ourselves.

Problems start when some branches of ours that we want to merge to our master branch, have changed our inner selves in such a way that contradicts our personality.
When this happens we have the most serious first world problem:


The Merge Conflict…

Let’s say that:
as a person you are cheerful and generally happy, but then you met that goth girl, that  hates smiling and always wears that ring with the skull on it that gives you the creeps.

You are yourself when out with your friends, and you checkout to your Emo branch when with your goth girl! Great, that’s what branches are all about. But then you have to go to a party, were both your friends and your girlfriend will be there. Trying to merge those two branches raises the issue:

$ git checkout party_with_friends
$ git merge goth_girlfriend
Auto-merging attitude
CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in attitude
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
$ cat attitude
<<<<<<< HEAD
Happy and ready for the party!
Look like I hate myself.
>>>>>>> goth_girlfriend

This issue has to be resolved. The way to resolve it is to get to that file and remove anything that doesn’t really belong to you.

I believe that all psychological problems start with such conflicts. When merging, back to master, incompatible branches of our egos… This is because the heavy development has to be done in master branch. The heavy development and commiting has to be in ourselves. While gaining experience we learn when to merge. We also learn when to…


git rebase

When a huge event like a marriage, a job, a loss, a break-up happens, our whole life is then defined by it. Our personal history can be split to before the event and after the event periods. We can remember being completely different before the event.

But now that the event has happened and we have plenty of commits on its branch, it is really easier to adopt our master branch on the branch of the new event, than checkout again to our old and dusty self – master branch.

This is when a rebase happens. When we need to redefine ourselves on top of another event. Notice the difference with the merge. Merge puts some additional things to our master. Rebase redefines our master to include the additional things historically.



And the list goes on!

  • git cherry-pick, when we try to keep only the good stuff from a situation of ours,
  • git blame when we try to find when we made the wrong choice and what went wrong,
  • git tag when we accomplish something memorable.

The next time I get across someone that believes that computer science is far away from the human nature (there is such argument), I ‘ll answer 2 words (kinda)

$ git --help

*mic drop*