sudneo

Completely agree, and in fact I mentioned myself that attacks on infrastructures from my PoV would be justified, as they have military value.

I genuinely did not understand what you mean

You can place the limit of personal freedom where you subjectively think it is. Are you free to refuse to participate in a war? In my opinion, generally yes, even if the price to pay is high (jail, retaliation, death). For someone the price to pay might be an argument to say that you are not free, and I think both positions are potentially valid, even though I think nobody can ultimately force you to actually squeeze the trigger.

This said, conscripts have absolutely nothing to do with this discussions, as I consider them part of the military, not civilians (which is what my whole comment was about).

Also, "do what we want with them" is also incorrect, as you can't do certain things even to enemy soldier, if you subscribe to principles stated in the Geneva convention. And to prevent any objections, I am well aware that Russian have done some unspeakable war crimes even in relation to this (such as the beheadings etc.).

Now, if you start extending the responsibility until those who "keep the machine going" you can reach basically any person on the planet, considering the way global economies are connected. I don't think this makes civilians a fair target though.

You are arguing a complete strawman, though, as I am not saying any of that.

My argument is that I think attacks on civilians are generally wrong. This is also why war crimes are defined based on what they are, not the context or the motivation behind them. Russian war crimes are appaling, but this - in my opinion - does not justify attacks on Russian civilians. Nobody also talked about same level or any other comparison, only you. I am not even putting on the same level Izyum and a glass office in Moscow, I am discussing the general principle.

The problem is that war propaganda pushes a principle that I simply don't agree with, which is collective responsibility, from which derives the fact that killing a Russian civilian is not wrong or not as wrong as killing an Ukrainian civilian, because if you hold a Russian passport, automatically you are guilty of genocide.

I don't understand what is hard or complex or debatable about saying that killing civilians is wrong.

Good point. I suppose my point still stands in terms of how people welcome such events, rather than the events themselves. A similar statement could be done for the missile in Taganrog few days ago.

Assuming they were not the intended targets, it still seems that a good chunk of the people participating in the discourse justifies this type of attacks anyway.

Edit: I am keen on hearing the point of views of those who downvote. I am trying to move the conversation forward specifically to hear different perspectives.

It is not an airport, it is a building "near" an airport. I said myself that I would understand attacks on infrastructure as this is used to support the war efforts.

Also, the reason I guess is because attacks on civilian targets give by definition no military advantages whatsoever in the war.

"Waking-up" the population seems to be a potential reason, but then again why not doing it while attacking actual military targets? And this whole argument is anyway debatable as I doubt you can own the spin of the news when all the information is anyway in the hands of the government, which means that what the actual effect on the population will be is not under your control.

Honestly, I don't get the point of calling a small attack like this on a civilian target a victory. I understand bridges and other infrastructure with military value, military targets in general etc., but this is a basically random building. The fact that the ministry owned it seemes a very stretched motivation, not to talk about "several ministries have offices in this district"... I mean, it's Moscow city, like the city of London, it's basically just offices.

I feel like we should not cross the line where we justify attacks on civilians, and let Russia be the only one committing war crimes by doing that (and hopefully paying the price).

I think it's really important to acknowledge the way an office job can completely destroy your day just due to mental exhaustion, boredom and lack of purpose (or a combination of 3). Thanks for your comment because that was an interesting perspective for someone who only ever worked "office jobs".

The fact that you are sit in front of a computer doesn't mean that when you are finished you have all your energy left to do what you want, because even if you are not physically tired, if you are exhausted mentally, all you want to do is being passively entertained.

We could argue at length which job is worse or more tiring, etc. Or we could simply agree on the general principle that everyone should have more time to do what we like.

You can use docker inspect command to dump any meaningful info about the running containers. You can get details about networking, images etc.

Also you can check systemd units (or whatever your system uses) in case they are used to launch containers or docker compose files.

Running ps you should also be ablen to see if docker-compose is used, and in general this uses standard names (docker-compose.yml/.yaml), so you can simply find / -name those.

I think it sees that the browser is trying to execute code that is suspicious (the payload of the XSS was pretty obvious).

Using proper cookie flags can also mitigate this. I am not sure there is a reason to have the session cookie accessible via JS. HttpOnly flag alone could have helped here.

No, in general it's not possible because the code in a page cannot access cookies that are bound to other domains. It is only possible if the "other" site misconfigured its own cookies (which is really not likely for stuff you would care about).