New Distributor Partnership: CoreWin Brings OPENVAS to Ukraine and the Region
25 September, 2026 02:16PM by Greenbone AG
25 September, 2026 02:16PM by Greenbone AG
24 September, 2026 12:08PM by Joseph Lee
24 September, 2026 11:16AM by xiaofei
24 September, 2026 11:04AM by xiaofei
24 September, 2026 10:02AM by Chen, Rong
SKUDONET Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 is now available, bringing new capabilities that give infrastructure teams more control over network paths, HTTP traffic and day-to-day ADC operations.
The release adds Last Hop support powered by eBPF, dynamic redirects for HTTP and HTTP/2 Farms, configurable backend Cookie values and a refreshed WebGUI, alongside performance, logging and reliability improvements across the platform.
The main additions include:
Let’s look at the main changes in more detail.
One of the most significant additions in Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 is Last Hop support for HTTP and HTTP/2 Farms.
In infrastructures with multiple routers, VLANs, stateful firewalls or redundant network paths, the route selected for a response can differ from the path through which the original connection reached the ADC.
From a routing perspective, both paths may be valid. From an application delivery perspective, however, this can introduce asymmetric routing which may result in stateful firewall sessions failing, inconsistent NAT behavior, dropped connections or security policies being applied differently depending on the traffic path.
SKUDONET Last Hop addresses this by using eBPF to dynamically learn the relevant Layer 2 path through which a connection reaches the ADC. Linux continues to perform its normal routing decision, while SKUDONET uses the learned information to preserve the appropriate return path when required.
This becomes especially relevant in multi-network environments and in architectures where a backend server can also act as a client of another load-balanced Virtual IP.
We’ve covered the architecture, eBPF implementation and asymmetric routing scenarios in much greater detail in our technical article: How SKUDONET Last Hop solves asymmetric routing with dynamic eBPF Layer 2 learning.
Application migrations and URL restructurings often involve large numbers of redirects, and managing every rule individually quickly becomes difficult when many URLs follow the same pattern.
Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 introduces dynamic redirects that can reuse regular expression capture groups. For example, instead of maintaining separate rules for URLs such as:
/old/products/100
/old/products/200
/old/products/300
a regular expression can capture the variable part of the URL and reuse it in the redirect destination:
/old/products/(.*) → /new/products/$1
This makes it possible to handle multiple related redirects with a single rule, simplifying configuration during website migrations, application reorganizations or URL normalization projects.
Session persistence is essential when an application needs requests from the same user to keep reaching the same backend.
Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 adds the ability to configure the Cookie value associated with HTTP and HTTP/2 backends, giving more control over persistence behavior and allowing compatible services to use consistent backend cookie values when required, particularly useful when several services need to coordinate session affinity.
This type of session persistence allows persistence data to be shared across different farms and services.
Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 also introduces an updated visual appearance for the SKUDONET WebGUI.
Managing an ADC involves much more than creating a load balancing service. Administrators regularly work with Farms, backends, certificates, networking configuration, security policies, monitoring and troubleshooting information. The refreshed WebGUI modernizes the visual experience while maintaining centralized access to the configuration and monitoring capabilities required to operate SKUDONET environments.
The release also introduces CGI concurrency control, which limits the number of simultaneous CGI requests handled by the WebGUI to help manage resource consumption during concurrent administration operations. WebGUI process management has also been integrated with systemd, aligning it more closely with standard Linux service management.
Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 introduces more detailed error logs when reading client and backend headers in HTTP and HTTP/2 Farms, giving administrators more context when investigating malformed requests, backend communication problems or unexpected HTTP behavior.
This release also includes internal performance optimizations that improve traffic handling efficiency. These changes apply automatically and don’t require administrators to modify existing Farm configurations.
Alongside the new functionality, this release addresses several issues affecting HTTP/2, L4xNAT, redirects and SSL certificate management.
SNI hostname matching in HTTP/2 Farms now ignores letter case, in accordance with RFC 6125. This prevents capitalization differences in hostnames from producing unexpected matching behavior.
The release corrects status handling when maintenance actions are applied to L4xNAT backends that are already marked as down, making backend state management more consistent during maintenance operations.
Literal redirect destinations in HTTP and HTTP/2 Farms are now treated as exact strings, so special characters configured within the redirect destination are preserved as expected. This also provides clearer behavior between literal redirect destinations and the new regular-expression-based dynamic redirects.
When a Let’s Encrypt certificate used by the management interface is renewed, the WebGUI now applies the updated certificate automatically, removing a manual step from certificate lifecycle management.
SKUDONET Enterprise Edition 10.2.2 is now available for Enterprise Edition environments with access to current software updates.
Contact our team for more information.
24 September, 2026 08:00AM by Isabel Perez
A Raspberry Pi is small enough to disappear behind a hi-fi rack, yet capable enough to become the center of a more intentional listening system. For music lovers, that is its real appeal. It can turn a library of files, favorite streaming services, and a trusted DAC into one player that responds to the way you actually listen – from a phone, tablet, or computer, without making the music feel like another software project.
The board itself is not magic. Great results come from making a few sensible decisions about the Pi, its power, network connection, audio output, and software. Get those right, and the result can be a remarkably satisfying network music player for a second system, a desktop setup, or the main system in your home.
Most computers are designed to do everything at once. They send notifications, run background tasks, update software, and ask for attention. A Raspberry Pi music player can take the opposite approach: one focused job, done quietly. It receives music from your library or streaming service, organizes it in one interface, and sends it to the rest of your system.
That focus matters more than raw processing power. Playing high-resolution music does not require a large desktop computer. It requires stable playback, reliable network access, sensible audio hardware, and software designed around listening. The Pi’s modest size, low power draw, and wide support from the maker community make it especially well suited to this role.
It also gives you room to grow. You might begin with a simple USB connection to a DAC you already own. Later, you may add dedicated digital output hardware, move music to network storage, or build a compact enclosure that belongs on the equipment shelf rather than the workbench. The system can evolve with your collection and your curiosity.
Before choosing accessories, decide what you want the player to do. This is the question that prevents an enjoyable project from becoming a pile of parts.
If you want easy access to TIDAL, Qobuz, Spotify, internet radio, and local files, choose software that brings those sources together rather than sending you back to separate apps. If your priority is a carefully tagged collection of albums, look for strong library browsing and search. If the Pi will live in a family room, dependable operation and a clear control interface may matter more than advanced settings.
Volumio OS is built around that music-first approach, giving Raspberry Pi owners a dedicated playback environment that can combine local music, streaming services, and connected audio devices in one place. The point is not to spend every weekend adjusting settings. It is to choose an album, press play, and remain with the performance.
For a dedicated streamer, a modern Raspberry Pi with enough memory for responsive browsing is generally the sensible choice. More memory can improve the feel of the interface and leave room for additional services, but it does not automatically improve sound quality. A music player rarely benefits from buying the most powerful configuration just for playback.
Network reliability deserves more attention. Ethernet is usually the cleanest choice for a stationary hi-fi system. It avoids the occasional dropouts and variable signal strength that can affect Wi-Fi, particularly in homes with crowded wireless networks. Wi-Fi remains perfectly practical when a cable is inconvenient, as long as the signal is strong and the player is positioned thoughtfully.
Storage depends on your library. The microSD card is normally used for the operating system, while music can live on a USB drive, a network-attached storage device, or another computer on your network. A network library is often the most flexible arrangement for larger collections because it keeps storage separate from the player. A directly connected drive is simpler for a compact system or a more modest archive.
This is one of the most useful decisions to understand. A USB DAC is often the easiest path. Connect the Pi to a compatible DAC by USB, configure the output in your music software, and you have a capable digital source with very little extra hardware. It is a sensible choice if you already own a DAC, integrated amplifier, or powered speakers with USB input.
Dedicated digital output boards can offer coaxial, optical, or I2S connections, depending on the hardware. They are worth considering when your DAC performs best through a particular input, when you want a more traditional hi-fi connection, or when you are building a system with a specific enclosure in mind.
Neither route wins in every system. USB can be excellent and convenient. A dedicated output can make equal sense when it matches the rest of the chain more naturally. The better choice is the one that gives you reliable operation, the connection your equipment needs, and a sound you enjoy over long sessions.
Raspberry Pi audio discussions often turn immediately to power supplies and electrical noise. These details can matter, but they should be placed in context. A poor-quality supply can cause instability, interrupted playback, or unreliable peripherals. Start with a properly rated, dependable power supply before thinking about refinements.
From there, the audible effect of upgraded power will depend on the entire system. A resolving amplifier, DAC, speakers, and listening room may reveal differences that a casual desktop setup does not. Likewise, some DACs are more isolated from upstream noise than others. There is no universal verdict that applies to every Pi-based player.
A practical order of priorities is useful: first stable power, then reliable network and storage, then the correct digital connection, and finally experimentation with higher-end power or accessories if your system and ears justify it. This keeps the project centered on music rather than assumptions.
A successful Raspberry Pi streamer should be pleasant six months after you build it. That means considering the small details early.
Choose a case that protects the board and allows adequate ventilation. Avoid placing it where cables are under strain or where it will collect excessive heat. Give the system a stable network address if your setup benefits from easy access. Back up your library and keep its folder structure understandable. If you use a USB drive, make sure it has enough power and is formatted in a way your chosen software handles reliably.
Metadata deserves attention, too. Album artist, release date, genre, artwork, and consistent file naming make a library feel like a collection rather than a directory of loose files. A well-organized library changes the experience of discovery. You can move from a favorite record to related artists, revisit an overlooked year, or find a live performance without remembering exactly where you stored it.
A Pi is not the best answer for every listener. If you want a finished component with a display, factory warranty, premium chassis, and no assembly at all, a dedicated streamer may be the better fit. If you need complex video handling, heavy multitasking, or specialized professional audio workflows, a general-purpose computer may make more sense.
But those limits explain why the Pi remains compelling. It is not trying to be every kind of device. It is a flexible foundation for listeners who want to shape a player around their system and habits. You can keep it simple, or you can refine it one choice at a time.
The most rewarding Raspberry Pi build is rarely the one with the longest specification sheet. It is the one that disappears when the first track begins, leaving your library, your system, and the music itself in clear view.
The post Raspberry Pi for Better Home Music Streaming appeared first on Volumio.
New ISO images of SparkyLinux 2026.09 “Tiamat” of the semi-rolling line are now available. This new release is based on the Debian “Forky” testing branch. Key changes: – Packages updated from Debian and Sparky testing repositories as of September 21, 2026. – Linux kernel 7.2.6 (versions: 7.2.7, 6.18.53-LTS, and 6.12.111-LTS also available in Sparky repositories) – Firefox 140.16.0esr (156.0.
23 September, 2026 06:14PM by pavroo
Modern Application Delivery Controller (ADC) deployments rarely operate in simple networks. Enterprise environments commonly include multiple VLANs, routers, firewalls, gateways, backend networks and redundant paths. At the same time, application servers are increasingly interconnected: a server can be the backend of one load-balanced service while simultaneously acting as a client consuming another Virtual IP (VIP).
In these environments, an apparently simple question becomes important:
Should an ADC return traffic according to its routing table, or through the network path from which the connection actually arrived?
These two decisions are not always the same. When they differ, asymmetric routing can appear.
SKUDONET Last Hop addresses this problem by dynamically learning the relevant Layer 2 Last Hop using eBPF, allowing the ADC to preserve the appropriate return path without requiring administrators to redesign the network or maintain complex routing workarounds.
Consider a client accessing an application published through an ADC. The incoming connection may pass through a router or stateful firewall before reaching a Virtual IP.
DIAGRAM 1 — Normal incoming connection
The ADC receives the connection and delivers it to the appropriate backend. Eventually, the application response must return to the client. A conventional network stack performs a routing decision based primarily on the destination:
Destination IP → Routing table → Interface / Next Hop
That is perfectly valid IP routing behavior. However, there is a piece of information a conventional routing decision does not necessarily consider: through which Layer 2 path did this particular connection arrive? The best route towards an IP address and the correct return path for that specific connection are not necessarily the same thing.
DIAGRAM 2 — Asymmetric routing
The connection entered through Firewall A, but its response leaves through Router B. From a pure IP routing perspective, both paths may be completely valid. From an application delivery perspective, the result is an asymmetric traffic path — and that creates real problems.
IP networking does not inherently require both directions of a communication to follow the same physical path. Real enterprise networks, however, contain devices that maintain connection state or apply security policies. If a stateful firewall creates state for Client → Firewall A → ADC but the response follows ADC → Router B → Client, Firewall A never sees the return traffic.
Depending on the infrastructure, this can lead to:
An ADC can have a perfectly valid route to a client and still use the wrong return path for that particular connection.
DIAGRAM 3 — Multiple directly connected networks
The problem becomes more relevant when the ADC is connected to several networks directly — for example, VLAN A (clients), VLAN B (VIP) and VLAN C (backends).
Suppose a connection physically reaches SKUDONET through an intermediate router or firewall, but its source IP belongs to a network the ADC also knows directly. When the response is processed, the routing system sees that destination as directly reachable and selects that direct interface. The decision is correct according to the routing table — but it doesn’t reproduce the path through which the connection actually arrived.
This is one reason asymmetric routing problems can be difficult to troubleshoot: there may be nothing wrong with the routing table at all.
Modern application architectures make the distinction between “client network” and “backend network” increasingly artificial. The same server can simultaneously be a backend member of one load-balanced service, and consume another application through a different SKUDONET VIP.
DIAGRAM 4 — Backend also acting as a VIP client
Backend Server A is therefore both a load-balancing destination and a consumer of another load-balanced service. Because SKUDONET already has direct connectivity to Server A’s network, a conventional routing decision can select that direct path when returning traffic, even though the connection towards the other VIP entered through a different Layer 2 path. As application environments become more interconnected, assuming “backend networks only contain backends” is no longer realistic.
Without a Last Hop capability, the network infrastructure itself has to compensate for the asymmetry. Administrators can introduce static routes, Policy-Based Routing (PBR), source-specific routing, multiple routing tables, packet marks and routing rules, additional VLANs, additional NAT policies, firewall-specific routing rules, topology changes or per-service exceptions.
These approaches can solve individual scenarios, but their limitation is operational complexity. A workaround that’s manageable for two applications becomes difficult to maintain when an ADC publishes dozens or hundreds of VIPs across multiple networks: adding a VIP may require routing changes, moving an application may require new PBR rules, and troubleshooting means correlating ADC configuration, routing tables, firewall state, VLANs and PBR policies at the same time.
Asymmetric routing in complex application delivery environments is not a new problem. Mature enterprise ADC platforms address it inside the application delivery layer rather than relying entirely on external routing workarounds.
F5 BIG-IP, for example, provides Auto Last Hop, which retains the MAC address associated with the incoming request and can use it for the return traffic. NetScaler ADC provides MAC-Based Forwarding (MBF), which similarly retains Layer 2 information about the upstream device and uses it when sending the response.
These mechanisms reflect an important architectural distinction. Last Hop awareness is not simply a routing feature; it is an ADC capability designed for environments where connection state, multiple network paths and application traffic intersect.
SKUDONET addresses the same class of enterprise networking problem with Last Hop, bringing this capability natively into its ADC architecture. Rather than depending on legacy MAC-caching logic, SKUDONET uses dynamic Layer 2 learning powered by eBPF within the Linux networking datapath.
This places SKUDONET alongside established enterprise ADC platforms in its ability to preserve the appropriate return path at the application delivery layer.
Instead of statically describing every possible return path, SKUDONET Last Hop learns the relevant information from the traffic itself. When a connection whose source belongs to a network SKUDONET already knows reaches the ADC, Last Hop identifies the Layer 2 path (including the associated MAC information) through which it arrived, and stores it.
Conceptually:
Incoming traffic → Learn Layer 2 Last Hop → Store path information → Use it for the return traffic
This is implemented using eBPF, integrated with the Linux networking datapath. Linux still performs its normal routing decision first, selecting the interface through which the response would ordinarily leave. SKUDONET’s eBPF logic then checks that decision after routing and before the packet reaches the output interface: if the learned Last Hop indicates the response should leave through a different interface, the output is corrected accordingly.
DIAGRAM 5 — SKUDONET eBPF Last Hop learning
There’s no need to create a static route for every learned connection path, redesign the surrounding network, or spread application-specific routing complexity across the infrastructure.
SKUDONET Last Hop does not replace a correctly designed routing infrastructure. Routers continue routing. Linux continues maintaining network reachability. Gateways, VLANs and interfaces continue performing their normal functions.
Last Hop solves a more specific problem: when the ADC already knows how a connection entered the system, that information is used to preserve the correct Layer 2 return path — instead of letting another valid routing decision introduce unwanted asymmetry.
DIAGRAM 6 — Side-by-side comparison
Traditional routing vs SKUDONET Last Hop
An ADC occupies a privileged position in the network: it sees connections entering the infrastructure, identifies the VIP being accessed, selects application servers and processes the traffic returning from those applications. Discarding information about the incoming path and trying to reconstruct it later through increasingly complex routing policies isn’t always the best architectural approach.
SKUDONET Last Hop uses information that’s already available when traffic enters the ADC, reducing the need for workarounds based on static routes or Policy-Based Routing — and keeps that intelligence where it belongs: inside the application delivery layer, instead of distributed across the network.
What causes asymmetric routing in an ADC deployment?
Asymmetric routing happens when the routing table selects a valid but different interface for a response than the one the connection originally entered through. This is common when an ADC is connected to multiple networks, sits behind stateful firewalls, or when a server acts as both a backend and a client of another Virtual IP.
What is SKUDONET Last Hop?
SKUDONET Last Hop is a capability that dynamically learns the Layer 2 path a connection arrived through, using eBPF in the Linux networking datapath, and uses that information to send the response back through the correct interface.
How does SKUDONET Last Hop compare with enterprise ADC mechanisms?
F5 BIG-IP provides Auto Last Hop and NetScaler ADC provides MAC-Based Forwarding to preserve Layer 2 information for return traffic. SKUDONET addresses the same class of asymmetric-routing problem through dynamic Layer 2 Last Hop learning implemented natively with eBPF in the Linux networking datapath.
Does Last Hop replace routing infrastructure?
No. Routers, gateways and Linux’s own routing system continue to work normally. Last Hop only intervenes for specific connections where the learned entry path differs from what routing would otherwise select.
When should a company consider using Last Hop?
When the ADC deployment includes multiple routers or gateways, stateful firewalls, several VLANs, redundant paths, or servers that act simultaneously as backends and clients of other Virtual IPs.
22 September, 2026 02:34PM by Isabel Perez
22 September, 2026 12:34PM by Joseph Lee
The latest patch-level release of Univention Corporate Server bundles all new features and improvements from the past months onto new installation media including a new authorization backend for Nubus Guardian, more control over password hash security, deeper Keycloak observability, and simplified Microsoft 365 classroom management for schools — alongside continued groundwork for the upcoming UCS 5.3. New with UCS 5.2-7 comes a major performance improvement for WLAN authentication at scale.
WLAN authentication with username and password against the Nubus RADIUS service relies internally on an authentication helper plugin. In very large environments with a high volume of authentication requests, this helper had become a measurable source of CPU load, limiting how many authentications an installation could realistically process.
With UCS 5.2-7, this helper module has been rewritten in Rust. The result is a significant reduction in CPU consumption per authentication request, which directly translates into higher throughput on the same hardware. For organizations operating large WLAN infrastructures — for example in larger school networks — this means fewer authentication bottlenecks and more headroom before additional infrastructure is needed.
Administrators do not need to change any configuration to benefit from this improvement; it is available automatically once updated. Further technical background is available in the corresponding Bugzilla entry.
Guardian, the authorization service for Nubus, now uses the open source project Cerbos as its policy decision backend, replacing the previous OPA-based implementation. Cerbos was selected specifically because it offers features well suited to the kind of authorization decisions Guardian needs to make. Univention will publish a dedicated blog post shortly explaining the reasoning behind this decision in more detail.
Alongside the new backend, the Guardian authorization service itself has changed how it is delivered: it is now shipped as a native UCS “component,” built as a Debian package that contains a Docker container, rather than as a Docker Compose–based App Center App. Setup and upgrades of Guardian follow the UCS component lifecycle as other Nubus services like OpenLDAP or Samba, although Cerbos runs in a Docker Container. This new approach reduces the complexity needed in the App Center Docker Compose handling and installations easier to automate in software deployment tools.
As part of the ongoing preparation for eventually removing weaker password hashes from Nubus, this release delivers several improvements that give administrators more direct control today.
The Univention Directory Manager (UDM) now offers additional configuration options to define which hashing algorithms are used when storing passwords, including the ability to remove weaker hashes that may still be present for historical compatibility reasons. Administrators can choose which hashes are needed in their services and which can be removed – our documentation provides information about which functionality is lost of weaker hashes are removed.
In addition, the Active Directory Connector has been adapted to better support environments where Active Directory is configured with reduced encryption types, covering more real-world configurations than before.
The Keycloak App now allows administrators to activate Keycloak’s built-in Metrics Endpoint directly from the app. Once enabled, detailed information about Keycloak usage and events becomes available for collection by Prometheus and visualization in Grafana, alongside other Nubus and UCS metrics administrators may already be tracking.
This gives IT teams better visibility into authentication load, login behavior, and potential issues in their identity infrastructure — without any manual instrumentation work. Details on enabling and using the metrics endpoint are available in the Keycloak App documentation.
Schools and educational institutions running Nubus or UCS@school alongside Microsoft 365 can now let the MS365 Connector automatically activate Microsoft 365 “education classes” for selected groups. Administrators decide which groups should be treated as education classes, and the connector takes care of enabling the feature in Microsoft 365 accordingly.
This removes a manual, error-prone administrative step from the Microsoft 365 side and ensures that educational features stay consistent with how classes and groups are already managed in the identity system. More information is available in the Microsoft 365 integration manual.
As always, this patch-level release combines the security and bugfix updates of the past months into a new installation medium. As is the case across most open source solutions, the number of reported and fixed security issues continues to rise, partly driven by the growing use of AI-assisted code review.
Additional package updates not visible as a new feature are improvements or compatibility with the upcoming UCS 5.3. This covers two scenarios in particular — domains where UCS 5.2 and UCS 5.3 systems will need to run side by side during a transitional upgrade period, and compatibility with the updated Debian base that UCS 5.3 will build on.
UCS 5.2-7 is, as always, available in the download section. Further information about the included changes can be found in the release notes and help article.
Der Beitrag UCS 5.2-7 Released erschien zuerst auf Univention.
22 September, 2026 12:12PM by Ingo Steuwer
A great hi-fi system can make a weak front end painfully obvious. When your music comes from a laptop, a phone, a network drive, and several streaming apps, the best music streamer features are the ones that remove friction without flattening the character of the recording. The goal is not more technology in the listening room. It is a clearer, more direct path from the music you love to the system you have carefully chosen.
A music streamer should earn its place in a serious setup. It should organize your sources, deliver the right digital signal to your DAC or amplifier, and make choosing an album feel as natural as pulling a record from the shelf. Here is what to look for before deciding which capabilities matter most to you.
A streamer is often described as a convenience product. That misses the point. It is a digital source component, and its design affects how reliably and accurately your system receives music.
Start with the digital output options. If you already own a DAC or an integrated amplifier with a capable DAC section, look for the connection that best suits your system: USB, coaxial S/PDIF, AES/EBU, or optical. USB is widely supported and can carry high-resolution formats, while coaxial or AES/EBU may be a natural choice for established hi-fi systems. The best option is not universal. It depends on the inputs on your DAC and which connection sounds and performs best in your room.
Clocking, electrical noise management, and power supply quality also matter. Digital music is made of data, but the environment in which that data is delivered can influence the noise reaching sensitive audio circuitry. Better streamers pay close attention to component layout, isolation, and clean power. This does not mean every system needs an elaborate solution. It means a streamer should be designed as audio equipment, not merely as a small computer with an output.
Native support for high-resolution PCM and DSD is useful if your library includes those formats or if you subscribe to a service offering high-resolution music. Yet format support alone should not decide your purchase. A well-recorded CD-quality album played through a considered system can be deeply involving. Prioritize stable playback and a sound you enjoy over a specification race.
For many listeners, the most valuable feature is not a number on a spec sheet. It is a unified library. Your favorite music may be split between ripped CDs, purchased downloads, a NAS drive, USB storage, and services such as TIDAL, Qobuz, and Spotify. Switching apps every time you change sources interrupts the listening session before it starts.
A capable streamer brings those sources into a single interface. You should be able to browse artists, albums, composers, genres, and playlists without needing to remember where each record lives. That matters especially for collectors with years of carefully tagged files alongside newer streaming discoveries.
Good library management goes beyond displaying album art. It should respect tags, support multiple artist credits, handle classical music intelligently, and make it easy to search your collection. Classical listeners may need composer, conductor, ensemble, and work-level browsing. Jazz fans may want to follow a sideman across several leaders’ records. Electronic listeners may want to move quickly between labels, remixers, and genres.
The interface should also make it easy to combine sources. A playlist that moves from a local live recording to a newly released streaming album should feel like one collection, not two separate systems forced together.
Be realistic about metadata, though. A streamer can display only the information contained in your files or supplied by a service. Cleaning up inconsistent file tags remains worthwhile, particularly for a large local library. The right platform makes that work visible and rewarding rather than hiding your collection behind folders and filenames.
A music streamer lives or dies by its control experience. You will use it more often than any rear-panel connection, so the app deserves the same scrutiny as the hardware.
Look for fast search, clear album views, dependable queue management, and simple access to favorites. A good app should respond quickly when you tap an album and should make it obvious what is playing, where it is playing, and what will play next. Volume control, input selection, and playback settings should be available when needed without crowding the music browsing experience.
The strongest interfaces encourage discovery as well as retrieval. Recently played albums, new releases from favorite artists, radio features, and editorial recommendations can lead you somewhere unexpected. Still, discovery must not overwhelm ownership. If you have spent decades building a personal library, that library should remain at the center of the experience.
Volumio approaches this with a single music-player ecosystem designed to place local files, streaming services, and connected audio devices under one familiar interface. For listeners, the practical benefit is simple: less app switching and more time with the music.
Network reliability is essential. Wired Ethernet is generally the strongest choice for a fixed hi-fi system, especially when high-resolution playback, large libraries, or a busy home network are involved. Wi-Fi is valuable when running a cable is impractical, but it should be implemented well and remain stable at the distance your system requires.
Beyond the network itself, consider how the streamer will connect to the rest of your home. Bluetooth can be useful for guests and casual listening, although it is not usually the first choice for critical playback. AirPlay and similar casting options can make everyday use more convenient for households with different devices. Roon compatibility may matter if it is already central to your library and discovery habits.
These features are not all equally necessary. A dedicated listening room with a wired network may need very little beyond reliable native streaming and a quality digital output. A shared living space may benefit more from easy casting and straightforward multi-user control. Buy for the way you actually listen, not for an imaginary future system.
The right streamer should make daily listening easier in small but meaningful ways. Gapless playback is essential for live albums, DJ mixes, opera, and records designed as a continuous statement. Without it, a pause between tracks can break the atmosphere immediately.
Reliable playback queues are equally important. You should be able to add an album after the current track, reorder selections, save a queue as a playlist, and return to a session later. These may sound like modest software details, but they shape whether a streamer feels like an instrument for listening or another screen demanding attention.
Consider these practical capabilities together:
Multiroom deserves careful thought. It is excellent for bringing background music into a kitchen, office, or patio, but synchronized playback can introduce different priorities from a single dedicated hi-fi zone. If the main system is your focus, make sure multiroom convenience does not complicate the core listening experience.
A streamer connects your hi-fi system to services and protocols that evolve. That makes software support part of the product, not an afterthought. Look for a company with a record of updates, active development, and clear support for the services you use.
This is especially important for DIY listeners building around a Raspberry Pi, Tinker Board, or PC. The hardware can be wonderfully flexible and cost-effective, but the software experience determines whether the project becomes a trusted source component or an unfinished weekend experiment. A mature platform saves time on setup, networking, library indexing, and everyday control while still leaving room to tailor the system.
For dedicated hardware, consider build quality and serviceability as well. A streamer may sit at the center of your system for years. Thoughtful engineering, stable firmware, and a company that understands both software and high-fidelity audio create more confidence than a long list of isolated features.
The best streamer is not necessarily the one with the longest specification sheet. It is the one that makes you play more complete albums, revisit your own library, and spend less time negotiating between devices. Start with your sources, your DAC or amplifier, your network, and the way you listen with others at home. Then choose the features that make the next album feel effortless to play.
The post Best Music Streamer Features That Matter Most appeared first on Volumio.
22 September, 2026 02:12AM by xiaofei

This cycle centers on expanded board and SoC support, kernel maintenance across sunxi, rockchip, and sophgo families, and infrastructure refinements to installer, extensions, and CI tooling.
New platform enablement covers a broad range of vendors and architectures. Notable additions include the EmbedFire LubanCat 3 v2 and Seeed reComputer RK3576 devkits, the TQ-Systems MBa62xx/MBa67xx TI K3 boards, the Tanix TX6s (Allwinner H616), and the ZTL A568 (RK3568). The Allwinner A733 line advances with a full HDMI display pipeline (DE33/RCQ), PCIe/NVMe, and U-Boot 2026.07 integration for sun55iw3, while the Sophgo SG200x family bumps edge to 7.2, gains TPU support for the Milk-V Duo S, and doubles the /boot partition to 256 MB.
Kernel work spans multiple maintenance streams. The sunxi 6.18 and 7.2 patch sets were rewritten against upstream changes, with fixes for a sun8i_thermal NULL-caldata Oops that also resolves a reboot hang, and a correction for H616/H618 analog LINEOUT playing at half speed. Rockchip receives an RK3588 SDMMC fix for bus-width > 1, plymouth and ttyGS0 gadget console improvements on RK35xx, and Radxa E24C network fixes. Amlogic meson64 gains GPIO wakeup sources, PCIe port service requirements, and a rebased MPS series, while the cix-6.18 sky1 PDC driver was converted to the new syscore API.
Tooling and distribution changes improve reliability and lifecycle handling. A new backward-compatible switch-alias mechanism formalizes deprecation, armbian-install gains an "spi" mode for self-contained boot on NVMe, SATA, or USB, and armbian_firmware now installs linux-headers before linux-image to satisfy first-pass DKMS. GitHub release lookups are checked and authenticated with GITHUB_TOKEN propagated through CI, kernel-deb postinst symlinks are made resilient to hook failures, and download-external mirrors only the newest version of each package to reduce archive bloat.
#Armbian #EmbeddedLinux #Rockchip #Allwinner #KernelDevelopment
aml_encrypt_gxl under run_host_x86_binary_logged. by @rpardini in armbian/build#10755Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/actions#41Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/ci#72Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/distribution#1522 September, 2026 01:46AM by Michael Robinson
21 September, 2026 02:25AM by xiaofei
20 September, 2026 09:35AM by Steven Shiau
A great DAC and amplifier cannot show their full character if music reaches them through a noisy computer, a limited Bluetooth connection, or a different app for every service. To create a network audio endpoint is to give your hi-fi system a dedicated front door for digital music: one that receives audio over your home network and delivers it cleanly to the rest of your system.
For some listeners, that means adding a compact streamer to an existing DAC. For others, it means building a Raspberry Pi-based player that makes a treasured local library as easy to enjoy as a favorite album on Qobuz or TIDAL. The right approach depends on your system, your listening habits, and how much hands-on involvement you want.
A network audio endpoint is the device at the listening end of your digital audio chain. It connects to your network, receives music from a streaming service, music server, phone, tablet, or computer, then passes that signal to a DAC, integrated amplifier, or active speakers.
It helps to separate three roles that are often confused. A music server stores or indexes files. A control point is the app or interface used to choose music. The endpoint is the playback device connected to your hi-fi. One product can perform all three roles, but they do not have to live in the same box.
That separation is useful. Your music library may be on a NAS in another room, while the endpoint sits quietly beside your rack. You can browse music from the listening chair without placing a laptop next to sensitive audio equipment. More importantly, the system can remain focused on playback rather than general-purpose computing.
Before selecting hardware, look at the input you already have. If you own an external DAC you love, a digital endpoint with USB, coaxial, optical, or AES output may be the natural choice. USB is common and capable, but implementation matters on both the streamer and DAC. Coaxial and optical can be excellent choices when they match the available inputs and supported resolution of your equipment.
If your integrated amplifier has digital inputs, the endpoint can feed it directly. If it only accepts analog inputs, choose a network player with a built-in DAC or add a separate DAC between the endpoint and amplifier. Active speakers follow the same logic: use their digital input where appropriate, or provide a quality analog signal from a DAC.
There is no universal rule that says one connection always sounds better. A well-implemented output that suits the DAC is more valuable than a format chosen purely from a specification sheet. Keep cable length sensible, avoid unnecessary conversions, and begin with the connection your system was designed to use well.
A DIY endpoint is compelling when you enjoy building, want to reuse hardware, or need a compact player for a second system. A Raspberry Pi, compatible audio board or USB DAC, power supply, case, storage if needed, and a network connection can become a remarkably capable source. It also gives you room to experiment with outputs and configuration.
The trade-off is responsibility. You choose the enclosure, manage the setup, troubleshoot network behavior, and decide where to spend on power and accessories. That is part of the appeal for many builders, but it is not every listener’s idea of a relaxing Saturday afternoon.
A dedicated network streamer is better suited to listeners who want an integrated, purpose-built component with refined industrial design, stable operation, and a straightforward place in a serious hi-fi rack. It can also make sense when physical isolation, output quality, power design, and long-term product support are priorities. The best route is the one that leaves you spending more time listening than maintaining a system.
The basic signal path is simple: network, endpoint, DAC, amplification, speakers or headphones. The details determine how enjoyable it is to use.
Start with a compatible playback device. This can be a small single-board computer, a PC repurposed for audio, or a dedicated streamer. Next, choose the audio output: a USB connection to an external DAC, a digital HAT or interface board, or an endpoint with an internal DAC. Finally, make sure your control device – usually a phone, tablet, or computer – is on the same home network.
A wired Ethernet connection is usually the first choice for a main hi-fi system. It is dependable, avoids the variability of crowded wireless environments, and makes high-resolution playback less dependent on router placement. Wi-Fi can work very well, especially for secondary rooms or installations where a cable is impractical. If it does not, solve the network issue before changing audio components. Dropouts are more often caused by coverage, router settings, or congestion than by the DAC.
Power deserves a practical rather than mystical approach. Use a stable, appropriately rated supply, keep power cables and network hardware tidy, and evaluate upgrades in your own system. Better power design can be worthwhile, particularly in revealing setups, but it should not distract from the fundamentals of placement, speaker setup, recordings, and a reliable network.
Once the endpoint is connected, install a playback operating system designed for music. The setup process generally includes connecting to the network, selecting the audio output, naming the device, and confirming that your DAC is recognized at the formats it supports.
This is the point where a music-first interface changes the experience. Rather than treating local files, radio, and streaming subscriptions as separate destinations, look for software that presents them in a coherent library. Volumio is built around that idea, bringing playback control, local collections, and supported music services into one environment.
If you use a network-attached storage device, add the shared music folder and allow time for the library to index. Clean metadata pays off here. Consistent artist names, album artists, genre tags, cover art, and composer fields make a large collection easier to explore. A beautifully recorded album is less likely to be played when it is hidden under “Unknown Artist.”
For streaming, sign in to the services you use and check whether the endpoint supports the playback method you prefer. Some listeners value direct control from a single music interface. Others want to hand off audio from an app they already know. Both can be useful, but they offer different browsing experiences and may support different formats or queue behavior.
Begin with a sensible baseline. Set the endpoint to use the correct DAC output, leave volume at a fixed level if your amplifier or preamp is handling volume control, and avoid unnecessary resampling unless you have a specific reason to use it. If digital volume is necessary, make sure it is implemented appropriately and leave enough headroom to prevent accidental overload.
Then listen to familiar recordings. Use music with voices, acoustic instruments, dense arrangements, and quiet passages – not only spectacular audiophile test tracks. You are listening for continuity: stable playback, natural timing, convincing tone, and the sense that the system disappears behind the performance.
Resolution support matters, but it is only one part of the result. A reliable endpoint playing a well-mastered CD-quality album can be more rewarding than an unstable setup chasing the highest number displayed in an app. Let the music, not the menu, decide what deserves your attention.
If the endpoint does not appear in the control app, first confirm that both devices are on the same network and that the router is not isolating wireless clients from wired devices. Restarting the router and endpoint can clear a temporary address issue, but repeated failures suggest a network configuration problem worth investigating.
If the DAC is not detected, try another USB cable or input, then verify that the selected output is correct in the playback settings. For digital connections, confirm that the endpoint and DAC support the selected sample rate. An optical input, for example, may have different limits from USB.
When playback stops or stutters, test with a wired connection before adjusting audio settings. Move the endpoint closer to the router if using Wi-Fi, reduce competing network traffic, and make sure the power supply is adequate. Change one variable at a time. That makes the cause easier to identify and prevents a simple network problem from becoming an expensive guessing game.
The real value of a network endpoint is not merely that it puts music on a network. It removes friction between curiosity and listening. A well-organized library invites you back to albums you forgot you owned. A unified control experience makes it easier to move from a radio discovery to a favorite recording without reaching for another device.
Build the system around those moments. Give the endpoint a clear name, keep your library tidy, save a few playlists for different moods, and use the connection that lets your existing DAC and amplifier sound at home. When the technology becomes quiet in the background, the room belongs to the music again.
The post How to Create a Network Audio Endpoint at Home appeared first on Volumio.
An HTTPS request can pass every network-level check and still contain something your application should never process.
SQL injection, malicious JavaScript, malformed HTTP data or a dangerous file upload can all travel inside what appears to be a perfectly valid connection.
This is exactly where a Web Application Firewall comes into play.
The interesting part is not simply that it can block malicious traffic. What really matters is what happens between the moment a request reaches the infrastructure and the moment it is either rejected or forwarded to the application.
Let’s follow that request step by step.
In our architecture, traffic follows a clear path:
Client → reputation and DoS/DDoS checks → TLS termination → WAF inspection → load balancer → backend
The Web Application Firewall operates before backend selection, so malicious requests can be stopped before the application has to process them. The response can also be inspected on its way back to the client.
That gives security teams a useful point of control inside the application delivery path, rather than leaving inspection to the application itself.
Not every connection needs the same level of analysis.
Before a request reaches deep application inspection, traffic can already be checked against reputation data, blocklists and abnormal connection behavior.
Our IPDS stack includes reputation-based filtering, real-time RBL checks and DoS/DDoS protection before the WAF stage.
This allows clearly suspicious traffic to be discarded earlier, while the WAF focuses on requests that require deeper analysis at application level.
Most business applications today use HTTPS, which means the HTTP request is encrypted while it travels over the network.
A Web Application Firewall cannot inspect application content it cannot see.
That is why TLS termination happens before WAF inspection. In our architecture, HTTPS is decrypted inside the ADC and the HTTP request is then passed to the WAF engine for analysis.
This is what makes it possible to inspect the actual content of an encrypted request rather than just the connection around it.
Once the request is visible, the Web Application Firewall can inspect much more than the URL.
The inspection can include:
Each request also receives a unique transaction ID, which helps trace it across hostnames, services and backends.
This becomes especially useful in environments where the same infrastructure protects several applications, APIs or microservices.
Inspection only becomes useful when the WAF has a clear way to evaluate what it sees.
Our WAF uses ModSecurity as the inspection engine and applies OWASP Core Rule Set v4.3.0, together with additional SKUDONET rules and threat intelligence.
These rules can detect patterns associated with attacks such as:
The decision is made on the content and behavior of the request, not simply on where it came from.
Predefined rules are useful, but real applications rarely behave in exactly the same way.
A public API, an ERP and a customer portal may all need different security policies, even if they share the same infrastructure.
That is why administrators can inspect and modify existing WAF rules and also create their own. Custom rules can be applied at farm, service and VirtualHost level, while exclusions can be used when legitimate traffic requires a more specific policy.
The platform is also compatible with the ModSecurity rule language, giving technical teams a way to define more granular detection and blocking logic when needed.
Take a simple SQL injection attempt.
The connection itself may look completely normal. HTTPS works, the HTTP request is valid and the client is reaching an allowed endpoint.
The problem is inside the request.
Once the WAF inspects the relevant parameter or request body, a rule may identify a malicious pattern. If the request is considered unsafe, it is blocked before the backend processes it.
That is the key difference between network-level filtering and application-level inspection: the connection may be valid, while the content is not.
Our WAF is designed to detect attack categories including SQL injection, XSS, LFI/RFI, RCE, command injection and several HTTP anomalies.
If the request passes inspection, it continues to the load balancer, which selects the appropriate backend.
At that point, security and application delivery are part of the same request path.
The same infrastructure can handle:
The client request is only half of the HTTP transaction.
Our WAF uses a four-phase inspection model:
This means the response from the backend can also be inspected before it is returned to the client.
For troubleshooting and security analysis, that provides a more complete picture of the transaction instead of looking only at inbound traffic.
A Web Application Firewall has to block malicious traffic without constantly breaking legitimate requests.
That sounds obvious, but it is one of the main operational challenges of running a WAF in production.
A legitimate request can occasionally match a security rule because of an unusual parameter, payload or application behavior.
When that happens, the useful question is not simply “which rule blocked it?”, but also “why did it match?”
Our WAF logs include details such as:
Administrators can then adapt a rule or create an exclusion without weakening the entire policy.
Applying the same security policy to every service is rarely ideal.
Production, staging and QA may have different needs. An internal service may behave very differently from a public API. A legacy application may require exceptions that would make no sense elsewhere.
Our platform allows different farms, services and domains to use their own rule sets, blocklists and security policies within the same ADC instance.
That gives teams more flexibility to adapt protection to the application rather than forcing every application into the same security model.
In larger environments, manual security changes quickly become difficult to maintain.
Our REST API can be used to automate deployments, update rules from CI/CD pipelines, integrate security with external systems and react to backend events by creating dynamic rules.
For DevOps and platform teams, this makes WAF policy management easier to integrate into the same workflows already used for application delivery and infrastructure changes.
Deep inspection is not free.
A Web Application Firewall may need to terminate TLS, parse HTTP, inspect headers and bodies, evaluate rules and, in some cases, inspect the response as well.
The impact depends on factors such as:
This is why WAF performance should be evaluated in the context of the actual application rather than only through generic throughput numbers.
Our Web Application Firewall is built directly into the ADC rather than deployed as a separate security layer.
It works together with:
The WAF uses ModSecurity and OWASP CRS v4.3.0, while administrators retain control over custom rules, exclusions and application-specific policies.
It can be deployed as an edge ADC, an on-premise reverse proxy or as part of a hybrid architecture protecting public applications, internal services, APIs, microservices and cloud workloads.
For teams managing critical applications, the advantage is not simply having another security feature.
It is being able to manage security, availability and traffic delivery within the same application path, with visibility into what is being blocked, why it is being blocked and where legitimate traffic is being sent.
A Web Application Firewall is a security layer that inspects HTTP and HTTPS traffic to detect and block malicious application-layer requests before they reach a web application. Unlike a traditional network firewall, it analyzes the content of web traffic rather than relying mainly on IP addresses, ports and network protocols.
A Web Application Firewall sits in the application traffic path and evaluates HTTP/S requests against security rules. It can inspect headers, parameters and request bodies, detect malicious patterns and either block the request or allow it to continue towards the backend.
Yes, provided the encrypted traffic is decrypted before application-layer inspection. In our architecture, TLS is terminated inside the ADC before the request reaches the WAF.
Yes. Our WAF inspects both request and response traffic through four phases covering request headers, request bodies, response headers and response bodies.
The level of customization depends on the platform. In our case, administrators can inspect and modify existing rules, create custom rules and define exclusions at farm, service and VirtualHost level.
Depending on its rules and configuration, a Web Application Firewall can detect attacks such as SQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting, Local and Remote File Inclusion, Remote Code Execution, command injection and malformed HTTP requests. Our WAF also includes detection for scanners, bots and several HTTP DoS patterns.
18 September, 2026 05:55PM by Isabel Perez
18 September, 2026 07:46AM by xiaofei
18 September, 2026 07:26AM by xiaofei
The difference between a merely convenient streamer and a compelling digital front end often appears in the quietest moments: the decay of a piano note, the placement of a vocalist, the space around a brushed cymbal. To improve streamer sound, start by treating the streamer as a real component in your hi-fi system, not just a box that delivers music from the internet.
A network player does more than move digital files from one place to another. It receives data, manages software, handles clocks and electrical noise, then passes a digital or analog signal to the next stage of your system. The goal is not to chase tweaks for their own sake. It is to remove the bottlenecks that keep your DAC, amplifier, and speakers from showing what a well-recorded album can do.
Before changing cables or adding accessories, map the path your music follows. Is the streamer using its own analog outputs into an integrated amplifier? Is it feeding an external DAC through USB, coaxial, or optical? Does your amplifier have a DAC section already? These answers determine where an upgrade will make a meaningful difference.
If your streamer has a capable internal DAC and your system is simple, its analog outputs may be the most direct route to satisfying sound. Fewer boxes and connections can mean less complexity, easier control, and a cleaner installation. A dedicated DAC, however, can be a worthwhile addition when the rest of the system is revealing enough to expose its strengths in conversion quality, output stage design, and connection flexibility.
There is no universally superior connection. USB can support high-resolution formats and allows an external DAC to control timing, but it can also carry electrical noise from connected equipment. Coaxial S/PDIF is often a strong, stable choice for systems with a quality digital input. Optical isolates electrically, which can be useful when hum or noise is present, though some implementations have lower resolution limits. Listen with your own equipment before assuming one interface wins.
Keep the path purposeful. A streamer connected to a DAC, then to a preamp or integrated amplifier, is usually all that is needed. Avoid unnecessary converters, splitters, and adapters. Each added device is another possible source of poor contacts, power noise, or setup errors.
When you want to hear the native resolution of your files or streaming service, configure playback to avoid unwanted processing. Volume normalization, DSP, crossfeed, and resampling can all be useful tools, but they should be deliberate choices rather than accidental defaults.
Bit-perfect playback is not a guarantee of better music. Thoughtful room correction, for example, may produce a far larger improvement than preserving a file’s original sample rate. The point is control. Know whether your player is changing the signal and choose the setting that serves your system and listening priorities.
Network problems do not always sound like obvious dropouts. They can show up as slow browsing, interrupted playback, or an experience that pulls attention away from the record. A reliable network lets your music player do its job without becoming the evening’s troubleshooting project.
Whenever practical, connect your streamer to the router or network switch with Ethernet. A wired connection is generally more consistent than Wi-Fi, especially in homes with thick walls, crowded wireless networks, or several devices streaming at once. Use a properly made cable of sensible length, route it away from power cords when convenient, and do not feel compelled to buy exotic network hardware before solving basic placement and connectivity issues.
Wi-Fi can still work extremely well. If wiring is not realistic, place the router thoughtfully, use the less crowded band available in your home, and make sure the streamer has a strong signal. Mesh systems can help in larger spaces, but node placement matters more than the number of units. Put one where it can receive a healthy signal, not at the farthest possible edge of coverage.
Your network does not need to become a laboratory. Begin with dependable hardware, current firmware, and a connection that remains stable through a full listening session. That is the foundation.
Digital audio components are sensitive to their power environment because the power supply supports processing, clocking, and output circuitry. A noisy or underperforming supply can limit the sense of ease, dimensionality, and low-level detail your system is capable of reproducing.
Start with the supplied power adapter if it is properly matched to the streamer and in good condition. Then listen for what your system needs. In a modest setup, speaker placement or a better DAC may be the more productive next move. In a revealing system, a well-designed linear power supply can be a meaningful refinement, particularly when the streamer is already performing at a high level.
The benefits are usually subtle rather than dramatic. You may notice blacker backgrounds, more stable images, or a calmer presentation when complex arrangements build. If a power change makes the sound brittle, overly etched, or simply different without being more musical, trust your ears and return to the configuration that keeps you listening longer.
Place power supplies and wall-wart adapters away from sensitive analog cables where possible. Keep power cords and signal cables separated rather than tightly bundled together. Good cable management is not glamorous, but it can reduce avoidable noise and makes diagnosing problems much easier.
A streamer and DAC can both offer digital volume control, fixed output options, and gain settings. Incorrect combinations can reduce usable resolution or create a sudden jump in level. Decide which component will control volume, then configure the other for a predictable operating range.
If you use an integrated amplifier or preamplifier, set the streamer or DAC to fixed output when appropriate and use the analog component for daily volume adjustment. If your system has a power amplifier directly connected to a DAC or streamer, a digital volume control may be necessary. In that case, begin at a low level and confirm the behavior carefully before playing music at normal volume.
Match output levels with care when comparing components. A slightly louder source nearly always sounds more exciting at first, which can lead to the wrong conclusion. Level-matched listening makes it easier to hear genuine differences in tone, timing, and spatial presentation.
Hum, hiss, clicks, and intermittent distortion are not character traits of digital audio. They are clues. Disconnect unused sources, test another input, and make one change at a time. If noise appears when a cable TV box, computer, or charging device is connected elsewhere in the system, you may be dealing with a grounding issue rather than a problem with the streamer.
Start simple: confirm every connection is secure, restart the streamer and router, and update software when a stable release is available. Then isolate components methodically. A short evening of patient testing can save money and point to the real cause.
Sound quality includes the experience of choosing what to play. A player that unites your local library and favorite services reduces the friction of moving between albums you own and music you want to discover. It also encourages better listening habits: full albums, carefully made playlists, and spontaneous returns to records that deserve another spin.
Organize local files with consistent album artists, artwork, and metadata. A clean library makes a serious collection feel accessible instead of buried on a hard drive. For streaming, choose the highest quality tier that fits your service and connection, but do not let file-format debates replace listening. A great performance in a well-recorded standard-resolution release can be far more involving than an indifferent high-resolution track.
Volumio brings local music, streaming services, and connected audio devices into one music-first environment, whether you are building a Raspberry Pi player or choosing a dedicated streamer. The practical advantage is simple: less app switching, more time with the music.
The most effective way to improve streamer sound is to make changes slowly and listen to familiar recordings. Choose a few tracks with voices, acoustic instruments, dense arrangements, and deep bass. Play them at a comfortable, repeatable volume. Give each change enough time that the novelty wears off.
Pay attention to whether music becomes more believable, not merely brighter or louder. Does a singer sound more present without becoming sharp? Can you follow the bass line when the arrangement gets busy? Do long sessions feel relaxed and involving? Those are better measures than a specification sheet alone.
Your streamer should disappear into the system, leaving the performance intact and your music collection close at hand. Build from a stable network, a clean signal path, sensible power, and thoughtful settings, then let the next album tell you where to go.
The post How to Improve Streamer Sound in Your Hi-Fi System appeared first on Volumio.
The first release candidate (RC) for Qubes OS 4.3.2 is now available for testing. This patch release aims to consolidate all the security patches, bug fixes, and other updates that have occurred since the release of Qubes 4.3.1.
kernel-latest upgraded to Linux 7.2That depends on the number of bugs discovered in this RC and their severity. As explained in our release schedule documentation, our usual process after issuing a new RC is to collect bug reports, triage the bugs, and fix them. If warranted, we then issue a new RC that includes the fixes and repeat the process. We continue this iterative procedure until we’re left with an RC that’s good enough to be declared the stable release. No one can predict with certainty, at the outset, how many iterations will be required (and hence how many RCs will be needed before a stable release), but we tend to get a clearer picture of this as testing progresses.
Since the changes between 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 are relatively minor, we currently don’t anticipate any major problems requiring a second RC. We currently expect to be able to publish the stable 4.3.2 release around the end of September.
If you’d like to help us test this RC, the best way to do so is by performing a clean installation with the new ISO. As always, we strongly recommend making a full backup beforehand and updating Qubes OS immediately afterward in order to apply all available bug fixes.
As an alternative to a clean installation, there’s also the option of performing an in-place upgrade without reinstalling. However, since Qubes 4.3.2 is a patch release, it’s essentially Qubes 4.3 inclusive of all updates to date, which largely amounts to just using a fully-updated 4.3 installation. By contrast, a clean installation covers other areas that could also benefit from testing, such as the installation procedure, which is why it’s the recommended testing method.
Regardless of your testing method, please help us improve the eventual stable release by reporting any bugs you encounter. If you’re an experienced user, we encourage you to join the testing team.
It is possible that templates restored in 4.3.2 from a pre-4.3 backup may continue to target their original Qubes OS release repos. This does not affect fresh templates on a clean 4.3.2 installation. For more information, see issue #8701.
View the full list of known bugs affecting Qubes 4.3 in our issue tracker.
A release candidate (RC) is a software build that has the potential to become a stable release, unless significant bugs are discovered in testing. RCs are intended for more advanced (or adventurous!) users who are comfortable testing early versions of software that are potentially buggier than stable releases. You can read more about Qubes OS supported releases and the version scheme in our documentation.
The Qubes OS Project uses the semantic versioning standard. Version numbers are written as [major].[minor].[patch]. Hence, we refer to releases that increment the third number as “patch releases.” A patch release does not designate a separate, new major or minor release of Qubes OS. Rather, it designates its respective major or minor release (in this case, 4.3) inclusive of all updates up to a certain point. See our supported releases for a comprehensive list of major and minor releases and our version scheme documentation for more information about how Qubes OS releases are versioned.
17 September, 2026 10:25AM by Joseph Lee
17 September, 2026 01:48AM by xiaofei
A connected audio product can look exceptional, use premium components, and still disappoint the moment a listener opens the control app. That is why an OEM audio streaming platform is not simply a software component to add near the end of product development. It is the listening experience, the product roadmap, and often the reason a customer returns to the system every day.
For audio manufacturers, the question is not whether streaming belongs in the product. It does. The more useful question is how to introduce it without sacrificing sound quality, brand identity, or the pace needed to bring a new product to market.
An OEM streaming platform provides the software foundation for a connected music product. It can power a network streamer, integrated amplifier, active speaker, DAC, or custom installation product, bringing music services, local libraries, internet radio, multiroom capabilities, and device control into one coherent system.
That definition sounds simple, but the work behind it is substantial. A credible platform must recognize music from many sources, maintain service integrations as APIs evolve, handle a changing home network, present album artwork and metadata correctly, and make playback feel immediate. It must also support long-term software maintenance after a product has left the factory.
For high-fidelity brands, the platform has another responsibility: it must respect the audio path. Bit-perfect playback, support for high-resolution formats, reliable clocking strategies, careful driver integration, and predictable control over digital outputs all affect whether a streaming product belongs in a serious hi-fi system.
A platform that does only one of these jobs well can create friction elsewhere. An elegant interface means little if it cannot find a customer’s NAS library. Wide service support is not enough if updates regularly interrupt playback. Great technical specifications lose their meaning if the experience feels generic or difficult to operate.
The strongest product briefs begin with a real listening moment. Consider the owner who has years of carefully tagged FLAC files, a Qobuz subscription for new discoveries, and a favorite radio station for Sunday morning. They do not want three apps and a manual to move between them. They want their music, available from one familiar place.
This is where an OEM solution can become a meaningful part of a brand’s proposition. The interface should make discovery, library browsing, queue management, and device control feel natural. It should also reflect the type of listener the brand serves. A compact lifestyle speaker may prioritize fast setup and simple presets. A reference DAC or network transport may need deeper control over sample-rate handling, digital inputs, playback settings, and signal-path visibility.
There is no single correct level of complexity. The right choice depends on the product category and the audience. The mistake is treating all streaming users as identical, or assuming audiophiles will accept a difficult interface in exchange for better sound. They expect both.
A branded app and user experience should feel like an extension of the physical product. The visual language, terminology, setup flow, and available settings all shape perception. This does not mean placing a logo on a generic control surface. It means making thoughtful decisions about what the listener needs to see, what can remain in the background, and how the product expresses its character.
Customization also requires discipline. Every unique workflow, screen, or feature may add development and maintenance obligations. A sensible OEM partner helps distinguish between differentiation that customers will actually feel and customization that only extends the launch schedule.
It is easy to compare streaming platforms by supported services and audio formats. Those details matter, but they are only the entry point. The audible result depends on how the software and hardware are integrated as a complete playback system.
An OEM partner should be comfortable working with the manufacturer’s selected processing platform, network implementation, DAC architecture, display hardware, and control scheme. The goal is not merely to make audio play. It is to make the product behave predictably under real conditions, whether it is switching sample rates, recovering from a network interruption, reading a large local library, or playing a long queue without hesitation.
For products aimed at discerning listeners, ask direct questions about the audio path. Can the system preserve native resolution where the hardware supports it? How are volume control and DSP handled? What happens when playback moves between sources? How is gapless playback managed? Can the platform expose meaningful playback information without turning the interface into an engineering dashboard?
The answers should be clear and specific. “High resolution” is a useful capability, but it is not a complete sound-quality strategy.
Building streaming software internally may appear attractive, particularly for brands with a strong engineering culture. Full control has genuine value. It can make sense when streaming behavior is central to a company’s intellectual property, when the organization has a dedicated software team, and when it is prepared to maintain services and applications for years.
For many audio manufacturers, however, building from scratch moves a large and ongoing risk into the business. Streaming services change. Mobile operating systems change. Security standards change. Customers expect new features after purchase, not a fixed feature set frozen at launch.
An experienced OEM audio streaming platform reduces that burden by supplying proven technology and a development process built around audio products. It allows a manufacturer to focus resources where it has the clearest advantage: industrial design, analog and digital engineering, acoustic performance, distribution, and the identity of the brand.
This does not mean accepting a black box. The best collaboration is transparent. The manufacturer should understand the software architecture, integration boundaries, test process, update policy, and what is required when a new service or hardware revision arrives.
A connected product is never truly finished at production. Before committing to a platform, establish how firmware releases are planned, tested, delivered, and supported. Clarify responsibility for customer-facing support, bug triage, certification requirements, and compatibility with future mobile devices.
It is also worth examining how the platform behaves when things go wrong. Home networks are unpredictable. Routers restart, Wi-Fi coverage varies, and customers may have complex libraries with inconsistent metadata. A mature system anticipates these realities and gives both the listener and support team useful ways to recover.
Streaming services are essential, but local music remains deeply important to many hi-fi customers. A personal library often represents decades of collecting, ripping, purchasing, and curating. It deserves more than a basic file browser.
Look for library management that handles common network storage setups, preserves artwork and metadata, supports browsing by artist, album, genre, and composer, and remains responsive as collections grow. Classical listeners, in particular, may need richer metadata handling than a conventional artist-and-album model provides.
At the same time, service integrations must be treated as living relationships. Support for TIDAL, Qobuz, Spotify, and internet radio should be reliable, clearly presented, and maintained over time. The platform should bring these sources together without pretending they are identical. A service’s editorial recommendations, a user’s saved albums, and a local library each serve a different purpose in the listening journey.
The result should be a system that encourages music rather than source management. Listeners should spend their time choosing an album, not figuring out which app can play it.
Choosing an OEM platform is partly a technical evaluation, but it is also a partnership decision. The right team asks about your customer, product family, target price, hardware choices, and ambitions after the first launch. It understands that an active speaker and a flagship streamer may share a software foundation while needing very different expressions.
Volumio brings this perspective from both sides of the listening room: an ecosystem shaped by a global community of music lovers and makers, plus dedicated high-end products hand-assembled in Florence. That experience informs OEM collaborations where sound quality, usability, and a distinctive brand experience must coexist.
A productive development process should include early hardware validation, clear milestones, shared testing criteria, and room for careful tuning before the product reaches reviewers and customers. It should also leave space for future models. A platform that can support an expanding family of products creates continuity for customers and efficiency for the manufacturer.
A compelling launch matters, but connected audio products earn their reputation over the months that follow. The initial setup, the first software update, the addition of a favorite music service, and the way a product handles a growing library all become part of the ownership experience.
Choose an OEM audio streaming platform with enough technical depth to protect sound quality, enough flexibility to carry your brand, and enough long-term commitment to keep the product feeling current. When the technology stays quietly dependable, listeners can give their attention to the part that matters: the next record they cannot wait to hear.
The post How to Choose an OEM Audio Streaming Platform appeared first on Volumio.
Update Tor Browser to 15.0.23.
Update the Tor client to 0.4.9.12.
Simplify the shutdown procedure.
Since Tails 7.10, you had to confirm shutting down in a Power Off dialog. For faster shutdowns, we removed this dialog when no application needs to be closed and no document needs to be saved before shutting down.
Automatic upgrades are available from Tails 7.0 or later to 7.13.
If you cannot do an automatic upgrade or if Tails fails to start after an automatic upgrade, please try to do a manual upgrade.
Follow our installation instructions.
The Persistent Storage on the USB stick will be lost if you install instead of upgrading.
If you don't need installation or upgrade instructions, you can download Tails 7.13 directly:
15 September, 2026 01:01PM by Joseph Lee
Organizations go multi-cloud for good reasons, resilience and pricing leverage among them. What rarely gets budgeted is what happens to the network team once those workloads are actually live in AWS, Azure, and a datacenter at the same time.
Routing tables drift out of sync. VPN tunnels accumulate faster than anyone documents them. And the failover design that looked airtight in the diagram takes three times as long as planned the first time someone actually pulls the plug.
I want to be precise about why this happens, because it is not a monitoring problem, and another dashboard will not fix it. It is a routing architecture problem.
15 September, 2026 12:00PM by Gizem Yigit (g.yigit@vyos.io)

This week&aposs work centers on new board and SoC enablement, a broad wireless driver and firmware overhaul, and continued kernel, boot, and installer refinements.
Board support expanded on multiple fronts. A new RK3562 family was introduced alongside the KICKPI K3B with mainline U-Boot and Linux, and mainline 7.2 bring-up landed for the S5P6818 platform covering NanoPC-T3+, NanoPi M3, and Fire3. The FriendlyELEC NanoPi R28S, Wildfire Lubancat 3 v2, OrangePi CM5 Base edition, and SpacemiT Musebook (current branch) were added, while the Mixtile Edge2 and Blade 3, Orange Pi 5 Max/Ultra, and Banana Pi M2 Ultra received targeted fixes for Bluetooth, eMMC, Ethernet, and thermal behavior.
Wireless support saw substantial cleanup and expansion. The rtl8723ds driver underwent an extensive warning-elimination pass — addressing -Wmissing-prototypes, -Wempty-body, -Wmaybe-uninitialized, -Wrestrict, and -Warray-bounds findings — with parallel improvements to rtl8189es/fs, rtl8192eu, rtl8852bs, and uwe5622. Firmware additions include MT7986 Wi-Fi and Airoha EN8811H blobs, AIC8800 D80 SDIO names, and AP6212 NVRAM for S5P6818 boards, complemented by Bluetooth and 5 GHz Wi-Fi fixes on Rockchip and AYN Odin 2 targets.
On the platform side, the mainline kernel was bumped to 7.3-rc2, a critical stmmac resume-ordering backport restores Ethernet after suspend on RK3588, and sunxi 6.18 and 7.2 gained fixes for eMMC boot hangs and post-reboot Ethernet loss. The installer engine now supports extlinux boards and native USB/NVMe boot on RPi-style hardware, zram-config was corrected for modern kernels, and BSP changes make SSH host key regeneration power-loss safe. Build infrastructure improvements include ORAS gitball use for U-Boot, better shallow-export handling during merge windows, and expanded CI coverage.
#Armbian #EmbeddedLinux #Rockchip #SBC #KernelDevelopment
current branch. by @pyavitz in armbian/build#10659Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/bcmdhd-dkms#10Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/ci#34Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/hastebin-ansi#815 September, 2026 01:02AM by Michael Robinson
We have published Qubes Security Bulletin (QSB) 119: Potential attacker-controlled format string in qvm-open-in-vm. The text of this QSB and its accompanying cryptographic signatures are reproduced below, followed by a general explanation of this announcement and authentication instructions.
---===[ Qubes Security Bulletin 119 ]===---
2026-09-15
Potential attacker-controlled format string in qvm-open-in-vm
User action
------------
Continue to update normally [1] in order to receive the security updates
described in the "Patching" section below. No other user action is
required in response to this QSB.
Summary
--------
Under certain circumstances (see "Technical details" below), if the user
invokes qvm-open-in-vm (either directly or through the "Edit in
disposable qube" GUI integration) on a file with an attacker-controlled
filename or path, the attacker might be able to execute code in the qube
in which the user invoked qvm-open-in-vm.
Impact
-------
An attacker who successfully exploits this vulnerability can take
control over the qube in which the user invoked qvm-open-in-vm.
Affected systems
-----------------
All supported Qubes OS releases are affected. Among official Qubes OS
templates, only Debian templates are affected.
Technical details
------------------
When qvm-open-in-vm is invoked with a file (not an URI), the source-side
part of the qrexec call is handled by the qopen-in-vm helper program.
After sending the file content to the other side, qopen-in-vm tries to
open a temporary file alongside the original file in order to save the
response in case the user has edited the file in the target qube. If
creating this file fails (e.g., because the directory is read-only),
qopen-in-vm creates a temporary file in /tmp and shows an error message
to the user. When printing this error message, it incorrectly invokes
the gui_nonfatal function, such that the original filename ends up in a
printf format string, which is unsafe.
For this vulnerability to be exploitable, multiple conditions must be
fulfilled:
1. The attacker must trick the user into using qvm-open-in-vm to open a
file that either
a. has a filename (i.e., the last component of the file's path)
longer than 248 bytes or
b. is located in a directory that is not writable.
2. The path (but not necessarily its last component) must
contain printf-style conversion specifiers (such as '%n').
3. qvm-open-in-vm must not have been invoked with the --view-only flag.
4. The target qube must either
a. send back the file content because its mtime changed (which
usually happens because the user saved the file being edited,
even if merely by overwriting it with the same content) or
b. be compromised by the attacker.
5. The build of qvm-open-in-vm must have been compiled without
_FORTIFY_SOURCE hardening enabled (or set to a level below 2). Due
to an unfortunate interaction between our build script and the way
Debian handles this option, this hardening was not enabled for our
Debian packages. (This problem did not affect our Fedora packages,
for which the hardening was correctly enabled.) With enabled
hardening, the program safely aborts with an error, making the bug
unexploitable.
The first person to report this vulnerability tested its exploitability
on his system. He found that it was successfully exploited in less than
3 % of attempts. Moreover, his demonstration required a very long path
with multiple nested directories and that contained many format
specifiers. In the real world, the attacker may control only the last
part of the file name in most cases. And even when they do control the
full path, many users would likely find such a path suspicious, which
would likely make it more difficult for an attacker to successfully
trick the user into opening such a path.
Discussion
-----------
Normally, we do not issue Qubes security bulletins for purely "in-VM"
vulnerabilities (like this one) that do not involve crossing the VM
security boundary. However, we have decided to make an exception in this
case, since this is a bug in our code and since qvm-open-in-vm is
specifically intended to operate on untrusted input.
While qvm-open-in-vm is designed to be hardened, keep in mind that
handling less trusted data in a more trusted VM still can be risky for
other reasons, for example:
- Unsafe handling of attacker-controlled paths is an easy mistake to
make in the shell.
- A file explorer could render the thumbnail of an untrusted file with
a buggy parser.
- You might accidentally open the file with an application other than
qvm-open-in-vm, exposing the full attack surface of that application.
Patching
---------
The following package contains the security update that addresses the
vulnerability described in this bulletin:
For Qubes 4.3, in affected templates and standalones:
- qubes-core-agent version 4.3.48
This package will migrate from the security-testing repository to the
current (stable) repository over the next two weeks after being tested
by the community. [2] Once available, the package should be installed
via the Qubes Update tool or its command-line equivalents. [1]
In order for this security update to take effect, all affected templates
must be updated with the package above, then shut down. Afterward, all
qubes based on these templates (including disposables) must be
restarted. All affected standalones must be updated with the package
above.
Credits
--------
This vulnerability was first reported by Giulio Berra. Shortly after, it
was independently reported by Rafal Wojtczuk.
References
-----------
[1] https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/user/how-to-guides/how-to-update.html
[2] https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/user/downloading-installing-upgrading/testing.html
--
The Qubes Security Team
https://www.qubes-os.org/security/
Source: qsb-119-2026.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=yTNV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Source: qsb-119-2026.txt.sig.marmarek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Zo3p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Source: qsb-119-2026.txt.sig.simon
The purpose of this announcement is to inform the Qubes community that a new Qubes security bulletin (QSB) has been published.
A Qubes security bulletin (QSB) is a security announcement issued by the Qubes security team. A QSB typically provides a summary and impact analysis of one or more recently-discovered software vulnerabilities, including details about patching to address them.
QSBs tell you what actions you must take in order to protect yourself from recently-discovered security vulnerabilities. In most cases, security vulnerabilities are addressed by updating normally. However, in some cases, special user action is required. In all cases, the required actions are detailed in QSBs.
A PGP signature is a cryptographic digital signature made in accordance with the OpenPGP standard. PGP signatures can be cryptographically verified with programs like GNU Privacy Guard (GPG). The Qubes security team cryptographically signs all QSBs so that Qubes users have a reliable way to check whether QSBs are genuine. The only way to be certain that a QSB is authentic is by verifying its PGP signatures.
A forged QSB could deceive you into taking actions that adversely affect the security of your Qubes OS system, such as installing malware or making configuration changes that render your system vulnerable to attack. Falsified QSBs could sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the security of Qubes OS or the status of the Qubes OS Project.
The following command-line instructions assume a Linux system with git and gpg installed. (For Windows and Mac options, see OpenPGP software.)
Obtain the Qubes Master Signing Key (QMSK), e.g.:
$ gpg --fetch-keys https://keys.qubes-os.org/keys/qubes-master-signing-key.asc
gpg: directory '/home/user/.gnupg' created
gpg: keybox '/home/user/.gnupg/pubring.kbx' created
gpg: requesting key from 'https://keys.qubes-os.org/keys/qubes-master-signing-key.asc'
gpg: /home/user/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trustdb created
gpg: key DDFA1A3E36879494: public key "Qubes Master Signing Key" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: imported: 1
(For more ways to obtain the QMSK, see How to import and authenticate the Qubes Master Signing Key.)
View the fingerprint of the PGP key you just imported. (Note: gpg> indicates a prompt inside of the GnuPG program. Type what appears after it when prompted.)
$ gpg --edit-key 0x427F11FD0FAA4B080123F01CDDFA1A3E36879494
gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.27; Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494
created: 2010-04-01 expires: never usage: SC
trust: unknown validity: unknown
[ unknown] (1). Qubes Master Signing Key
gpg> fpr
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494 2010-04-01 Qubes Master Signing Key
Primary key fingerprint: 427F 11FD 0FAA 4B08 0123 F01C DDFA 1A3E 3687 9494
Important: At this point, you still don’t know whether the key you just imported is the genuine QMSK or a forgery. In order for this entire procedure to provide meaningful security benefits, you must authenticate the QMSK out-of-band. Do not skip this step! The standard method is to obtain the QMSK fingerprint from multiple independent sources in several different ways and check to see whether they match the key you just imported. For more information, see How to import and authenticate the Qubes Master Signing Key.
Tip: After you have authenticated the QMSK out-of-band to your satisfaction, record the QMSK fingerprint in a safe place (or several) so that you don’t have to repeat this step in the future.
Once you are satisfied that you have the genuine QMSK, set its trust level to 5 (“ultimate”), then quit GnuPG with q.
gpg> trust
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494
created: 2010-04-01 expires: never usage: SC
trust: unknown validity: unknown
[ unknown] (1). Qubes Master Signing Key
Please decide how far you trust this user to correctly verify other users' keys
(by looking at passports, checking fingerprints from different sources, etc.)
1 = I don't know or won't say
2 = I do NOT trust
3 = I trust marginally
4 = I trust fully
5 = I trust ultimately
m = back to the main menu
Your decision? 5
Do you really want to set this key to ultimate trust? (y/N) y
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494
created: 2010-04-01 expires: never usage: SC
trust: ultimate validity: unknown
[ unknown] (1). Qubes Master Signing Key
Please note that the shown key validity is not necessarily correct
unless you restart the program.
gpg> q
Use Git to clone the qubes-secpack repo.
$ git clone https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-secpack.git
Cloning into 'qubes-secpack'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 4065, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (1474/1474), done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (742/742), done.
remote: Total 4065 (delta 743), reused 1413 (delta 731), pack-reused 2591
Receiving objects: 100% (4065/4065), 1.64 MiB | 2.53 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (1910/1910), done.
Import the included PGP keys. (See our PGP key policies for important information about these keys.)
$ gpg --import qubes-secpack/keys/*/*
gpg: key 063938BA42CFA724: public key "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes OS signing key)" imported
gpg: qubes-secpack/keys/core-devs/retired: read error: Is a directory
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: key 8C05216CE09C093C: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key 8C05216CE09C093C: public key "HW42 (Qubes Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key DA0434BC706E1FCF: public key "Simon Gaiser (Qubes OS signing key)" imported
gpg: key 8CE137352A019A17: 2 signatures not checked due to missing keys
gpg: key 8CE137352A019A17: public key "Andrew David Wong (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key AAA743B42FBC07A9: public key "Brennan Novak (Qubes Website & Documentation Signing)" imported
gpg: key B6A0BB95CA74A5C3: public key "Joanna Rutkowska (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key F32894BE9684938A: public key "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key 6E7A27B909DAFB92: public key "Hakisho Nukama (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key 485C7504F27D0A72: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key 485C7504F27D0A72: public key "Sven Semmler (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key BB52274595B71262: public key "unman (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key DC2F3678D272F2A8: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key DC2F3678D272F2A8: public key "Wojtek Porczyk (Qubes OS documentation signing key)" imported
gpg: key FD64F4F9E9720C4D: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key FD64F4F9E9720C4D: public key "Zrubi (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key DDFA1A3E36879494: "Qubes Master Signing Key" not changed
gpg: key 1848792F9E2795E9: public key "Qubes OS Release 4 Signing Key" imported
gpg: qubes-secpack/keys/release-keys/retired: read error: Is a directory
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: key D655A4F21830E06A: public key "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" imported
gpg: key ACC2602F3F48CB21: public key "Qubes OS Security Team" imported
gpg: qubes-secpack/keys/security-team/retired: read error: Is a directory
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: key 4AC18DE1112E1490: public key "Simon Gaiser (Qubes Security Pack signing key)" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 17
gpg: imported: 16
gpg: unchanged: 1
gpg: marginals needed: 3 completes needed: 1 trust model: pgp
gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 6 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
gpg: depth: 1 valid: 6 signed: 0 trust: 6-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 0u
Verify signed Git tags.
$ cd qubes-secpack/
$ git tag -v `git describe`
object 266e14a6fae57c9a91362c9ac784d3a891f4d351
type commit
tag marmarek_sec_266e14a6
tagger Marek Marczykowski-Górecki 1677757924 +0100
Tag for commit 266e14a6fae57c9a91362c9ac784d3a891f4d351
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2023 03:52:04 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key 2D1771FE4D767EDC76B089FAD655A4F21830E06A
gpg: Good signature from "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" [full]
The exact output will differ, but the final line should always start with gpg: Good signature from... followed by an appropriate key. The [full] indicates full trust, which this key inherits in virtue of being validly signed by the QMSK.
Verify PGP signatures, e.g.:
$ cd QSBs/
$ gpg --verify qsb-087-2022.txt.sig.marmarek qsb-087-2022.txt
gpg: Signature made Wed 23 Nov 2022 04:05:51 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key 2D1771FE4D767EDC76B089FAD655A4F21830E06A
gpg: Good signature from "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" [full]
$ gpg --verify qsb-087-2022.txt.sig.simon qsb-087-2022.txt
gpg: Signature made Wed 23 Nov 2022 03:50:42 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key EA18E7F040C41DDAEFE9AA0F4AC18DE1112E1490
gpg: Good signature from "Simon Gaiser (Qubes Security Pack signing key)" [full]
$ cd ../canaries/
$ gpg --verify canary-034-2023.txt.sig.marmarek canary-034-2023.txt
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2023 03:51:48 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key 2D1771FE4D767EDC76B089FAD655A4F21830E06A
gpg: Good signature from "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" [full]
$ gpg --verify canary-034-2023.txt.sig.simon canary-034-2023.txt
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2023 01:47:52 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key EA18E7F040C41DDAEFE9AA0F4AC18DE1112E1490
gpg: Good signature from "Simon Gaiser (Qubes Security Pack signing key)" [full]
Again, the exact output will differ, but the final line of output from each gpg --verify command should always start with gpg: Good signature from... followed by an appropriate key.
For this announcement (QSB-119), the commands are:
$ gpg --verify qsb-119-2026.txt.sig.marmarek qsb-119-2026.txt
$ gpg --verify qsb-119-2026.txt.sig.simon qsb-119-2026.txt
You can also verify the signatures directly from this announcement in addition to or instead of verifying the files from the qubes-secpack. Simply copy and paste the QSB-119 text into a plain text file and do the same for both signature files. Then, perform the same authentication steps as listed above, substituting the filenames above with the names of the files you just created.
14 September, 2026 11:27AM by Joseph Lee
A digital transport has one job that matters: deliver the music you love to your DAC without turning every listening session into an app-management exercise. This Rivo transport review focuses on how that promise translates to a real hi-fi system, from the first connection to the quieter, more revealing moments that make you stay with an album until the end.
Rivo is not a DAC, an amplifier, or a lifestyle speaker. It is a dedicated network music transport for listeners who already own a DAC they value and want a better, more focused way to feed it. That distinction is central to both its appeal and its limitations.
Rivo sits between your music sources and your DAC. It brings local libraries, streaming services, internet radio, and connected digital sources into one control experience, then sends a digital signal to the DAC through the output that best suits the system.
That makes it a particularly sensible choice for an established hi-fi setup. Perhaps you have a DAC built into an integrated amplifier, a separate converter with a sound you know well, or an outboard DAC that has become the heart of your system. In each case, Rivo lets you improve the streaming front end without replacing components that already earn their place on the rack.
The product is hand-assembled in Florence and designed around a simple idea: a music transport should feel like part of a serious audio system, not like a generic computer placed near one. Its compact, purposeful enclosure and dedicated architecture reflect that intention. Rivo is made for the listener who would rather choose a record than troubleshoot a signal path.
A transport does not add analog character in the way a DAC, preamp, or power amplifier might. Its influence is more fundamental. It provides a stable, considered path for digital music before conversion, while making the experience of finding and playing that music easier.
In a revealing system, that can mean more than convenience. When the source is dependable, the listener can concentrate on timing, texture, space, and dynamics rather than wondering whether a stream will stop, a device will disappear, or a different app is needed for every service. The benefit is not a dramatic hi-fi effect that can be reduced to a slogan. It is a more settled relationship with the system.
Rivo supports high-resolution playback and is built to preserve the capabilities of a compatible DAC. The exact formats and maximum resolutions that matter will depend on the output you use and on the DAC itself, so this is worth checking before purchase if DSD or a particular PCM resolution is essential to your collection. For most listeners, the more meaningful result is that standard and high-resolution material can live side by side in one library without forcing a change in listening habits.
There is also a practical advantage to a dedicated transport over using a phone, tablet, or general-purpose computer as the source. The music player remains available to the whole household, and the system can be controlled without dedicating a personal device to playback. Cue an album from the couch, add a favorite to a queue, or browse a local collection while a radio station plays in another room. It feels less like casting and more like owning a music system.
Rivo offers several digital output options, including USB, coaxial S/PDIF, AES/EBU, and I2S through HDMI. This flexibility is one of its strongest qualities because digital inputs are not interchangeable in every system.
USB is often the natural starting point for a modern standalone DAC, particularly where the DAC’s USB input supports the widest range of formats. AES/EBU is valuable for DACs with a balanced digital input and can be a preferred connection in systems built around professional-style digital hardware. Coaxial S/PDIF remains an excellent, familiar option for many integrated amplifiers and converters. I2S can be compelling when both components support matching pin assignments, but that detail matters: HDMI-shaped I2S connections are not universally wired the same way.
The right output is therefore not a matter of status. It is the one that is properly implemented by your DAC and sounds right in your system. If possible, begin with the connection recommended by your DAC manufacturer, then compare another option only after the basics are stable. A well-chosen cable and a correct configuration are more useful than chasing a complicated chain of adapters.
Rivo is also network-ready for wired or wireless use. Ethernet is the sensible default for a fixed hi-fi system, especially if your library is stored on a network drive or your home Wi-Fi has busy periods. Wireless can still be the right answer where a cable run is impractical. The best choice is the one that lets playback remain reliable without making the room less livable.
The software experience is where a dedicated transport either earns its role or becomes another box to maintain. Rivo runs on Volumio, bringing local files, major streaming services, web radio, and network storage into a single music environment.
For listeners with years of carefully ripped CDs, downloaded albums, and newly saved streaming favorites, this matters. A library is more than a folder of files. It is the accumulated map of what you have heard, what you return to, and what you want to share. Rivo is designed to make that library accessible alongside streaming rather than treating local music as an afterthought.
The interface can be controlled from a phone, tablet, or computer on the same network. That familiar device-first approach keeps the hardware itself clean and focused. You can search across sources, browse by artist or album, build a queue, and return to recently played music without moving among disconnected apps.
The experience is not identical across every service, and it should not be presented as such. Features such as recommendations, editorial content, and service-specific discovery tools remain shaped by the streaming platform. But for playback and library management, having a consistent home for your music can remove a surprising amount of friction.
Rivo makes the strongest case for a listener who already has a DAC worth keeping. It may be the DAC in a high-quality integrated amplifier, a separate converter chosen after careful auditions, or part of an existing digital setup that has been limited by an aging streamer or a computer-based source.
It also suits people who want to bring several musical lives together: a NAS full of lossless files, a favorite streaming subscription, internet radio for discovery, and perhaps a USB drive containing a smaller curated collection. Instead of asking which app owns which album, the system gives you a single place to begin.
For builders, Rivo can be an appealing step up from a DIY player. Volumio’s free software remains a rewarding route for Raspberry Pi, PC, and Tinker Board projects, especially for listeners who enjoy selecting hardware and shaping every detail. Rivo serves a different need. It provides a finished, purpose-built transport for those who want the same music-first philosophy in a refined component designed for the hi-fi rack.
The clearest trade-off is simple: Rivo does not include a DAC. If you need both streaming and digital-to-analog conversion in one component, a network player with an integrated DAC may be a more direct fit. Likewise, if your system relies entirely on analog inputs and has no digital input available, adding Rivo means adding a DAC as well.
It is also not aimed at the listener whose only requirement is occasional background streaming from one phone app. Rivo rewards attention to a broader collection and a better audio chain. Its value grows when it becomes the regular front door to listening, not an accessory used once a month.
Before choosing any transport, take stock of the DAC inputs you have, the services you use most, where your library is stored, and whether Ethernet is available. Those four answers will tell you more than a long feature list.
For the listener with a capable DAC and a collection that deserves more than scattered apps, Rivo offers a thoughtful way to make the system feel whole again. Put on an album you know by heart, begin with the connection your DAC favors, and give the music enough time to show you what a dedicated source can bring to the room.
The post Rivo Transport Review for Serious Listening appeared first on Volumio.
Hello everyone,
Our article regarding the 3D documentation of Ötzi and the archaeological artifacts found with him has been published in the scientific journal Heritage. The open-access paper can be read and downloaded directly from the journal's website or on ResearchGate .
I had previously teased a few of these topics here on ATOR—such as developing a 3DHOP extension to view the mummy in X-ray mode and utilizing the open-source DCMTK libraries to analyze DICOM data from CT scans. However, the new paper details the project's specific challenges and the solutions adopted.
In particular, the article explains:
The seeds of this research were presented in Turin during ArcheoFOSS 2023, but this paper expands significantly on the methodologies developed throughout the Ötzi project.
As always, all software tools used in this work are FLOSS. You can also read the official press release from the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology here.
12 September, 2026 04:33PM by Luca Bezzi (noreply@blogger.com)
A beautiful component can earn attention at a hi-fi show. What earns a permanent place in a listening room is the experience after the customer gets home. For an audio OEM, that experience is increasingly defined by software: how quickly music starts, whether a local library feels alive, how naturally streaming services fit together, and whether the product remains reliable years after purchase.
Connected audio is no longer an optional add-on to a traditional hardware range. It is where listeners choose music, manage their systems, discover artists, and form an opinion about a brand every day. Building that experience well requires more than adding a network module to an existing amplifier, DAC, or speaker.
A network streamer sits at the meeting point of several expectations that used to be separate. A customer may want to play a carefully tagged NAS library one evening, use Qobuz the next, send music from a phone during a dinner party, and control volume across an integrated system without thinking about protocols or source switching.
From the listener’s perspective, these are simple requests. For a manufacturer, they involve streaming integrations, library indexing, playback architecture, control apps, hardware drivers, account authentication, network behavior, and ongoing support. A product can sound extraordinary and still create frustration if its interface is slow, its setup process is brittle, or software maintenance is treated as a one-time launch task.
That is why the strongest connected products begin with a clear listening promise. Is the goal to make a reference DAC easier to live with? To bring a brand’s amplifier heritage into multiroom listening? To give a compact all-in-one system the confidence of a serious source component? The technical choices should serve that promise, not obscure it.
An audio OEM relationship is often described as a shortcut to market. Speed matters, but it is not the full value. The right partner gives a brand a mature foundation while leaving room for the product to feel recognizably its own.
That foundation should include dependable playback from local and networked sources, major streaming-service support, a coherent control experience, and an update path that can evolve with changing services and customer expectations. It should also account for the less visible work: certification requirements, security updates, diagnostic tools, provisioning, and the support questions that arrive after thousands of units are in homes.
For a hi-fi manufacturer, this allows internal engineering teams to concentrate on the areas where they create genuine distinction. That may be analog output design, clocking, power supply architecture, industrial design, speaker integration, or a carefully voiced amplifier stage. It is a better use of expertise than repeatedly rebuilding the basic plumbing of digital music playback.
There is a trade-off. A fully bespoke platform can provide maximum control, but it brings a long development cycle and a permanent software obligation. A ready-made platform can launch sooner and benefit from proven behavior, but only if it is flexible enough to support the brand’s hardware, visual language, and intended customer journey. The practical answer is rarely all-or-nothing. Most successful projects pair a stable music platform with purposeful customization.
It is tempting to define differentiation through appearance alone: a new app skin, a front-panel display, or a distinctive enclosure. These choices matter, particularly in premium audio, where an object should feel at home beside the rest of a system. But the deeper differentiators are often felt rather than announced.
A listener notices whether browsing an album collection is immediate. They notice whether the product wakes reliably, remembers its state, and handles high-resolution playback without ceremony. They notice whether a search result makes sense when local albums and streaming catalog results appear together. Those details create confidence, and confidence gives customers a reason to stay with a product instead of replacing it when their habits change.
A strong platform should therefore be customizable at the level that matters. Manufacturers may need tailored input behavior, unique display flows, product-specific settings, branded onboarding, or integration with their own control ecosystem. The objective is not to make proven software unrecognizable. It is to make the overall experience feel intentional.
Hardware requirements become clearer when they are built around real use cases. Consider the difference between a dedicated transport feeding an external DAC and an all-in-one amplifier with streaming built in. Both may share network and software foundations, yet their priorities are different.
The transport owner may expect detailed control over digital outputs, playback formats, and DAC compatibility. The all-in-one owner may value clear setup, volume behavior, input selection, and an interface the entire household can use. A portable or compact product may need fast Wi-Fi provisioning and minimal physical controls. A flagship component may call for a high-resolution display, elaborate metadata presentation, and deep system integration.
These decisions affect processing power, memory, storage, connectivity, display hardware, thermal design, and the relationship between the playback engine and audio board. They also affect the test plan. A product intended for an enthusiast with a wired network and a large library should still be evaluated in the imperfect conditions found in real homes: crowded Wi-Fi, mesh routers, changing passwords, mixed file formats, and family members who expect music to work on the first attempt.
This is where experienced integration pays for itself. The challenge is not merely proving that a prototype plays music in a lab. It is ensuring that the finished product behaves gracefully across a wide range of systems and routines.
Digital music changes after a product ships. Streaming services adjust their requirements. Mobile operating systems evolve. New playback capabilities emerge. Security expectations rise. A connected component that cannot be maintained gradually becomes less valuable, regardless of the quality of its audio circuitry.
Manufacturers should treat the update strategy as part of the product specification from day one. That means deciding how updates are delivered, how releases are tested, what happens if an installation is interrupted, and how customers learn about useful new features without being overwhelmed by technical detail.
It also means setting honest expectations. Frequent updates are not always a sign of quality if they introduce instability. Conversely, silence is not reassuring when services and devices around the product continue to change. The ideal cadence is measured: regular maintenance, careful validation, and meaningful improvements that respect a customer’s time and listening habits.
A proven platform can reduce this burden because its update mechanisms, device management, and playback behavior have already met a broad community of users. Volumio brings that perspective from an ecosystem shaped by both dedicated hi-fi components and hands-on music lovers building their own players.
Before selecting a software and integration partner, a manufacturer should look beyond the feature checklist. Features can appear equivalent on a presentation slide while the real-world experience differs substantially.
Ask how local libraries are indexed and presented, not only which file formats are supported. Ask how service integrations are maintained when APIs change. Ask whether the platform can accommodate the intended hardware architecture and user interface. Ask how issues are diagnosed after deployment, and who owns each layer of support.
It is also worth asking which parts of the experience can be shaped without creating an expensive fork that becomes difficult to maintain. A good partner will be direct about boundaries. Some standardized behaviors protect reliability and make future updates practical. Other areas should be open to design because they are central to the manufacturer’s identity.
Finally, evaluate the partnership as a long-term collaboration rather than a software purchase. Connected products have a lifecycle. The teams involved need a shared way to prioritize improvements, investigate field issues, and make thoughtful decisions when a new opportunity or constraint appears.
The most compelling connected components do not ask customers to think about software. They let a favorite album begin with the right sense of occasion, whether it comes from a decades-old local collection or a newly discovered release. The interface recedes, the system feels coherent, and the brand earns trust through every ordinary listening session.
That is the standard worth designing for: not simply a streamer that can connect, but a music experience that gives people another reason to sit down, choose an album, and listen.
The post Audio OEM: Build a Streamer People Want appeared first on Volumio.
Around 5,000 Dropbox accounts were accessed using Lenovo IDs that had apparently not been properly verified. The incident highlights an aspect of cloud security that is often overlooked in public debate. This is not about a conventional security vulnerability, but about whose judgement a service relies on when it accepts a login.
Dropbox allows users to sign in with a password or through accounts held with other providers, including Google, Apple and Lenovo. These providers act as authentication services. Users who sign in this way authenticate with the third-party provider. The email address serves as the link between the two services.
Anyone could create a Lenovo ID simply by entering an email address. Lenovo did not, however, check whether the person creating the account actually had access to that mailbox. Anyone who knew or guessed the email address associated with another person’s Dropbox account could therefore create a new Lenovo ID and use it to sign in to Dropbox. Dropbox accepted this as sufficient proof of identity, provided two-factor authentication (2FA) was not enabled for the account. This is how an attacker gained access to the affected accounts.
When users sign in to a digital service, another provider often verifies their identity. The application then receives only confirmation that the user has been successfully authenticated. This creates a chain of trust: the application relies on the authentication service, which in turn depends on the reliability of the accounts and evidence it uses.
That is what makes this case significant. No Dropbox password was guessed or stolen. All it took was a Lenovo ID that anyone could create. Dropbox accepted the resulting confirmation without questioning how reliable it was. In other words, a successful login did not answer the crucial question in this case: was the person signing in really who they claimed to be?
An incident like this is serious even for a personal account. When companies store business data in the cloud, trade secrets, personal data, internal communications, and information from customers and partners are at stake.
Few organisations would accept a Lenovo ID for access to their own corporate network. Yet when the same data is accessed through a cloud service, organisations often apply different standards and rely on the provider’s authentication mechanisms.
At a minimum, a service must authenticate employees exclusively through their organisation’s authentication service. It must be possible to disable all other sign-in methods.
Before approving a service such as Dropbox, organisations must therefore establish which identity sources it accepts and how those sources verify identities. They must also check whether additional authentication factors can be made mandatory, who can change these settings, and how access rights are revoked when employees change roles or leave the organisation. These checks remain necessary, regardless of the provider’s size or how well known it is.
The same applies to external identity services such as Microsoft Entra ID and Okta. They are often central components of modern IT architectures, but may in turn trust systems that are unknown to the organisations using them. With some caveats, this also applies to directory services operated in-house, such as Active Directory. Without access to the source code, it is impossible to fully verify whether a system contains deliberate or unintended mechanisms for bypassing authentication requirements. Where a service runs does not, by itself, answer that question.
This is why the authentication service itself must be open source and capable of being operated independently. Only when the source code is accessible can organisations examine which bypass mechanisms exist, which dependencies a service has, and which sign-in methods it actually accepts. This also makes independent audits possible. Depending on the solution, organisations retain greater control over how the service is operated and developed.
The German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) rightly points out that using free and open-source software does not, by itself, guarantee a secure system. Open-source software must still be maintained and operated securely. However, the BSI also notes that open-source software offers significant strategic advantages in managing security. That is where its value lies: open source provides a key foundation for a high level of security.
Digital sovereignty is often associated with where data is stored or which cloud infrastructure an organisation chooses. Yet it begins with digital identity. An organisation must be able to understand and control who verifies identities, which systems trust one another, and who can change or revoke those relationships. Without that control, it remains unclear on what basis access to the organisation’s data is granted.
By using a cloud service, a company transfers part of its IT operations to an external provider. Responsibility for its data and for access to that data remains with the company.
The Dropbox-Lenovo case is therefore more than an isolated security incident. It illustrates why the sign-in methods used by cloud services matter: one system accepts another system’s assertion and uses it to decide who can access data. The organisation using the service may have no control over that decision.
The key question is: who decides who can access our data, and can we verify that decision?
Source reference: This article is based on the German-language heise report titled “Ich mach mir eine Lenovo-ID und hol mir Deine Dropbox-Dateien,” published on September 2, 2026: https://www.heise.de/news/Fremde-Dropbox-Konten-ueber-Lenovo-ID-zugaenglich-11437565.html.
Der Beitrag Who Does the Cloud Trust When You Log In? erschien zuerst auf Univention.
11 September, 2026 01:50PM by Peter Ganten
11 September, 2026 11:28AM by xiaofei
A connected audio product can look finished long before it feels finished. The enclosure may be beautiful, the DAC section may measure well, and the first prototype may play music without issue. But an OEM streamer launch case study reveals where the real work happens: in the moments when a listener moves from a local library to Qobuz, changes rooms, updates firmware, or simply wants an album to begin without thinking about the technology behind it.
For an established audio brand, adding streaming is not just a feature decision. It is a decision about product identity, customer support, software ownership, sound quality, and the speed at which a new product can reach the market. This representative case study follows the path of a premium hi-fi manufacturer preparing its first network streamer. The details are generalized, but the launch questions are familiar to many audio teams.
The manufacturer had earned its reputation through traditional separates: amplification, digital conversion, and carefully voiced analog stages. Its customers valued long product lifecycles, tactile controls, and a presentation that made recordings feel immediate and involving. Yet dealers were increasingly hearing the same request: customers wanted access to streaming services and personal music libraries without adding another app, another remote, or another box of uncertain quality.
The initial brief sounded straightforward. Create a network streamer with a premium digital output, a clear display, support for major music services, and a companion control experience. The product also needed to fit the brand’s industrial design language and sit comfortably in systems ranging from compact integrated amplifiers to reference-level DACs.
The more useful version of the brief was more demanding: make digital music feel like a natural part of the brand’s established listening experience.
That distinction shaped every decision that followed. A generic streaming module could have accelerated the first prototype, but it would have limited differentiation. Building every layer internally would have offered maximum control, but required a software organization, certification effort, and maintenance commitment that the manufacturer was not structured to carry.
The project began with three decisions that prevented expensive changes later.
The team started with use cases rather than a checklist of protocols. A customer might browse a NAS library by artist, select a radio station during breakfast, hand control to a family member, or use the streamer as a transport into an existing DAC. Each journey had to be clear on a phone or tablet, stable over a home network, and understandable without a manual.
This exposed an early trade-off. More sources and settings can make a product seem more capable, but they can also make it feel less inviting. The team chose to prioritize a unified music experience: local files, streaming services, internet radio, and network playback presented in one coherent environment. Advanced settings remained available, but they did not interrupt the first listen.
Streaming software does not replace audio engineering. The manufacturer wanted the streamer to preserve the timing, low-level detail, and tonal character that customers associated with its components. That required a clear division of responsibility between the digital transport, clocking approach, power supply design, output stage, and the customer’s downstream equipment.
The OEM platform needed to support the desired audio architecture without forcing a one-size-fits-all sound. In this case, the brand selected a dedicated network and processing section, isolated it carefully from sensitive audio circuitry, and retained control over its output implementation. The software partner supplied the playback intelligence and interface foundation; the audio brand concentrated its effort where its own engineering voice mattered most.
A network player is never entirely static. Streaming service requirements change. New control features become relevant. Bugs appear in combinations of routers, libraries, and mobile devices that cannot all be predicted in a lab.
The launch plan therefore included a defined firmware-update process, release validation, customer communication, and support escalation path. This was not as visible as the front panel or product photography, but it was essential to protecting dealer confidence after the first units shipped.
The first engineering sample proved that the selected hardware could play high-resolution music and connect reliably in a controlled environment. It did not yet prove that the product was ready for customers.
The next phase focused on integration. The display needed to feel connected to the control app rather than like a separate system. Input and output labels had to match the language customers would see in setup. Network onboarding had to work for listeners who knew nothing about IP addresses, while still offering useful options to experienced installers. The team also tested how quickly the unit recovered after power interruptions, router restarts, and service sign-ins.
These details influence perceived quality more than many specifications do. A streamer that sounds exceptional but takes several attempts to join a network creates doubt before the first track plays. Conversely, a thoughtfully guided setup gives listeners confidence that the product belongs in their system.
The manufacturer also resisted the temptation to overload the first release. A requested feature that had not been thoroughly tested was deferred rather than added late. That choice can be difficult when launch calendars are tight, but it avoids turning early customers into unpaid beta testers. The strongest first release is not the one with the longest feature list. It is the one that delivers its promised listening experience consistently.
Working with an experienced streaming platform partner changed the economics and the risk profile of the launch. Instead of creating playback software, app infrastructure, source integrations, account management, and update mechanisms from zero, the manufacturer could build on technology already shaped by real listening habits and a broad device ecosystem.
For a partner such as Volumio, the role is not simply to provide software that plays music. It is to help translate an audio brand’s product vision into a connected experience that feels intentional from setup to daily use. That can include hardware-platform guidance, interface customization, integration support, testing, and an ongoing path for product updates.
This model does involve trade-offs. The manufacturer must align its roadmap with an external platform and agree on responsibilities for support, certification, and release timing. It also needs to decide how much of the user experience should carry its own visual identity versus using familiar platform conventions. Those conversations are productive when they happen at the beginning, not after industrial design and electronics are already fixed.
At launch, the product was evaluated on more than sound quality. Dealers could demonstrate it without a lengthy explanation. Customers could bring together music services and personal collections in one place. Owners using external DACs had a refined transport option, while listeners building a simpler system could begin with a single component and grow later.
The most meaningful result was not a dramatic specification claim. It was a reduction in friction. Customers spent less time deciding which app to open or which input to select, and more time with the music they already loved.
The support team benefited as well. Because the product had a consistent setup flow and a planned update process, common questions could be identified and resolved systematically. Product feedback became useful input for future software releases rather than a collection of isolated complaints.
An OEM streaming project succeeds when the hardware, software, and listening experience are planned as one product. Start by deciding what the listener should be able to do in the first five minutes and after five months of ownership. Then build the technical architecture around that reality.
It also helps to be honest about differentiation. An audio brand does not need to reinvent every layer of connected playback to make a distinctive product. Its identity may live in industrial design, sonic voicing, DAC implementation, display behavior, physical controls, dealer relationships, or the way all of those elements work together. The right OEM partner protects room for that identity while removing the burden of rebuilding proven streaming foundations.
Finally, allow enough time for home-network testing. Real homes are less predictable than product labs, and real listeners are less patient than engineering teams. Testing across routers, services, library sizes, and control devices is part of delivering high-fidelity playback, not an administrative step before shipping.
A great streamer should disappear once the music starts. For an audio brand, that is the standard worth designing toward: technology that feels considered, dependable, and fully at home in the listening room.
The post OEM Streamer Launch Case Study for Audio Brands appeared first on Volumio.
A connected audio product can look finished long before it feels finished. The enclosure may be beautiful, the DAC section may measure well, and the first prototype may play music without issue. But an OEM streamer launch case study reveals where the real work happens: in the moments when a listener moves from a local library to Qobuz, changes rooms, updates firmware, or simply wants an album to begin without thinking about the technology behind it.
For an established audio brand, adding streaming is not just a feature decision. It is a decision about product identity, customer support, software ownership, sound quality, and the speed at which a new product can reach the market. This representative case study follows the path of a premium hi-fi manufacturer preparing its first network streamer. The details are generalized, but the launch questions are familiar to many audio teams.
The manufacturer had earned its reputation through traditional separates: amplification, digital conversion, and carefully voiced analog stages. Its customers valued long product lifecycles, tactile controls, and a presentation that made recordings feel immediate and involving. Yet dealers were increasingly hearing the same request: customers wanted access to streaming services and personal music libraries without adding another app, another remote, or another box of uncertain quality.
The initial brief sounded straightforward. Create a network streamer with a premium digital output, a clear display, support for major music services, and a companion control experience. The product also needed to fit the brand’s industrial design language and sit comfortably in systems ranging from compact integrated amplifiers to reference-level DACs.
The more useful version of the brief was more demanding: make digital music feel like a natural part of the brand’s established listening experience.
That distinction shaped every decision that followed. A generic streaming module could have accelerated the first prototype, but it would have limited differentiation. Building every layer internally would have offered maximum control, but required a software organization, certification effort, and maintenance commitment that the manufacturer was not structured to carry.
The project began with three decisions that prevented expensive changes later.
The team started with use cases rather than a checklist of protocols. A customer might browse a NAS library by artist, select a radio station during breakfast, hand control to a family member, or use the streamer as a transport into an existing DAC. Each journey had to be clear on a phone or tablet, stable over a home network, and understandable without a manual.
This exposed an early trade-off. More sources and settings can make a product seem more capable, but they can also make it feel less inviting. The team chose to prioritize a unified music experience: local files, streaming services, internet radio, and network playback presented in one coherent environment. Advanced settings remained available, but they did not interrupt the first listen.
Streaming software does not replace audio engineering. The manufacturer wanted the streamer to preserve the timing, low-level detail, and tonal character that customers associated with its components. That required a clear division of responsibility between the digital transport, clocking approach, power supply design, output stage, and the customer’s downstream equipment.
The OEM platform needed to support the desired audio architecture without forcing a one-size-fits-all sound. In this case, the brand selected a dedicated network and processing section, isolated it carefully from sensitive audio circuitry, and retained control over its output implementation. The software partner supplied the playback intelligence and interface foundation; the audio brand concentrated its effort where its own engineering voice mattered most.
A network player is never entirely static. Streaming service requirements change. New control features become relevant. Bugs appear in combinations of routers, libraries, and mobile devices that cannot all be predicted in a lab.
The launch plan therefore included a defined firmware-update process, release validation, customer communication, and support escalation path. This was not as visible as the front panel or product photography, but it was essential to protecting dealer confidence after the first units shipped.
The first engineering sample proved that the selected hardware could play high-resolution music and connect reliably in a controlled environment. It did not yet prove that the product was ready for customers.
The next phase focused on integration. The display needed to feel connected to the control app rather than like a separate system. Input and output labels had to match the language customers would see in setup. Network onboarding had to work for listeners who knew nothing about IP addresses, while still offering useful options to experienced installers. The team also tested how quickly the unit recovered after power interruptions, router restarts, and service sign-ins.
These details influence perceived quality more than many specifications do. A streamer that sounds exceptional but takes several attempts to join a network creates doubt before the first track plays. Conversely, a thoughtfully guided setup gives listeners confidence that the product belongs in their system.
The manufacturer also resisted the temptation to overload the first release. A requested feature that had not been thoroughly tested was deferred rather than added late. That choice can be difficult when launch calendars are tight, but it avoids turning early customers into unpaid beta testers. The strongest first release is not the one with the longest feature list. It is the one that delivers its promised listening experience consistently.
Working with an experienced streaming platform partner changed the economics and the risk profile of the launch. Instead of creating playback software, app infrastructure, source integrations, account management, and update mechanisms from zero, the manufacturer could build on technology already shaped by real listening habits and a broad device ecosystem.
For a partner such as Volumio, the role is not simply to provide software that plays music. It is to help translate an audio brand’s product vision into a connected experience that feels intentional from setup to daily use. That can include hardware-platform guidance, interface customization, integration support, testing, and an ongoing path for product updates.
This model does involve trade-offs. The manufacturer must align its roadmap with an external platform and agree on responsibilities for support, certification, and release timing. It also needs to decide how much of the user experience should carry its own visual identity versus using familiar platform conventions. Those conversations are productive when they happen at the beginning, not after industrial design and electronics are already fixed.
At launch, the product was evaluated on more than sound quality. Dealers could demonstrate it without a lengthy explanation. Customers could bring together music services and personal collections in one place. Owners using external DACs had a refined transport option, while listeners building a simpler system could begin with a single component and grow later.
The most meaningful result was not a dramatic specification claim. It was a reduction in friction. Customers spent less time deciding which app to open or which input to select, and more time with the music they already loved.
The support team benefited as well. Because the product had a consistent setup flow and a planned update process, common questions could be identified and resolved systematically. Product feedback became useful input for future software releases rather than a collection of isolated complaints.
An OEM streaming project succeeds when the hardware, software, and listening experience are planned as one product. Start by deciding what the listener should be able to do in the first five minutes and after five months of ownership. Then build the technical architecture around that reality.
It also helps to be honest about differentiation. An audio brand does not need to reinvent every layer of connected playback to make a distinctive product. Its identity may live in industrial design, sonic voicing, DAC implementation, display behavior, physical controls, dealer relationships, or the way all of those elements work together. The right OEM partner protects room for that identity while removing the burden of rebuilding proven streaming foundations.
Finally, allow enough time for home-network testing. Real homes are less predictable than product labs, and real listeners are less patient than engineering teams. Testing across routers, services, library sizes, and control devices is part of delivering high-fidelity playback, not an administrative step before shipping.
A great streamer should disappear once the music starts. For an audio brand, that is the standard worth designing toward: technology that feels considered, dependable, and fully at home in the listening room.
The post OEM Streamer Launch Case Study for Audio Brands appeared first on Volumio.
09 September, 2026 08:13AM by xiaofei
We have published Qubes Canary 048. The text of this canary and its accompanying cryptographic signatures are reproduced below. For an explanation of this announcement and instructions for authenticating this canary, please see the end of this announcement.
---===[ Qubes Canary 048 ]===---
Statements
-----------
The Qubes security team members who have digitally signed this file [1]
state the following:
1. The date of issue of this canary is September 09, 2026.
2. There have been 118 Qubes security bulletins published so far.
3. The Qubes Master Signing Key fingerprint is:
427F 11FD 0FAA 4B08 0123 F01C DDFA 1A3E 3687 9494
4. No warrants have ever been served to us with regard to the Qubes OS
Project (e.g. to hand out the private signing keys or to introduce
backdoors).
5. We plan to publish the next of these canary statements in the first
fourteen days of December 2026. Special note should be taken if no new
canary is published by that time or if the list of statements changes
without plausible explanation.
Special announcements
----------------------
None.
Disclaimers and notes
----------------------
We would like to remind you that Qubes OS has been designed under the
assumption that all relevant infrastructure is permanently compromised.
This means that we assume NO trust in any of the servers or services
which host or provide any Qubes-related data, in particular, software
updates, source code repositories, and Qubes ISO downloads.
This canary scheme is not infallible. Although signing the declaration
makes it very difficult for a third party to produce arbitrary
declarations, it does not prevent them from using force or other means,
like blackmail or compromising the signers' laptops, to coerce us to
produce false declarations.
The proof of freshness provided below serves to demonstrate that this
canary could not have been created prior to the date stated. It shows
that a series of canaries was not created in advance.
This declaration is merely a best effort and is provided without any
guarantee or warranty. It is not legally binding in any way to anybody.
None of the signers should be ever held legally responsible for any of
the statements made here.
Proof of freshness
-------------------
Wed, 09 Sep 2026 06:09:30 +0000
Source: DER SPIEGEL - International (https://www.spiegel.de/international/index.rss)
Fake Jewish Lineage: The Passport Scheme that Exploited Germany’s Nazi History
BYD, Geely, Xpeng: Germany’s Vaunted Auto Industry in Dire Straits Amid Chinese Surge
Amodei vs. Altman: How the Race for AI Dominance Is Increasing the Risks
Boats from Eastern Libya: How Europe Is Bowing to a Libyan Warlord on Migration
Moaning for the Mainland: How Taiwan Satisfies China's Lust for Pornography
Source: NYT > World News (https://rss.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/nyt/World.xml)
AfD’s Far Right Win Puts New Pressure on Germany’s Leader Merz
Chinese Ship Takes Arctic Shortcut: Smart Business? Or a Political Flex?
Israeli Allies Ban Trade With Settlements as U.K. Cites ‘Ethnic Cleansing’
Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthis Edge Back to the Brink of War
Carney Says Retaliation Against U.S. Tariffs Was Unavoidable
Source: BBC News (https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/world/rss.xml)
US strikes Iranian oil tankers as Tehran targets American base in Jordan
Paul Adams: British-Israeli relations at lowest ebb in decades
US slaps import ban on Canadian alcohol, motorbikes and other goods
'Constantly on my mind' - 9/11 agony endures for bereaved, 25 years on
South Park creators rename show 'South America' in apparent dig at Trump
Source: Blockchain.info
000000000000000000017721d9b2add64d85980a3bb8587851798bb854c3d514
Footnotes
----------
[1] This file should be signed in two ways: (1) via detached PGP
signatures by each of the signers, distributed together with this canary
in the qubes-secpack.git repo, and (2) via digital signatures on the
corresponding qubes-secpack.git repo tags. [2]
[2] Don't just trust the contents of this file blindly! Verify the
digital signatures! Instructions for doing so are documented here:
https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/project-security/security-pack.html
--
The Qubes Security Team
https://www.qubes-os.org/security/
Source: canary-048-2026.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=wcFj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Source: canary-048-2026.txt.sig.marmarek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=vexT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Source: canary-048-2026.txt.sig.simon
The purpose of this announcement is to inform the Qubes community that a new Qubes canary has been published.
A Qubes canary is a security announcement periodically issued by the Qubes security team consisting of several statements to the effect that the signers of the canary have not been compromised. The idea is that, as long as signed canaries including such statements continue to be published, all is well. However, if the canaries should suddenly cease, if one or more signers begin declining to sign them, or if the included statements change significantly without plausible explanation, then this may indicate that something has gone wrong.
The name originates from the practice in which miners would bring caged canaries into coal mines. If the level of methane gas in the mine reached a dangerous level, the canary would die, indicating to miners that they should evacuate. (See the Wikipedia article on warrant canaries for more information, but bear in mind that Qubes Canaries are not strictly limited to legal warrants.)
Canaries provide an important indication about the security status of the project. If the canary is healthy, it’s a strong sign that things are running normally. However, if the canary is unhealthy, it could mean that the project or its members are being coerced in some way.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of examples:
No, there are many canary-related possibilities that should not worry you. Here is a non-exhaustive list of examples:
In general, it would not be realistic for an organization to exist that never changed, had zero turnover, and never made mistakes. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect such events to occur periodically, and it would be unreasonable to regard every unusual or unexpected canary-related event as a sign of compromise. For example, if something usual happens with a canary, and we say it was a mistake and correct it (with valid signatures), you will have to decide for yourself whether it’s more likely that it really was just a mistake or that something is wrong and that this is how we chose to send you a subtle signal about it. This will require you to think carefully about which among many possible scenarios is most likely given the evidence available to you. Since this is fundamentally a matter of judgment, canaries are ultimately a social scheme, not a technical one.
A PGP signature is a cryptographic digital signature made in accordance with the OpenPGP standard. PGP signatures can be cryptographically verified with programs like GNU Privacy Guard (GPG). The Qubes security team cryptographically signs all canaries so that Qubes users have a reliable way to check whether canaries are genuine. The only way to be certain that a canary is authentic is by verifying its PGP signatures.
If you fail to notice that a canary is unhealthy or has died, you may continue to trust the Qubes security team even after they have signaled via the canary (or lack thereof) that they been compromised or coerced.
Alternatively, an adversary could fabricate a canary in an attempt to deceive the public. Such a canary would not be validly signed, but users who neglect to check the signatures on the fake canary would not be aware of this, so they may mistakenly believe it to be genuine, especially if it closely mimics the language of authentic canaries. Such falsified canaries could include manipulated text designed to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the security of Qubes OS or the status of the Qubes OS Project.
The following command-line instructions assume a Linux system with git and gpg installed. (For Windows and Mac options, see OpenPGP software.)
Obtain the Qubes Master Signing Key (QMSK), e.g.:
$ gpg --fetch-keys https://keys.qubes-os.org/keys/qubes-master-signing-key.asc
gpg: directory '/home/user/.gnupg' created
gpg: keybox '/home/user/.gnupg/pubring.kbx' created
gpg: requesting key from 'https://keys.qubes-os.org/keys/qubes-master-signing-key.asc'
gpg: /home/user/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trustdb created
gpg: key DDFA1A3E36879494: public key "Qubes Master Signing Key" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: imported: 1
(For more ways to obtain the QMSK, see How to import and authenticate the Qubes Master Signing Key.)
View the fingerprint of the PGP key you just imported. (Note: gpg> indicates a prompt inside of the GnuPG program. Type what appears after it when prompted.)
$ gpg --edit-key 0x427F11FD0FAA4B080123F01CDDFA1A3E36879494
gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.27; Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494
created: 2010-04-01 expires: never usage: SC
trust: unknown validity: unknown
[ unknown] (1). Qubes Master Signing Key
gpg> fpr
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494 2010-04-01 Qubes Master Signing Key
Primary key fingerprint: 427F 11FD 0FAA 4B08 0123 F01C DDFA 1A3E 3687 9494
Important: At this point, you still don’t know whether the key you just imported is the genuine QMSK or a forgery. In order for this entire procedure to provide meaningful security benefits, you must authenticate the QMSK out-of-band. Do not skip this step! The standard method is to obtain the QMSK fingerprint from multiple independent sources in several different ways and check to see whether they match the key you just imported. For more information, see How to import and authenticate the Qubes Master Signing Key.
Tip: After you have authenticated the QMSK out-of-band to your satisfaction, record the QMSK fingerprint in a safe place (or several) so that you don’t have to repeat this step in the future.
Once you are satisfied that you have the genuine QMSK, set its trust level to 5 (“ultimate”), then quit GnuPG with q.
gpg> trust
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494
created: 2010-04-01 expires: never usage: SC
trust: unknown validity: unknown
[ unknown] (1). Qubes Master Signing Key
Please decide how far you trust this user to correctly verify other users' keys
(by looking at passports, checking fingerprints from different sources, etc.)
1 = I don't know or won't say
2 = I do NOT trust
3 = I trust marginally
4 = I trust fully
5 = I trust ultimately
m = back to the main menu
Your decision? 5
Do you really want to set this key to ultimate trust? (y/N) y
pub rsa4096/DDFA1A3E36879494
created: 2010-04-01 expires: never usage: SC
trust: ultimate validity: unknown
[ unknown] (1). Qubes Master Signing Key
Please note that the shown key validity is not necessarily correct
unless you restart the program.
gpg> q
Use Git to clone the qubes-secpack repo.
$ git clone https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-secpack.git
Cloning into 'qubes-secpack'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 4065, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (1474/1474), done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (742/742), done.
remote: Total 4065 (delta 743), reused 1413 (delta 731), pack-reused 2591
Receiving objects: 100% (4065/4065), 1.64 MiB | 2.53 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (1910/1910), done.
Import the included PGP keys. (See our PGP key policies for important information about these keys.)
$ gpg --import qubes-secpack/keys/*/*
gpg: key 063938BA42CFA724: public key "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes OS signing key)" imported
gpg: qubes-secpack/keys/core-devs/retired: read error: Is a directory
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: key 8C05216CE09C093C: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key 8C05216CE09C093C: public key "HW42 (Qubes Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key DA0434BC706E1FCF: public key "Simon Gaiser (Qubes OS signing key)" imported
gpg: key 8CE137352A019A17: 2 signatures not checked due to missing keys
gpg: key 8CE137352A019A17: public key "Andrew David Wong (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key AAA743B42FBC07A9: public key "Brennan Novak (Qubes Website & Documentation Signing)" imported
gpg: key B6A0BB95CA74A5C3: public key "Joanna Rutkowska (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key F32894BE9684938A: public key "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key 6E7A27B909DAFB92: public key "Hakisho Nukama (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key 485C7504F27D0A72: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key 485C7504F27D0A72: public key "Sven Semmler (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key BB52274595B71262: public key "unman (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key DC2F3678D272F2A8: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key DC2F3678D272F2A8: public key "Wojtek Porczyk (Qubes OS documentation signing key)" imported
gpg: key FD64F4F9E9720C4D: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
gpg: key FD64F4F9E9720C4D: public key "Zrubi (Qubes Documentation Signing Key)" imported
gpg: key DDFA1A3E36879494: "Qubes Master Signing Key" not changed
gpg: key 1848792F9E2795E9: public key "Qubes OS Release 4 Signing Key" imported
gpg: qubes-secpack/keys/release-keys/retired: read error: Is a directory
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: key D655A4F21830E06A: public key "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" imported
gpg: key ACC2602F3F48CB21: public key "Qubes OS Security Team" imported
gpg: qubes-secpack/keys/security-team/retired: read error: Is a directory
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: key 4AC18DE1112E1490: public key "Simon Gaiser (Qubes Security Pack signing key)" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 17
gpg: imported: 16
gpg: unchanged: 1
gpg: marginals needed: 3 completes needed: 1 trust model: pgp
gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 6 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
gpg: depth: 1 valid: 6 signed: 0 trust: 6-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 0u
Verify signed Git tags.
$ cd qubes-secpack/
$ git tag -v `git describe`
object 266e14a6fae57c9a91362c9ac784d3a891f4d351
type commit
tag marmarek_sec_266e14a6
tagger Marek Marczykowski-Górecki 1677757924 +0100
Tag for commit 266e14a6fae57c9a91362c9ac784d3a891f4d351
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2023 03:52:04 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key 2D1771FE4D767EDC76B089FAD655A4F21830E06A
gpg: Good signature from "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" [full]
The exact output will differ, but the final line should always start with gpg: Good signature from... followed by an appropriate key. The [full] indicates full trust, which this key inherits in virtue of being validly signed by the QMSK.
Verify PGP signatures, e.g.:
$ cd QSBs/
$ gpg --verify qsb-087-2022.txt.sig.marmarek qsb-087-2022.txt
gpg: Signature made Wed 23 Nov 2022 04:05:51 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key 2D1771FE4D767EDC76B089FAD655A4F21830E06A
gpg: Good signature from "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" [full]
$ gpg --verify qsb-087-2022.txt.sig.simon qsb-087-2022.txt
gpg: Signature made Wed 23 Nov 2022 03:50:42 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key EA18E7F040C41DDAEFE9AA0F4AC18DE1112E1490
gpg: Good signature from "Simon Gaiser (Qubes Security Pack signing key)" [full]
$ cd ../canaries/
$ gpg --verify canary-034-2023.txt.sig.marmarek canary-034-2023.txt
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2023 03:51:48 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key 2D1771FE4D767EDC76B089FAD655A4F21830E06A
gpg: Good signature from "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki (Qubes security pack)" [full]
$ gpg --verify canary-034-2023.txt.sig.simon canary-034-2023.txt
gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2023 01:47:52 AM PST
gpg: using RSA key EA18E7F040C41DDAEFE9AA0F4AC18DE1112E1490
gpg: Good signature from "Simon Gaiser (Qubes Security Pack signing key)" [full]
Again, the exact output will differ, but the final line of output from each gpg --verify command should always start with gpg: Good signature from... followed by an appropriate key.
For this announcement (Qubes Canary 048), the commands are:
$ gpg --verify canary-048-2026.txt.sig.marmarek canary-048-2026.txt
$ gpg --verify canary-048-2026.txt.sig.simon canary-048-2026.txt
You can also verify the signatures directly from this announcement in addition to or instead of verifying the files from the qubes-secpack. Simply copy and paste the Qubes Canary 048 text into a plain text file and do the same for both signature files. Then, perform the same authentication steps as listed above, substituting the filenames above with the names of the files you just created.
Cybersecurity often involves technical terminology, complex technologies, and serious warnings. While all of these are important, people still play a critical role in keeping organizations secure. Employees need to know how to recognize a phishing email, customers should understand how to behave safely online, and website users need to know how to protect their data.
The harder security information is to understand and the more formal or technical the language, the less likely people are to pay attention to it.
Making cybersecurity content engaging does not mean trivializing the subject. It means communicating important information in a way that is clear, relatable, and memorable. Simple language, relevant examples, visual content, and even appropriate humor can make security communication far more effective.
Technical security concepts can quickly become overwhelming for people who do not work in IT. Terms such as phishing, credential stuffing, DDoS attacks, and zero-day vulnerabilities may be familiar to cybersecurity professionals, but they can be confusing to employees and customers.
A more human-centered approach can make security content easier to understand and engage with. Instead of explaining every technical detail of a threat, focus on what it means, why it matters, and what people can do about it.
For example, instead of explaining that phishing attacks use social engineering techniques to steal login credentials, consider a more relatable scenario: “Imagine receiving a fake email that appears to come from your bank. Before entering your password, check that you are actually on the bank’s legitimate website.”
This gives readers practical knowledge they can apply in a real-world situation.
Real-world examples are particularly useful because they help people recognize threats when they encounter them.
A security article might use familiar situations such as a fake delivery notification, an unexpected password reset request, or a suspicious login alert.
This creates a connection between an abstract cyber threat and something the reader already recognizes, making the threat easier to understand and remember.
Most people can process visual information more quickly than lengthy technical explanations. Diagrams, screenshots, graphics, and even simple illustrations can help explain how an attack works and what users should do to protect themselves.
For example, a simple visual could highlight the differences between a legitimate login page and a phishing page. Another could illustrate the steps someone should follow when evaluating a suspicious email.
Not everything about cybersecurity has to be frightening. Used appropriately, humor can make educational content more relatable, particularly when addressing common mistakes people make in their everyday digital lives.
Memes, for example, can be an effective way to communicate simple security tips through familiar situations and clear messages. A security team might create a humorous image about using the same password for every account or clicking a link from an unknown sender without checking where it came from.
Using a meme generator can help teams turn everyday security situations into entertaining visuals that employees are more likely to remember.
However, humor should never undermine the main security message. Jokes about victims, security breaches, financial losses, or other serious incidents should be avoided.
Good security content should always give readers a clear next step. Explaining a threat without showing people what they can do about it may leave them informed, but not necessarily prepared.
Useful actions might include:
These recommendations should also reflect the needs of the audience. An employee may need clear instructions on how to report a phishing email, while a website owner may need guidance on protecting an application against automated attacks or large volumes of malicious traffic.
Security awareness is more effective when people feel comfortable asking questions.
Organizations can encourage this through newsletters, short training sessions, internal communications, quizzes, and other educational resources. Security teams do not have to wait until something goes wrong to communicate with employees; they can share useful advice on a regular basis.
This helps make cybersecurity part of employees’ everyday routines while also giving them opportunities to learn from common mistakes and real-world situations.
Trust is essential to effective cybersecurity communication. People need to feel that the security information they receive is relevant, understandable, and useful.
Avoid unnecessary jargon and technical concepts that your audience may not understand. When technical terminology is necessary, explain it in clear and accessible language.
A more approachable tone can also make security messages more effective. It is possible to capture people’s attention without frightening them, particularly when clear explanations, relatable examples, and useful visuals are used together.
Cybersecurity may be a highly technical field, but people remain a critical part of keeping organizations secure.
By using simple language, relatable examples, relevant visuals, and appropriate humor, companies can create security content that is easier to understand and remember.
The goal is not simply to make cybersecurity more engaging. It is to help people understand the risks they face, recognize potential threats, and know what actions they can take to improve their security.
08 September, 2026 03:12PM by Isabel Perez

This cycle centers on Linux 7.2/7.3 kernel enablement across out-of-tree drivers, new board support and platform fixes across Rockchip, SpacemiT, and Amlogic, and a broad documentation and CI cleanup.
Kernel progression dominated the driver ecosystem, with 7.3 patch sets prepared for rockchip64, meson64, and the UEFI targets, and edge bumps to 7.2.3 landing for qcs6490, qrb2210, and sc8280xp. A wave of Wi‑Fi drivers was re-enabled and bumped for 7.3 compatibility, including rtl8189es/fs, rtl8192eu, rtl8723ds, rtl8852bs, uwe5622, and bcmdhd-dkms, most addressing the strncpy removal and the cfg80211 remain_on_channel cookie signature change. The rk35xx vendor kernel also advanced to the 6.1.172 rkr7.2 SDK.
Board and platform work introduced GL.iNet GL-MT2500, Xiangcheng XC3399FR, and NanoPi R28S, alongside U-Boot bumps to v2026.07 for Helios64, Odroid N2, Khadas VIM3L, and Mixtile Core3588e. Notable hardware corrections include a cold-boot switch fix on BananaPi R2, RK808 LDO mapping repair on Firefly RK3399 to restore analog audio, RTC correction on Orange Pi Zero 3W, an MSDOS partition table workaround for GPT/eGON on Orange Pi 4A, and SPI controller selection on NanoPi NEO3 Plus. SpacemiT K3 saw defconfig refinements and a transition from extlinux to boot.scr on the Pico ITX.
Infrastructure work focused on documentation consolidation and workflow hardening: a new "Armbian vs Debian & Ubuntu" comparison page, pinned third-party actions with scoped GITHUB_TOKEN, removal of dead PDF plumbing and unused announce workflows, and CI adjustments including GHCR visibility reporting and a lower stall-retry threshold in the SDK. The configng TUI received usability improvements to help text and top-level navigation.
#Armbian #EmbeddedLinux #Rockchip #LinuxKernel #SBC
edge to 7.2.y. by @EvilOlaf in armbian/build#10590current defconfig. by @pyavitz in armbian/build#10627legacy defconfig and add CRYPTO_*_RISCV64 to current. by @pyavitz in armbian/build#10639Automatic refresh repository README. by @igorpecovnik in armbian/documentation#94208 September, 2026 01:36PM by Michael Robinson
The metrics endpoint in UCS 5.2 delivers the raw data, Prometheus stores it, Grafana turns it into a graph. Give it a little time and you stop reading numbers off a screen—you start seeing how your Nubus instance is changing.
How many user accounts right now? How close are we to the license limit? What patch level are we on? If you run a Nubus environment, you know these questions. Until now, the answers lived in the portal or on the command line.
Thats’s what errata level 410 for UCS 5.2-5 changed. Nubus now exposes a metrics endpoint for the UDM REST API that reports the key numbers in Prometheus format. Admins can pull them in seconds, keep them for later, and also graph them in Grafana.
So let’s do that. This article takes you from the raw endpoint to a Prometheus collector, and ends up with a Grafana dashboard actually worth watching. By the time you’re done, you’ll know exactly where your Nubus instance stands and which way it’s going.
The metrics endpoint is part of the UDM REST API, protected by HTTP basic auth (username and password go in the request header). You’ll find it at /univention/udm/-/metrics. Access goes to members of the udm-rest-metrics group, plus any account that can already reach the UDM REST API. That includes the Administrator account, which is what we’ll use here to keep things simple. In production, set up a dedicated account and add it to the udm-rest-metrics group.
A single curl call is enough to grab the current metrics:
:~# curl -k -u Administrator:<password> https://<nubus-host>/univention/udm/-/metrics # HELP nubus_ucs_version_info UCS version information # TYPE nubus_ucs_version_info gauge nubus_ucs_version_info{domain="nubus.example",errata="515",license_uuid="dce67f03-e7b2-4a6b-92f7-c4777dac6ef5",patch="6",system_uuid="1847168b-4caf-418c-a741-edaec5fc8978",ucs="5.2"} 1.0 # HELP nubus_n4k_version_info Nubus for Kubernetes version information # TYPE nubus_n4k_version_info gauge # HELP nubus_users_user_total Total number of UDM objects of type users/user # TYPE nubus_users_user_total gauge nubus_users_user_total{domain="nubus.example",license_uuid="dce67f03-e7b2-4a6b-92f7-c4777dac6ef5",platform="ucs"} 949.0 # HELP nubus_settings_license_users_limit_total Number of active users permitted by the installed license # TYPE nubus_settings_license_users_limit_total gauge nubus_settings_license_users_limit_total{domain="nubus.example",license_uuid="dce67f03-e7b2-4a6b-92f7-c4777dac6ef5",platform="ucs"} +Inf
Replace <password> in the command with the password for the Administrator account. The response comes back in the Prometheus exposition format: plain text that Prometheus reads directly. Right now the endpoint serves three metrics:
Which version metric the endpoint fills with values depends on the deployment type. In a UCS environment like the one here, nubus_ucs_version_info reports the version, patch level, and errata status. In a Kubernetes environment, nubus_n4k_version_info reports the Kubernetes-specific version details. Whichever metric doesn’t apply still shows up in the output—as a header line with no data.
One label stands out: domain. It appears on every metric and ties each value cleanly to a specific Nubus domain. If you monitor several instances later on, that’s the field that keeps them apart.
This article assumes you’ve already got Prometheus and Grafana running in your environment. To try the new endpoint first, spin up a test setup with Docker Compose in a few minutes. Create a directory for the configuration (e.g. /root/monitoring) and save the following compose.yml file in that directory:
services: prometheus: image: prom/prometheus:latest container_name: prometheus ports: - "9090:9090" volumes: - ./prometheus.yml:/etc/prometheus/prometheus.yml:ro - prometheus_data:/prometheus extra_hosts: - "host.docker.internal:host-gateway" restart: unless-stopped grafana: image: grafana/grafana-oss:latest container_name: grafana ports: - "3000:3000" volumes: - grafana_data:/var/lib/grafana environment: - GF_SECURITY_ADMIN_PASSWORD=admin restart: unless-stopped volumes: prometheus_data: grafana_data:
The extra_hosts entry lets the Prometheus container reach the Nubus host by the name host.docker.internal, regardless of its IP address. In the same directory, create a prometheus.yml with the scrape job from the next section. For the test setup, set host.docker.internal as the value under targets. Then bring the stack up with docker-compose up -d. Grafana is now available at http://<host>:3000 (default login admin/admin, which you’ll change on first use), and Prometheus’s web interface at http://<host>:9090.
Prometheus actively queries the metrics from the endpoints it monitors (that’s called “scraping”) and stores them in its own time series database. To connect Nubus, add a new scrape job to your prometheus.yml:
global: scrape_interval: 30s scrape_configs: - job_name: 'nubus' metrics_path: '/univention/udm/-/metrics' scheme: https tls_config: insecure_skip_verify: true basic_auth: username: Administrator password: <password> static_configs: - targets: ['<nubus-host>']
Adjust the password and target host for your environment. The insecure_skip_verify option skips the certificate check; in production, use a valid certificate and drop the option instead. After you reload Prometheus, open the web interface and go to Status → Target health to check whether the nubus job shows up as UP. That tells you Prometheus is reaching the endpoint on schedule and collecting the metrics.
That’s the data collection running. Prometheus now pulls the Nubus metrics every 30 seconds and files them in its database. Next up: visualizing them with Grafana.
A dashboard gathers several panels on one page. Each panel sends a query to the data source and visualizes the answer. For our Nubus monitoring, four panels are enough to cover the whole picture: the current user count, the license limit, the version info, and the trend over time.
Create an empty dashboard under Dashboards → New Dashboard. For the layout, pick Custom grid so you can set the size and position of each panel yourself. The + Add visualization button creates your first panel.
The first panel sits in the top left corner and shows the current number of active user accounts as a large single figure. Below it, a small arrow gives the percentage change from the previous period, and a sparkline sketches the trend within the selected time window. The figure carries the panel; the two additions supply the context.
In the panel editor, pick the prometheus data source at the bottom and enter the query in code mode:
nubus_users_user_total
In the top right, switch the panel type to Stat. In the options on the right, set Panel options → Title to Active Users. Under Stat styles → Graph mode, choose Area: alongside the large number, a small sparkline now appears in the panel. The Show percent change option adds an arrow and a percentage that reflect the change from the previous period.
It’s also worth opening the Thresholds section. This is where you define which value turns the panel which color: green as the baseline, say, yellow from 1199, red from 1200. The number in the panel then switches color on its own as soon as it crosses a threshold.
The second panel shows the license limit; in our test setup on the Core Edition, it reads ∞. Create a new panel with this query:
nubus_settings_license_users_limit_total
Set the panel type to Stat and the title to User Limit (License). Grafana recognizes the +Inf value automatically and renders it as an infinity symbol.
The third panel shows all the labels of the version metric in a clear table. This time the query is:
nubus_ucs_version_info
Set the panel type to Table. Since the interesting information sits in the metric’s labels, you need a transformation that surfaces those labels as columns. Switch to the Transformations tab at the bottom and add the Labels to fields transformation. Set the mode to Rows so the labels stack vertically instead of side by side.
For a simplified view, add a second transformation: Organize fields by name. Use it to hide technical fields like _name_ and job, and to sort the labels that remain: domain, ucs, patch, errata, license_uuid, system_uuid.
The fourth panel tracks the user count over time. This is what a time series database is for. Create a new panel with the same query as in Panel 1:
nubus_users_user_total
The Time series panel type is already selected. A click into the query options takes you to the Legend field. Enter this:
{{domain}}
Now the legend shows just the domain name of the Nubus instance instead of the expression with every label; in our example, that’s nubus.example. Once you’re monitoring several instances later on, Grafana tells them apart by exactly this label.
Drag and drop the panels into an arrangement that works. For the screenshots in this article, the three Stat and table panels sit side by side up top, with the time series panel spanning the full width beneath them. Save the finished dashboard with Save.
The real strength of a Grafana dashboard like this comes out in daily use. What matters isn’t a metric’s single reading, but its trend. Take the start of a school year. Over a few weeks, the administrators create several hundred new accounts. The time series panel renders that as a staircase, and the figure in the Active Users panel climbs. As the number nears a threshold you defined earlier, it flips from green to yellow. One look is enough: things are getting tight, and the license may need to be expanded.
At the end of the year, graduating classes leave and their accounts are deleted from the system. The time series panel registers the drop, and the percent arrow in the Stat panel goes red with a negative value. Once the number falls back below the warning band, it returns to green. Consolidation phases like these show that your data hygiene is working, and they give you a realistic basis for capacity planning.
In larger environments, the same metrics can also feed automated alerts. Prometheus evaluates alert rules and passes any triggered alerts to Alertmanager, which then notifies the admin team by email or chat, for example, when the user limit hits 90 percent. The dashboard is what you check on purpose; the alerts make sure nothing slips past.
The setup in this article monitors a single Nubus instance. In practice, single instances are rare. Educational providers, municipalities, and other organizations often run dozens or hundreds of deployments, one per school, per site, per department. This is exactly where the approach shown here scales without much effort.
Prometheus can query any number of endpoints. To bring in another Nubus instance, add it as one more entry under static_configs in prometheus.yml. Because every metric carries the domain label automatically, Grafana keeps the instances neatly separated. What starts as a handful of panels for one instance becomes an overview dashboard for many.
PromQL, Prometheus’s own query language, handles the rest. It offers aggregation operators that summarize or filter metrics across any set of labels. An expression like sum(nubus_users_user_total) returns the total user count across every instance you monitor. Others, such as topk, avg, or count, open up different views: the five largest environments, for example, or the average number of users per site. You’ll find the full list of operators in the Prometheus documentation, and examples of common queries in the Query Examples chapter.
The new metrics endpoint gives Nubus an interface to Prometheus and makes central identity management fit right in with the monitoring tools you already run. If Prometheus and Grafana are handling your other services, a few lines of configuration bring Nubus into the same setup, on the same dashboard as your servers, databases, and web applications.
A single query on the command line answers the question of where things stand right now. The time series in a Grafana panel shows how they develop, which gives you a solid basis for capacity planning, license management, and the assessment of operational processes. For small environments, that’s a useful tool. For large ones with many instances, it becomes the foundation for dependable statements about your own infrastructure.
As of July 2026, the endpoint delivers three metrics. That’s enough for a first overview, and it lays the groundwork for the metrics to come in future releases. A good moment to set up monitoring for your own Nubus.
Der Beitrag See Everything: Visualizing Nubus Metrics with Prometheus and Grafana erschien zuerst auf Univention.
08 September, 2026 09:14AM by Ingo Steuwer
08 September, 2026 06:07AM by xiaofei
08 September, 2026 05:57AM by xiaofei
A dropout has a way of breaking the spell. You are midway through a quiet passage, the system has disappeared, and then the music stops, stutters, or skips ahead. To reduce streaming dropouts, the answer is rarely a single expensive upgrade. It is usually a matter of finding where the connection between your music service, home network, and player is being interrupted.
The encouraging part is that most streaming problems are fixable with a few deliberate checks. Start with the path your music takes, then improve the weakest link rather than changing everything at once.
A streaming dropout is not always a Wi-Fi problem. A track may be delivered from a service over the internet, travel through your router, cross your local network, reach the player, and then be buffered before playback. Any part of that chain can fall behind.
If dropouts happen only with Qobuz, TIDAL, Spotify, or internet radio, look first at the internet connection, the service, or the player’s connection to the router. If local files stored on a NAS or computer also stop, the issue is more likely within the home network. If only one streaming device has trouble while phones, tablets, and other players work normally, placement, cabling, or that device’s settings deserve closer attention.
Sound quality settings can reveal useful clues. High-resolution streams require more consistent bandwidth than CD-quality playback, especially when several people are using the same network. That does not mean hi-res music needs extraordinary internet speed. It does mean a momentary Wi-Fi interruption that goes unnoticed while reading email can be enough to interrupt music.
Before changing router settings, restart the equipment in the order the signal travels. Power-cycle the modem, router, network switch if you use one, and music player. Give each device time to reconnect before moving on. Routers can run for months without attention, and a restart can clear a temporary issue without telling you why it appeared.
Then check whether the problem is tied to a particular time. Regular dropouts in the evening may point to household demand: video calls, gaming, cloud backups, 4K video, or multiple devices downloading updates. A broadband plan can have plenty of advertised speed yet still suffer from congestion, unstable latency, or limited upload capacity.
Run a speed test near the router and, if possible, near the player. The result is not a final verdict, but a large difference between those tests suggests wireless coverage is part of the story. More useful than peak speed is consistency. A connection that briefly falls away is more disruptive to playback than one that is merely modestly paced.
Play a local album from a USB drive, NAS, or computer library, then stream an album from your preferred service. Test at a similar resolution where possible. If the local album plays perfectly and streaming does not, investigate the broadband connection, DNS behavior, or service account and app settings. If both fail, focus on the router, Wi-Fi, Ethernet connection, or network hardware.
Also try the same stream on another device connected to the same network. If a phone plays it without interruption while the hi-fi player does not, do not assume the streamer is at fault. Phones often have different antennas, may switch bands more gracefully, and are usually used closer to an access point.
For a fixed hi-fi system, wired Ethernet remains the most direct way to remove wireless uncertainty. A properly installed Ethernet cable is not glamorous, but it offers stable bandwidth, low latency, and freedom from the walls, appliances, and neighboring networks that affect Wi-Fi.
If your player sits close enough to the router or a network switch, connect it by Ethernet and listen for a few days. This is also an excellent diagnostic test. When dropouts disappear on a cable, you have isolated the issue to Wi-Fi coverage or wireless network configuration.
Not every room can accommodate a cable. Powerline adapters can help in some homes, but their performance depends heavily on the electrical wiring and can vary from room to room. Mesh Wi-Fi can be a better answer for larger spaces, although a mesh node connected wirelessly still shares airtime with the player. Where practical, use a wired backhaul between mesh nodes, or place the player near a node with a strong, proven connection.
Wi-Fi is capable of excellent music streaming, provided the signal is clean and reliable where the system lives. Router placement matters more than many people expect. Keep it in an open, elevated position rather than inside a cabinet, behind a television, or on the floor. Dense materials such as brick, concrete, plaster, and metal can substantially weaken a signal.
The 5 GHz band generally offers more capacity and less congestion than 2.4 GHz, but it has shorter range and is more easily blocked by walls. The 2.4 GHz band reaches farther but is crowded by many household devices. There is no universal winner. If the listening room is distant from the router, a strong 2.4 GHz connection can outperform a marginal 5 GHz one.
Separate network names for 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz can make testing easier, though modern routers often manage band selection well. If your router offers channel selection, leaving it on automatic is usually sensible. In dense apartment buildings or urban neighborhoods, however, manually choosing a quieter channel after observing repeated interference may help.
Avoid placing a streamer directly beside the router, a wireless access point, or a stack of network gear. This is less about audiophile ritual than radio behavior and practical cable management. Give antennas and components some physical breathing room, and keep Wi-Fi equipment away from microwave ovens, cordless phone bases, and other obvious sources of interference.
A music player uses a playback buffer to hold a small amount of audio before you hear it. That buffer gives the network time to recover from minor fluctuations. If a player offers buffer or cache settings, increasing them can reduce dropouts on an inconsistent connection.
There is a trade-off. A larger buffer may make the system slightly slower to start playing, switch tracks, or respond to seeking within a song. For most dedicated listening systems, that is a worthwhile exchange for uninterrupted playback. For listeners who frequently jump between tracks, a moderate setting may feel more responsive.
In Volumio, confirm that the selected output and streaming-service settings match your intended system configuration, then avoid changing multiple audio parameters at once while troubleshooting. Keep the test simple: one service, one album, one output, and enough time for the issue to repeat or disappear.
The player is often blamed because it is where the silence is heard, but other devices can create the disruption. An aging router may struggle with a busy smart home. A low-cost network switch can develop a faulty port. A NAS may be indexing files or waking from sleep just as playback begins. Even a loose Ethernet cable can cause brief disconnects that look like a streaming fault.
Use this short isolation check when the problem persists:
If you use a VPN at the router level, disable it briefly for a controlled test. Some VPN routes add latency or interact poorly with particular streaming services. Likewise, custom DNS services can be useful, but returning temporarily to your internet provider’s default DNS can help identify an unusual name-resolution issue.
A perfect home network cannot correct every interruption upstream. Streaming services occasionally have regional outages, and internet providers can experience routing problems that affect one service more than another. If a dropout begins suddenly after months of stable listening, test another service or station before rebuilding your network around a temporary event.
Keep a small note of what was playing, the time, whether it was local or streamed, and whether other household devices were active. That evidence is more valuable than a vague memory when contacting your internet provider, a streaming service, or technical support.
Music streaming should feel invisible once it is working well. Start with the simplest test, change one variable at a time, and let a full album play before declaring success. The reward is not merely a cleaner network – it is the freedom to stay with the performance, exactly where the artist intended.
The post How to Reduce Streaming Dropouts at Home appeared first on Volumio.
The Xen Project has released one or more Xen security advisories (XSAs). The security of Qubes OS is not affected.
The following XSAs do affect the security of Qubes OS:
The following XSAs do not affect the security of Qubes OS, and no user action is necessary:
Qubes OS uses the Xen hypervisor as part of its architecture. When the Xen Project publicly discloses a vulnerability in the Xen hypervisor, they issue a notice called a Xen security advisory (XSA). Vulnerabilities in the Xen hypervisor sometimes have security implications for Qubes OS. When they do, we issue a notice called a Qubes security bulletin (QSB). (QSBs are also issued for non-Xen vulnerabilities.) However, QSBs can provide only positive confirmation that certain XSAs do affect the security of Qubes OS. QSBs cannot provide negative confirmation that other XSAs do not affect the security of Qubes OS. Therefore, we also maintain an XSA tracker, which is a comprehensive list of all XSAs publicly disclosed to date, including whether each one affects the security of Qubes OS. When new XSAs are published, we add them to the XSA tracker and publish a notice like this one in order to inform Qubes users that a new batch of XSAs has been released and whether each one affects the security of Qubes OS.
07 September, 2026 12:56PM by Joseph Lee
Hello, Community!
VyOS 1.5.1 and VyOS 1.4.5 LTS are both available, and subscribers can download images from the Support Portal.
Both releases are primarily security releases. They fix thirteen vulnerabilities, twelve of which are in accel-ppp — the daemon behind the PPPoE, IPoE, L2TP, and PPTP servers. Most let an unauthenticated attacker crash the service with a crafted packet, but some disclose memory contents that can include other clients’ data, credentials, and pointers, and one lets a client be authenticated without valid credentials at all. The thirteenth is a remote code execution vulnerability in the update-check mechanism. If you run any of these services, upgrade promptly. VyOS 1.4.5 additionally fixes a vulnerability in its NHRP subsystem that does not affect 1.5.1.
Beyond the security work, VyOS 1.5.1 brings a substantial set of new features and improvements, and both releases include a large number of bug fixes. Full lists are at the end of this announcement.
07 September, 2026 11:45AM by Daniil Baturin (daniil@sentrium.io)
07 September, 2026 10:12AM by Chen, Rong
A laptop beside a hi-fi rack can feel like a compromise: a bright screen, fan noise, update alerts, and a keyboard where the music should be. So, can a streamer replace computer duties in a serious music system? For many listeners, yes. A dedicated network streamer can take over music playback completely while making the experience more focused, quieter, and easier to live with.
The more useful question is not whether a computer is good enough to play music. It is. The question is whether a computer is the best long-term music source for the way you listen. That answer depends on your library, your streaming habits, and whether you want a system built around listening rather than general-purpose computing.
A network streamer is a purpose-built music player. It connects to your home network, finds music from streaming services and local storage, and sends audio to a DAC or directly to an integrated amplifier with digital inputs. Rather than using a desktop operating system designed for work, video calls, browsers, and notifications, it runs software dedicated to music playback.
For day-to-day listening, that means a streamer can replace a computer as the device that:
The computer does not need to remain powered on in the listening room. Your phone becomes a remote control, not the audio source. The streamer does the actual work of receiving, buffering, and playing the music.
That distinction matters. Sending audio from a phone over Bluetooth is convenient, but it is not the same as operating a network player from an app. With a proper streamer, the audio travels directly from the music service or your local network to the hi-fi system. Your phone can leave the room, receive a call, or run out of battery without interrupting playback.
A computer offers enormous flexibility, but flexibility carries distractions. Notifications can interrupt a quiet record. Operating-system updates can change audio settings. A new application, driver, or security prompt can turn a simple listening session into troubleshooting.
A streamer removes much of that friction. Turn on the system, choose an album, and play it. It is a small change, but it alters the relationship with your collection. Music is no longer an activity nested among open tabs and unfinished tasks.
There is also a practical hardware advantage. Many computers are electrically noisy environments, especially compact desktops, inexpensive laptops, and machines running many background processes. A well-designed streamer is engineered around one job: moving digital music through your system reliably. It may include carefully considered power regulation, low-noise clocks, isolated outputs, and hardware chosen for stable audio performance.
None of this means every computer sounds poor or every streamer sounds identical. A thoughtfully configured computer with quality USB output and a capable DAC can be excellent. But a dedicated streamer reaches a high standard with fewer variables, less maintenance, and a more natural place in a hi-fi rack.
For most local libraries, absolutely. If your albums are stored on a NAS, an external USB drive, or a shared folder on another computer, a streamer can scan the files and present them in a music-focused library. You can browse by artist, album, genre, composer, date added, resolution, or other useful tags, depending on the playback platform.
This is especially valuable for listeners with a carefully collected library of FLAC, WAV, AIFF, ALAC, or DSD files. A good streaming interface makes those files feel like part of one collection rather than a separate, technical task. Your locally stored music can sit alongside streaming favorites, internet radio, and playlists in one familiar place.
There is an important qualification: a streamer can play and organize your library, but it does not always replace a computer for managing it. If you need to edit metadata in bulk, rip CDs, convert file formats, repair a damaged archive, or maintain complex backups, a computer remains useful. It simply moves out of the signal path and into the background, where it belongs for many systems.
A sensible arrangement is to keep a computer for library maintenance and store the music on a NAS or external drive. The streamer then becomes the dedicated front end for listening.
A computer remains the right choice in some systems. If your listening involves professional audio work, music production, extensive DSP experimentation, or unusual software tools, a general-purpose machine gives you options a dedicated streamer may not. The same is true if you rely on a niche music application that is unavailable on your preferred streaming platform.
Some listeners also keep an enormous library directly on a desktop or laptop and have no interest in adding network storage. In that case, computer playback can be simple and effective, provided the machine is configured carefully and stays close to the system.
Room correction is another case where the details matter. Some streamers support DSP and may offer excellent control over playback settings, while advanced measurement workflows or proprietary correction software can require a computer. Before choosing, consider whether your system needs straightforward music playback or an ongoing laboratory for tuning every variable.
The point is not to eliminate computers on principle. It is to give each component the job it performs best.
The phrase streamer covers several types of product. A network transport has digital outputs and is designed to feed an external DAC. This is often the ideal choice for an established hi-fi system with a DAC you already enjoy. An all-in-one network player may include a DAC, analog outputs, and sometimes amplification, reducing the number of boxes in a simpler system.
Start with the connection you need. If you own a separate DAC, look for the digital output it accepts, such as USB, coaxial, AES/EBU, or optical. If your amplifier has only analog inputs, you need a streamer with an internal DAC and analog outputs. Network connection matters too: wired Ethernet is generally the most stable choice for high-resolution playback, although good Wi-Fi can work very well in a properly covered home.
Then consider the control experience. The best streamer is not merely compatible with your favorite service. It should make you want to explore your music. Search should be quick, your local library should be easy to browse, and switching from a saved album to a new release should not require jumping among disconnected apps.
Volumio approaches this as one music-player ecosystem, bringing local libraries, streaming services, connected audio devices, and a clear control interface together. For builders, the same idea can begin with a Raspberry Pi or PC-based player; for a finished hi-fi system, dedicated hardware can bring that experience into a more refined component.
Replacing a computer does not necessarily mean throwing it away. It means removing it from the center of your listening ritual. Your computer can still rip discs, tag files, maintain backups, and handle the occasional project that calls for a screen and keyboard. But when it is time to play music, a dedicated streamer can make the system feel like a hi-fi system again.
Choose the solution that leaves you spending less time managing devices and more time returning to the albums that made you build the system in the first place.
The post Can a Streamer Replace a Computer in Your Hi-Fi? appeared first on Volumio.
A new DAC arrives, the music server is already playing, and there are two familiar ports on the back panel: optical and coaxial. Optical versus coaxial digital audio is not a contest with one universal winner. Both can carry excellent digital sound, but their physical designs solve different problems. The right choice depends on the gear in your system, the electrical environment around it, and the formats you intend to play.
For most two-channel systems, either connection can deliver a satisfying, detailed result when it is properly implemented. The more useful question is not which cable is inherently more “audiophile,” but which connection lets your streamer and DAC perform at their best together.
Both optical and coaxial connections usually carry S/PDIF, a digital audio protocol found on streamers, CD transports, televisions, game consoles, and DACs. The audio data can be the same. What changes is the way that data travels.
Optical S/PDIF uses light. A source converts the electrical signal to pulses of light, which travel through a fiber-optic cable, commonly terminated with the square-shaped TOSLINK connector. At the receiving end, the DAC converts those light pulses back into an electrical signal.
Coaxial S/PDIF uses an electrical signal sent through a 75-ohm copper cable. RCA connectors are common on consumer hi-fi components, while BNC connectors appear on some higher-end equipment. The cable may resemble a conventional analog interconnect, but a true digital coaxial cable is designed to maintain the impedance required for reliable S/PDIF transmission.
That difference between light and electricity has practical consequences. Optical creates electrical isolation between source and DAC. Coaxial creates an electrical connection between them.
Optical’s defining advantage is isolation. Because the signal crosses the cable as light, there is no direct ground path between the two components. That can be valuable when a system suffers from hum, buzz, computer noise, or other artifacts caused by ground loops.
This matters especially when connecting a television, computer, or cable box to a DAC or integrated amplifier. Video equipment and computers often share power with many other devices, and their electrical noise can find unwanted routes through an audio system. An optical cable breaks that route. If you hear a low-frequency hum with coaxial or analog connections, optical is often the first digital connection worth trying.
Optical is also convenient. TOSLINK cables are inexpensive, widely available, and immune to radio-frequency interference along the cable itself. For a television feeding a hi-fi system, it is frequently the cleanest, simplest answer.
There are trade-offs. The quality of the optical transmitter and receiver matters, and the standard’s real-world bandwidth can vary between components. Many optical outputs and inputs comfortably support CD-quality material and high-resolution PCM, but some are limited to 24-bit/96 kHz. Others handle 24-bit/192 kHz. Do not assume the connector alone tells you the maximum supported resolution. Check the specifications of both the sending device and the DAC.
Fiber-optic cables also deserve sensible handling. Avoid sharply bending, crushing, or loosely seating them. The small protective caps on a new TOSLINK cable are not glamorous, but removing them and ensuring each plug clicks fully into place prevents many frustrating no-signal moments.
Coaxial digital is often favored for a dedicated audio source and DAC that sit in the same rack and are well designed. It can support higher sample rates more consistently across many components, and it is commonly available on CD transports, network streamers, and DACs built for serious two-channel listening.
A good coaxial connection can be particularly appealing if your library includes 24-bit/176.4 kHz or 24-bit/192 kHz PCM files and both components specify support for those rates over S/PDIF. It may also be the more dependable route for certain DSD-over-PCM implementations, although compatibility remains entirely device-specific.
Coaxial’s other advantage is mechanical familiarity. A properly made 75-ohm cable with secure RCA or BNC plugs is durable, easy to route, and less sensitive to tight bends than optical fiber. For a streamer placed close to a DAC, it is a straightforward, high-performing connection.
Its limitation is the same electrical link that makes it possible. If the source and DAC have different ground potentials, a coaxial cable can contribute to a ground-loop issue. This does not mean coaxial is noisy by nature. In a thoughtfully assembled system, it is often completely quiet. But if unwanted noise appears after connecting components, changing to optical is an easy diagnostic step.
Use a cable intended for 75-ohm digital transmission rather than treating any spare RCA cable as the ideal choice. A short analog interconnect may pass audio without obvious problems, but impedance mismatches can increase reflections and make a marginal connection less reliable. The goal is not an extravagant cable purchase. It is correct construction, good connectors, and a sensible length for the installation.
The honest answer is: sometimes, but not for the reasons marketing shorthand suggests. Digital audio is not automatically immune to implementation quality. Timing behavior, electrical noise, receiver design, and a DAC’s clock recovery all influence what reaches the conversion stage.
Older or simpler DAC designs may respond more noticeably to differences between optical and coaxial inputs. A modern DAC with effective reclocking and input isolation may make the distinction very small. In that case, the quietest, most reliable connection that supports your desired formats is the better connection.
It is also worth separating audible changes from level differences, expectation, and setup variables. If you compare inputs, use the same track, the same DAC settings, comparable cable lengths where practical, and matched playback levels. Give each configuration time. A quick switch can reveal an obvious noise problem, but it is less reliable for judging subtle changes in tonal balance or imaging.
The source matters, too. A carefully configured network player running Volumio can organize local music and streaming services in one place, but the final result still depends on the digital output selected, the DAC’s input stage, and the rest of the system. The connection is one part of a longer chain that includes mastering quality, speaker placement, room acoustics, and listening level.
Start with compatibility. If your DAC only accepts up to 24-bit/96 kHz through optical and you regularly play higher-resolution PCM through a source that supports coaxial output, coaxial is the practical choice. If your music is largely CD quality, both options are likely to meet your needs easily.
Next, consider the source. For a TV, computer, or multi-purpose entertainment setup, optical is often preferable because it avoids electrical interaction with the audio system. For a dedicated streamer and DAC on the same equipment shelf, coaxial is often an excellent fit, provided the system is quiet.
Then consider the symptoms, not just the specifications. Choose optical if you are troubleshooting hum, buzz, or electrical noise. Choose coaxial if optical proves unstable at the sample rate you want to use, or if your DAC’s coaxial input is known to offer broader format support. If both work flawlessly, let listening decide rather than chasing a theoretical rule.
Cable length is rarely the first concern in a typical hi-fi rack, but avoid extremes. Keep the run tidy, protect optical cable from sharp bends, and use a correctly specified coaxial cable. Do not place excessive weight on claims that a cable alone will transform a system. Reliable transmission and clean system integration matter far more.
If your equipment provides both outputs and inputs, testing is worthwhile. Begin with coaxial, play several familiar recordings, and listen for clarity as well as silence between tracks. Then switch to optical with the same playback settings. Pay attention to obvious changes such as hum, intermittent lock, clicks when sample rates change, or a format that no longer plays at its native resolution.
If neither connection introduces noise or dropouts and both support your music, you have a fortunate result: either can be part of a refined digital front end. Select the one that keeps the installation clean and gives you confidence that every album, from a treasured local rip to a late-night streaming discovery, will play exactly as intended.
The best connection is the one that disappears once the first notes begin. Use optical when isolation brings peace to the system, use coaxial when its compatibility and stability suit your components, and spend the saved attention where it belongs: with the music.
The post Optical Versus Coaxial Digital Audio Compared appeared first on Volumio.
04 September, 2026 10:32AM by xiaofei
04 September, 2026 10:23AM by Greenbone AG
A USB DAC network streamer can be the missing link between the music you love and the DAC already at the heart of your system. It puts streaming services, internet radio, and your personal library on the network, then sends a dedicated digital signal to an external DAC over USB. For listeners who have chosen their DAC carefully, that separation can be more satisfying than replacing it with an all-in-one box.
The appeal is simple: all your music can live in one player experience without asking one component to do every job. But a USB-equipped streamer is not automatically the right answer for every system. The best choice depends on your DAC, your listening habits, and whether you value flexibility, minimalism, or a carefully matched component stack.
A network streamer connects to your home network through Ethernet or Wi-Fi and retrieves music from services such as TIDAL, Qobuz, and Spotify, as well as music stored on a NAS drive, computer, or USB storage device. Rather than converting that music to analog itself, a streamer with USB audio output passes the digital data to a separate DAC.
Your DAC then handles digital-to-analog conversion before the signal reaches your preamplifier, integrated amplifier, or active speakers. This division of labor matters because a DAC is not just a socket for digital audio. Its conversion architecture, analog output stage, clocking approach, and power supply all shape how it performs within a system.
A streamer can also bring order to a fragmented listening routine. Instead of moving between separate service apps, a server interface, and a computer audio player, you can browse albums, search across sources, build playlists, and control playback from one place. That convenience is not separate from sound quality. It often means you spend less time managing devices and more time playing complete records.
Many DACs offer optical, coaxial, and USB inputs. Each can be excellent, but USB is especially useful when you want broad format support and a direct connection to a modern external DAC. Depending on the hardware and the music service, USB can support high-resolution PCM and DSD playback beyond the limits commonly associated with optical connections.
USB also allows the DAC to take an active role in timing the incoming audio stream. In an asynchronous USB implementation, the DAC’s clock controls the pace at which data is requested from the streamer. That can be an elegant arrangement when the DAC’s USB input has been designed well.
Still, USB is not a universal upgrade. A DAC with an exceptional coaxial input may sound best through coaxial. An older DAC may have a USB implementation that is limited compared with its other inputs. The right question is not which connector wins in the abstract. It is which connection lets your specific DAC perform at its best while supporting the music formats you actually use.
With a USB streamer, the external DAC retains its role as the primary digital voice in your system. That is valuable if you already own a DAC whose presentation you know well: perhaps it has a generous sense of space, strong tonal density, or the particular timing and texture that keeps you listening late into the evening.
It also gives you an easier upgrade path. You can update the streamer when software, service support, or connectivity needs change without discarding a DAC you still enjoy. Or you can audition a different DAC later while keeping the same music interface and network setup intact.
Start with compatibility, not a specification race. Confirm that the streamer can send audio through USB to your DAC at the formats you need. If you listen mainly to CD-quality streaming, nearly any competent pairing will cover the basics. If you maintain a library of high-resolution PCM or DSD files, check the supported limits and whether playback is native, converted, or unavailable.
Network stability deserves just as much attention. Ethernet is usually the most dependable option for a fixed hi-fi system, particularly when the router is in another room or the household has many connected devices. Wi-Fi can work beautifully when the signal is strong, but a wired connection removes one variable from critical listening.
The control experience is equally important. A great streamer should not force you to think like a network administrator every time you want to hear an album. Look for clear library browsing, reliable search, support for your preferred services, and an interface that treats local files and streaming catalogs as parts of the same collection. Features such as favorites, playlists, multiroom playback, and internet radio may seem secondary until they become part of your daily listening.
Finally, consider physical integration. You need a quality USB cable of practical length, but extreme claims around cable cost should not distract from the fundamentals. A stable network, a well-designed streamer, a compatible DAC, and a quiet, sensible installation will make a far larger difference than chasing accessories for their own sake.
The typical connection is straightforward: network router to streamer, streamer USB output to DAC, DAC analog outputs to amplifier. If your system includes a preamp, the DAC usually connects to a line-level input. If you use active speakers, the DAC may feed them directly, provided its output level and volume-control arrangement suit the speakers.
The more interesting decisions happen around the edges. If your DAC has a fixed output and your amplifier lacks volume control, you will need a preamp or a streamer-DAC setup with appropriate volume management. If you own a headphone amplifier with a DAC built in, a network streamer may be all you need to turn that desktop or listening-room setup into a complete streaming system.
For a main hi-fi system, keep the streamer close enough to the DAC for a tidy USB connection and give both components good ventilation. Avoid placing networking gear or switching power supplies directly on top of sensitive analog equipment where possible. These are practical housekeeping choices, not rituals, but a clean installation is easier to troubleshoot and easier to enjoy.
A USB DAC network streamer is particularly rewarding if your collection extends beyond streaming. Ripped CDs, purchased downloads, live recordings, and carefully tagged high-resolution files should not feel like an afterthought beside a subscription catalog.
Good library software can make a personal collection feel alive again. Browse by artist, composer, genre, date added, or label. Find different editions of a favorite album. Move from a saved local recording to a related release on a streaming service without changing devices. This is where a network player becomes less like an accessory and more like the center of a music habit.
Volumio approaches that idea with a unified ecosystem built for both dedicated components and hands-on DIY players, giving listeners a familiar way to bring services, local music, and connected audio together.
A quality streamer can contribute to clear, stable digital playback, but it will not override the character of every other component. Your speakers, room, amplification, and DAC remain deeply influential. A USB connection does not turn an entry-level system into a reference system, and a high-resolution badge does not guarantee a more moving performance.
What you may notice with a well-matched streamer and DAC is consistency. Albums start reliably. The system remains quiet between tracks. Complex recordings retain their composure. You can move from a favorite local file to a new release without changing the listening setup. Those gains support the real goal: hearing more of the performance and less of the technology.
If you are comparing streamers, use music you know intimately and listen at comparable levels. Pay attention to ease of use as well as sound. A product that sounds wonderful but makes you avoid your own library is not necessarily the better long-term choice.
There are sensible reasons to choose a streamer with a built-in DAC instead. It reduces box count, cabling, and setup complexity. It can be ideal for a second system, a compact living room, active speakers, or anyone beginning a hi-fi journey without an existing DAC.
An integrated player may also offer a manufacturer-designed digital and analog stage that works exceptionally well as a whole. Fewer choices can be a benefit when you want a refined system quickly.
Choose a separate USB streamer and DAC when you already value your DAC, want greater component flexibility, or prefer to keep the digital source and conversion stages independent. Choose an all-in-one player when simplicity, space, and a single coordinated component matter more. Neither approach is inherently more serious. The better one is the one that invites you to sit down, choose an album, and stay for the next track.
The post Choosing a USB DAC Network Streamer for Hi-Fi appeared first on Volumio.
Choosing infrastructure technology has traditionally involved a familiar set of questions. Does it meet the technical requirements? Will it handle the expected traffic? Is it compatible with the existing environment? What will it cost to deploy and maintain?
Security teams are adding another question to that process: how much do we know about the company behind the technology?
This is particularly relevant when a supplier provides technology that becomes part of important application infrastructure. An Application Delivery Controller (ADC), for example, may sit in the path of critical application traffic and remain in the infrastructure for years. The organization is therefore not only selecting software. It is establishing a long-term relationship with the company responsible for developing, maintaining, updating and supporting it.
For organizations handling sensitive information or critical digital services, this can lead to a much broader security review. Healthcare providers, universities, public-sector organizations and other security-conscious environments may ask vendors about their security policies, vulnerability management, internal controls, testing practices or incident response procedures before approving them.
A vendor security assessment is a review of the cybersecurity posture of a supplier. It can form part of a broader vendor risk assessment and may involve security questionnaires, technical discussions and requests for documentation that help the organization understand how the vendor manages security.
The depth of that assessment will vary considerably. A supplier of a low-risk business tool will not necessarily receive the same scrutiny as a company providing technology used in critical infrastructure.
But the underlying principle is simple: security claims are more useful when they can be supported by evidence.
A questionnaire may ask whether a vendor has an information security policy, a vulnerability management process or an incident response plan. For a more detailed assessment, the customer may also want evidence showing that those practices have actually been established.
Depending on the organization and the technology being assessed, this could include information about security policies, security testing, vulnerability management, architecture, data flows, access controls, incident response, supplier management or recognized security standards.
A vendor security questionnaire can cover a surprisingly broad range of areas. That is because the purpose is not simply to establish whether the supplier sells a cybersecurity product. The objective is to understand whether security is managed consistently across the organization that develops and supports the technology.
Several areas tend to become particularly relevant.
One of the first things a security team may want to establish is whether cybersecurity has a defined place within the organization.
That can mean checking whether information security policies exist, whether responsibilities have been assigned, how security risks are identified and whether there are processes for reviewing those risks as the business, technology or threat landscape changes.
The question behind all of this is fairly straightforward: is security managed systematically, or only when a problem appears?
For technology vendors, this matters because product security, corporate infrastructure and customer support do not operate independently. They depend on decisions, responsibilities and controls across the company.
Customers may also want to understand how a vendor protects the infrastructure used to develop, distribute and support its technology.
This does not require the vendor to disclose its network topology or internal configurations. What matters during an assessment is whether appropriate controls exist around areas such as administrative access, least privilege, credential management, logging, monitoring, asset management and access to sensitive systems.
There is a good reason for looking at this layer.
A security problem affecting a technology supplier can potentially originate outside the product itself. Development systems, repositories, administrative accounts, support platforms or other corporate assets can all become relevant to the overall risk relationship between customer and vendor.
For a software vendor, security also needs to continue throughout the lifecycle of the product.
Security teams may therefore ask whether software changes are reviewed before release, whether vulnerabilities are actively identified and evaluated, how security fixes are managed and whether third-party components are monitored for known vulnerabilities.
The presence of a vulnerability is not in itself evidence that a vendor has failed. Vulnerabilities can be discovered in practically any sufficiently complex software environment.
A more useful question is how the vendor responds when one is found.
Does it have a defined process to assess the issue? Can it determine the potential impact? Is there a mechanism for remediation, testing and distribution of the necessary update?
These practices are important because customers depend on the vendor not only at the point of purchase but throughout the useful life of the technology.
Security testing provides another layer of assurance.
Depending on the vendor, risk and product, this may involve automated vulnerability analysis, dependency reviews, dynamic application testing, targeted assessments or penetration testing.
No individual testing technique proves that software is completely free from vulnerabilities. Security testing is more useful when it forms part of a continuous process: identifying weaknesses, analysing findings, correcting relevant issues and adapting testing as the product evolves.
This is why focusing exclusively on whether a vendor “does pentesting” can miss the wider picture. Penetration testing can be valuable, but it is only one element of a broader security management and vulnerability assessment strategy.
Very few technology companies operate without dependencies.
Software components, infrastructure providers, external services and other suppliers may all contribute to the systems used to develop or deliver a product. A vendor security assessment may therefore extend to how these third parties are considered and how relevant dependencies are monitored.
Understanding how a supplier approaches third-party risk can therefore provide additional context when evaluating its overall cybersecurity posture.
Preventing incidents is important. Being prepared for them is equally important.
Security teams may want to know whether a vendor has an established incident response process and whether responsibilities exist for detection, investigation, containment, recovery and communication.
This becomes particularly relevant in environments such as healthcare or higher education.
A hospital evaluating infrastructure for important application services will naturally consider the operational impact of a security incident or prolonged disruption. A university may have a very different architecture, but it can face similar concerns across administrative applications, academic systems, research environments and large, diverse user populations.
In both cases, supplier security can become part of the technology decision because the consequences of choosing a vendor extend well beyond the initial deployment.
Vendor security assessment usually does not happen in isolation.
An organization may already have validated the technology, tested the software or confirmed that the solution satisfies its infrastructure requirements. Security review can take place in parallel with that technical evaluation or become another approval stage before procurement can move forward.
This explains why a technically suitable product may still need to be reviewed by cybersecurity, risk, compliance or procurement teams.
For the technical team, the question may be: does this ADC work in our environment?
For the security team, the question is different: are we comfortable introducing this vendor into our technology supply chain?
A mature selection process needs to answer both.
This is also the relationship between a vendor security assessment and the broader concept of a vendor risk assessment. Vendor risk can include operational, financial, legal, privacy or continuity considerations. A vendor security assessment focuses specifically on the cybersecurity dimension of that relationship.
For infrastructure that plays an important role in application delivery, that dimension can carry considerable weight.
When security forms part of an ADC selection process, these questions can help move the conversation from product claims to vendor assurance:
There is no single answer that will fit every organization. The level of assurance required varies by sector and risk profile; what is proportionate for one deployment may be excessive, or insufficient, for another.
What matters is that the questions form part of the decision before the technology becomes another dependency that has to be managed later.
For technology vendors, being prepared to answer these questions and to support those answers with appropriate evidence, is becoming an important part of building trust with security-conscious organizations. This is also how SKUDONET approaches vendor security reviews
At SKUDONET, security is not limited to the cybersecurity capabilities available within our ADC platform.
We apply security practices across the lifecycle of the technology we develop and maintain. These include secure development practices, review and validation of software changes, vulnerability management, monitoring of vulnerabilities affecting relevant third-party components, security testing, and the delivery of security patches and updates when required.
Security also applies to the company infrastructure supporting those activities. SKUDONET maintains internal security controls and an established incident response framework covering systems and information under our responsibility. Our internal Information Security Policy defines principles covering areas such as security governance, access management, vulnerability management, infrastructure security, data protection, logging, backups, incident management, and supplier security.
We also perform internal security assessments as part of our security work, using complementary testing approaches that evolve as the product and threat landscape change.
At the organizational level, SKUDONET is currently working toward ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification and implementing an Information Security Management System aligned with the standard. We are also implementing security management requirements aligned with Spain’s National Security Framework (ENS) at medium level.
These initiatives are part of our ongoing work to formalize and strengthen how information security is managed across the company.
When an organization carries out a formal vendor security assessment, SKUDONET can provide additional security information and supporting documentation where appropriate. Information covering sensitive internal policies, procedures, architecture, or operational practices is handled under suitable confidentiality conditions.
The goal is straightforward: to give security teams the information they need to make an informed decision without exposing information that should remain protected.
Selecting an ADC is not only a question of throughput, high availability, deployment options or licensing.
When that technology becomes part of important application infrastructure, the organization responsible for developing and maintaining it also becomes part of the equation.
For technology providers, that means trust increasingly has to be demonstrated, not simply stated.
Do you have questions about SKUDONET’s security practices? If your cybersecurity, infrastructure or procurement team needs additional information as part of a vendor security review, contact us. Our team can answer your questions and provide further security information where appropriate.
03 September, 2026 04:23PM by Isabel Perez
We are proud to announce our new stable release 🚢 version 2026.09, code-named ‘Hättiwaritätti’!
Grml is a bootable live system (Live CD) based on Debian. Grml 2026.09 brings you fresh software packages from Debian testing/forky and enhanced hardware support. Known bugs from previous releases are fixed.
GNU screen 5.0.1 is shipped with adapted Grml configuration.
Like in the previous release 2026.04, Live ISOs 📀 are available for 64-bit x86 (amd64) and 64-bit ARM CPUs (arm64).
For a detailed overview of the changes from Grml 2026.04 to 2026.09, please check out the official release announcement.
Don’t forget to use a current grml2usb (0.20.14 or newer) with this new release.
Once again netcup contributed financially, this time specifically to this release. Thank you, netcup ❤️
We also want to thank our individual sponsors donating through GitHub. If you like what we are doing, please join in!
Thanks to everyone who contributed to Grml and this release, stay healthy and happy Grml-ing! ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜
Our build and customization tool grml-live underwent a lot of changes, prompted by systemd not working inside /proc-less chroots anymore.
grml-live now uses Linux user namespaces.
Unfortunately these are often unavailable inside containers (think Docker, podman).
To unblock the release of Grml 2026.09, we have implemented the workflows we need for releasing. Support for chroot-based workflows is forthcoming; feedback on how these workflows are used exactly is welcome.
In the meantime please take a look at the grml-live changes in git.
As previously announced, grml-live is no longer part of the GRML_FULL ISO flavour.
Now head over to our download page and grab your own copy.
Hello, Community!
In August, the VyOS development branch saw work in a few directions at once. Contributors outside the core team landed new firewall capabilities, a dynamic DNS overhaul, NTP options, and fixes for bugs that only turned up once someone ran a configuration nobody had tried before.
03 September, 2026 11:44AM by Taras Pudiak (taras@vyos.io)
A music collection can outgrow a basic folder structure long before it stops being personal. The best music library managers do more than display albums: they make a lifetime of rips, downloads, box sets, live recordings, and high-resolution files feel ready to play. For a serious hi-fi system, that means reliable metadata, fast browsing from the listening chair, and playback that respects both the music and the equipment.
The right choice depends on how you listen. Some people want meticulous control over every composer credit and cover image. Others want local files and streaming favorites to live in one familiar interface. A maker building a Raspberry Pi streamer has different needs than a listener who wants to browse a large NAS library from a tablet. The common goal is simple: less time managing files, more time hearing music.
A library manager is not just a player. At its best, it scans your storage, reads embedded tags, groups tracks into albums, finds artwork, supports search and filtering, and sends music to your audio system without turning each listening session into an IT task.
Start with format support. If your collection includes FLAC, ALAC, WAV, AIFF, DSD, or high-resolution PCM files, the software should recognize them cleanly and preserve useful information such as sample rate, bit depth, and album grouping. Gapless playback matters for live albums, classical works, and records designed to be heard as a continuous sequence.
Metadata is equally important. A manager that treats Artist, Album Artist, composer, conductor, ensemble, release date, genre, and disc number as meaningful fields will keep a large library intelligible. This is especially valuable when you own multiple editions of the same album or a substantial classical and jazz collection. No software can fix incomplete tags by magic, but good tools make corrections practical and keep them consistent.
Finally, consider where the music lives and how it reaches your system. A computer-attached drive may be enough for a modest collection. A NAS is often a better fit for larger libraries and multiroom homes. If your streamer or network player handles playback separately from the control device, the experience can feel far more natural: browse from a phone or tablet, then let the dedicated audio device do the listening.
Roon is designed for listeners who want their music collection to feel editorially alive. It brings together local files and supported streaming catalogs, then adds artist biographies, credits, reviews, related performers, release versions, and deep linking across a library. For someone who often begins with one familiar record and follows the musical thread from there, it is an unusually rewarding experience.
Its strength is also its trade-off. Roon is a premium, subscription-based ecosystem that relies on a dedicated Core running on a capable computer or server. It is best for listeners willing to invest in a polished, information-rich environment and compatible endpoints throughout the home. If you simply want lightweight local playback, it can be more platform than you need.
Audirvana appeals to listeners who use a Mac or Windows computer as a central part of their system and want a clean, music-first interface. It handles local libraries, supports high-resolution playback, and can combine local music with selected streaming services. Its library views emphasize albums and artists without overwhelming the screen with social or editorial layers.
This makes it a strong option for a two-channel system in a home office, studio, or dedicated listening room. It is less compelling if you need broad multiroom control or prefer a hardware-led ecosystem that stays independent of a desktop computer. Still, its direct approach has real appeal when the priority is attentive listening rather than endless browsing.
JRiver Media Center remains one of the most capable choices for collectors who want to shape every part of their library. It offers extensive tagging, smart lists, custom views, conversion tools, DSP options, and wide file-format support. A listener with a carefully maintained collection of concert recordings, needle drops, surround files, and obscure releases can make it behave almost exactly as they wish.
That flexibility comes with a steeper learning curve. The interface is functional rather than minimal, and new users may need time to understand its many settings. For collectors who enjoy organizing as much as listening, that is part of the value. For everyone else, it may feel more like a control room than an album shelf.
MusicBee is a thoughtful local-library manager for Windows users, particularly those who want strong tagging and flexible organization without a costly commitment. It can manage large collections, create intelligent playlists, edit metadata in batches, and support a wide range of formats. Its customization options make it possible to create an interface that favors albums, detailed track data, or a more traditional media-library view.
It is a particularly good fit for a PC-based music archive and for listeners who enjoy refining tags over time. Its main limitation is that it is centered on the Windows desktop rather than a unified network-audio ecosystem. If your priority is controlling a dedicated streamer from multiple devices, you may want software designed around that workflow.
Plexamp takes a different path. It is built around a personal music server and offers an approachable way to take a home collection beyond the listening room. Its excellent search, mix-building features, artwork-forward presentation, and remote access can make a large library feel easy to revisit. It is especially appealing to people who want their own music available in the car, at work, or while traveling.
For a traditional hi-fi setup, its appeal depends on your priorities. Plexamp is strong on access and discovery, but listeners seeking detailed playback settings, specialist metadata views, or a deeply hardware-integrated audio experience may prefer another route. It works best when personal-library portability is as important as the main system at home.
Apple Music is often overlooked as a library manager because many people think of it only as a streaming service. Yet for users already invested in Apple devices, it can organize locally stored music, synchronize playlists and library changes, and keep purchased or imported albums within a familiar interface. Its convenience is difficult to deny when phones, computers, and tablets are all part of the same household.
The trade-off is control. Advanced tagging, format transparency, and specialist playback workflows are not its central focus. It is a sensible solution for an Apple-centered lifestyle and a manageable collection, but less suited to the listener who wants to inspect, curate, and preserve every detail of a high-resolution archive.
Volumio is a natural fit when the goal is to bring local music, supported streaming services, and connected audio devices into one focused music-player ecosystem. Whether it runs on a DIY Raspberry Pi build, a PC-based player, or dedicated hi-fi hardware, its interface is built around the act of choosing and playing music rather than managing a general-purpose computer.
For a local collection, that means browsing by artist, album, genre, and more from a phone, tablet, or computer while the network player handles playback. The benefit is practical: your library can remain on a NAS or USB drive, your control device stays free for browsing, and your hi-fi system retains a purpose-built center. The best setup will still depend on your source storage, streaming preferences, and desired level of metadata detail, but a unified player can remove a great deal of app switching from everyday listening.
Even the finest manager cannot fully compensate for inconsistent files. Before migrating to a new platform, make a copy of your library and check a representative sample. Confirm that album artists are consistent, multi-disc sets have disc numbers, compilations are marked correctly, and artwork is embedded or stored in a predictable way. Classical listeners should decide early whether they want to prioritize composer, conductor, soloist, ensemble, or work title in their browsing views.
Keep your folder structure simple. A format such as Artist/Album/Track is usually enough, with separate folders only where they genuinely help, such as various artists compilations or classical composers. Avoid renaming thousands of files solely to please one application unless you understand how it writes changes back to your library. Your tags should remain useful if you change software later.
There is no single winner for every collection. The best music library manager is the one that makes your own records easier to find, presents them with the care they deserve, and gets out of the way when the first note begins. Choose the environment that suits your habits, then give yourself an evening with an album you know by heart.
The post 7 Best Music Library Managers for Hi-Fi Systems appeared first on Volumio.