Can someone explain to me the context behind the incident that caused this? I am entirely out of the loop.
Can someone explain to me the context behind the incident that caused this? I am entirely out of the loop.
I doubt that symbol had any meaning back then. The artist probably just thought it looked nice.
I thought I was commenting on a different post. Sorry about that
I hope you realise that the comment you replied to is really just a reference to the Succulent Chinese Meal video.
The source is this article.
It’s not just “technically difficult” to eavesdrop. Properly implemented, it’s computationally impossible to eavesdrop on a connection secured with TLS.
Not being end-to-end encrypted is meaningless to law enforcement if Telegram refuses to turn over the chat contents (which they do). Law enforcement can’t just eavesdrop on the conversation without Telegram’s cooperation. The chat contents are still secured by TLS from the user’s device to the Telegram servers.
Smart professional criminals rarely use Telegram for this stuff anyway. There’s WhatsApp and plenty of other popular platforms of end-to-end encrypted
What is the charge? For operating a messaging platform? A succulent private messaging platform?
Yes, that’s why it’s “Outbursts of Everett True”, not “reasonable reactions of Everett True”. He is an asshole and proud of it.
They’re talking about ag-gag laws. When people take pictures of the poor conditions on farms and it causes public outrage, the farm tends to lose business so some states have passed laws to protect the farmers.
Password is necessary for two-factor authentication. The factors of authentication are something you know (like a password), something you have (like a cell phone), and something you are (like a biometric).
An example of three-factor authentication would be this—imagine a spy going into a secret bunker. They need to scan their iris, insert a key card, and then enter a passcode before the door opens. This has all three factors of authentication; the passcode is something they know, the key card is something they have, the iris scan is something they are.
If it just sends a code to your phone, that’s one-factor authentication (something you have). Anyone with your phone can get into your account. Unless, of course, your phone hides its notifications and you have a screen lock. Then that’s actually two-factor authentication because you also need to know the phone PIN or have the biometric.
If it just asks for a password, that’s one-factor authentication (something you know).
If it asks for your password and then sends a code to your phone, which you need a fingerprint or face scan to unlock, you have achieved three-factor authentication.
Edit: Interesting tidbit—in the USA, you can rent a mailbox at the post office to receive mail when you don’t want to give out your real address. Useful for privacy reasons. I’m sure they have similar things in other countries. These mailboxes come with a key. This is actually two-factor authentication, because the keys usually don’t have the mailbox number written on them! So you have to have the key and also have to know which mailbox among the hundreds at the post office it opens.
TOTP is standardised by RFC 6238 so all TOTP clients must comply with the standard and therefore work equally well. Pick the one whose UI you like the most and is otherwise good enough for your use case and personal preferences. It’s similar to arguments over CPU thermal paste—its presence or absence makes a much larger difference than the method of application.
You do, however, want to pick something that is free and open-source and also popular. Google Authenticator (closed source) definitely is a functional TOTP client but you have to trust that the Google engineers have done a good job building a secure app. Since it’s Google, they probably have, but a principle in security is that you should not have to trust more people than absolutely necessary.
Yes, but this is like replacing the front door of your house with a bank vault door. Yes, it’s more secure, but there is a point of “reasonably secure enough” for most people and at some point, you are just inconveniencing yourself for no tangible gain.
It’s not a hard concept. In almost every well-designed security system, the weakest links are invariably the humans
The passwords are stored locally. You can test this yourself by turning off your WiFi or disconnecting your Ethernet cable and then going to about:logins. All the passwords will still be there.
That’s not what the Chevron doctrine was. The Chevron doctrine stated that courts should defer to agency interpretations of the law.
Ubuntu Server, Debian, or Rocky Linux will save you a lot of headaches.
Most software is designed with these major distros in mind and using something more obscure will just cause problems later on when you realise that there are no guides written for it by the software vendor. Fixing broken software gets old really fast especially when it causes your stuff to break when you’re actually trying to use it.
I have a script running that uses the Namecheap API to automatically get wildcard certs from Let’s Encrypt. I didn’t pay a dime for this. Did something change?
Nothing wrong with Boost Mobile, or any other discount telecom provider either. It’s not like the phone signals taste different lmao
It’s just a hallmark of “I bought the cheapest domain name TLD available”.
That’s not necessarily bad if all you need is something to get the job done, but there is a stereotype associated with it.
Okay bud. Have a biscuit 🍪