|
what a bunch of loving nerds
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Oki Semiconductor! I had an OkiSemi mouse pad with one of the other characters, NetChampion or something. oh man this press release is so first-bubble adorable http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/integrated-web-pr-and-advertising-strategy-pays-off-for-oki-semiconductor-76200872.html Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
cheese-cube posted:i'll buy this tag for the next 10 ppl who quote this post (might take me a couple of days to do so, ive just moved house and have no internet yet) I'm in for the next 10, if someone will tell me how to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:edit - gently caress, 11th I got you dude fishmech posted:heck yeah also you how does one add gang tags? just [img] in the av text?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:they have to be on SA's servers so the way it's usually done that you buy it as an avatar for yourself (or someone else but it's more expensive) and then you can use the image in img tags. ok, I can probably do that this afternoon without loving things up too badly. I guess I have to replace avs and text too, joy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
there's no good way to get the bbcode for someone's existing title text, is there?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:
Yeah, I mean for others' more intricate ones. say, Captain Foo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Storysmith posted:am i too late for the subjunctive offering because gently caress counting things I think you're in, but I'm not certain atm because, as you say, gently caress counting things
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
IDK how long it takes to clear whatever cache of things and stuff, but: uncurable mlady fishmech Crusader jre Captain Foo Storysmith Westie Mad Wack Testiclops BeOSPOS should all be set.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Westie posted:drat, no tag as of yet. pretty sure I did yours. the receipt only lists 6 names, though it shows the quantity as 10, so idk what's going on there. zdr? but now I wonder if I hosed it up and just didn't put the tag in like a goddamn moron.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:hmm, should we use the coordinates of the Geographic Center of the Contiguous United States Park? not even the nearest integers, if you check the numbers
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
BeOSPOS posted:
I think there's a problem with the last 4 on that list, I'll have to mail support or something 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:tag check I'm humbled. sweet as.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:There is no more port forwarding, only firewalls. In my case, I have my router's firewall set up to block all incoming connections to anything inside the network, and to "forward" a port I just say "allow connection to ip [whatever] port [whatever]" and bam What networks does your ISP route to you? It seems like port forwarding could still be a thing, especially if an ISP only gave a small number of publicly-routable addresses to each customer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:i've had full ipv6 for years and no one has hacked my printer or xbox that you know of
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:granny natting, not double dmz natting like you should be I don't get this joke and I feel like I should
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
I am glad that is in my life.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Namecheap live chat social engineering leads to loss of 2 VPS I thought, nay hoped, that they meant vice-presidents.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
that thread is bad and that guy is the worst
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:I don't know why I have all the security related threads outside of this one bookmarked, reading them just makes me sad or angry. yeah, it's a sickness
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:no several people are advocating no AV itt raises hand
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
some serious "shoemaker's children" poo poo itt
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:everywhere   
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:did people itt really believe osi's password was kjs500? because that's an ancient radium password for everything scott / tiger
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
 https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/index.html#url=google.com
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
at least they aren't whitelisting themselves
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:yeah i probably should have asked if it was an Important Person first you don't copy an Important Person's boss except as an act of war
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
yeah, someone is going to loving burn
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:yeah but they have restrictions on what they'll sign and they also charge for poo poo which creates a huge barrier when you're a malware creator that gets by on buying random domains as your old ones get shut down. there have been free DV certs available for years, trusted by IE, which are validated the same way let's encrypt's are. they have been used widely for phishing and malware, again going back years. the difference is that let's encrypt publishes their issuance logs, so people can actually see what's being issued.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:it being done in the past doesn't mean its a good idea today. those free certs CAs are still trusted by IE; do you blacklist them out of your configurations? let's encrypt isn't just about making them free, though that's a necessary precondition for what they want to do. automated "no excuse not to" issuance and server config, short lifetimes, and public issuance logs are what make TLS more ubiquitous and trustworthy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:I don't block lets encrypt either but I was thinking about it cause idk anyone legitimate who would use them over a real CA. yes, let's encrypt makes it trivial to enable SSL, since it automates server config, request generation, signature submission and cert/key installation. it is explicitly about making it too easy to not bother, because laziness/complexity is the big remaining barrier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:the steps to use the automated system are just as complex as setting up the certs yourself if not more so I don't know anyone who has used both let's encrypt and another CA and would agree. which CA did you use that was as streamlined in terms of generating the request and configuring the server and installing the intermediate certs properly? they are to be commended.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:it doesn't matter if something is signed by lets encrypt because they will sign anything as long as you can prove access to the domain. as will any other CA, which is fine, because DV certs only validate that you're connecting to that domain edit: but in case I'm missing something, what verification policy and mechanism does your preferred CA use instead?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:there better be a big checkbox that is off by default on every OS, 3rd party browser, and JRE install that says "Trust lovely idiot CAs Y/N?" that would pretty much only leave LE
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I want a lock symbol that scales with how expensive the cert was I think you'll find that they change color instead
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:yes. I had to send in paperwork about the company to verify who we were. for a DV cert? which CA was this?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
sounds like you got an OV certificate, for which they verify the organization in order to charge you more for something no user will ever see. EV at least gets you the special browser treatment. you can get DV from godaddy with just an HTML file in the docroot, like their docs say: https://www.godaddy.com/help/verifying-your-domain-ownership-for-ssl-certificate-requests-html-or-dns-7452
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:eliminating dv certs entirely would be way better for the internet then giving them away for free I proposed something very much like this when EV was first mooted, but Microsoft shot it down for bullshit reasons
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:its probably way more doable now where you have all these clod providers who could provide encryption as a service for your hosted domains. in addition to your payment information you submit corporate verification information and blammo now you can purchase EV certs as a service. the whole point of EV is that it can't be automated away
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Shaggar posted:I was suggesting doing it with an x509 extension rather than outright revoking the trust, but w/e. did you get the other sources of $0 certs too?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 02:17
|
|
