douglasg14b

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 hours ago

It's absolutely bonkers.

There's so many people here that fight against their own interests by letting perfect be the enemy of good.

 

Hopefully you all can help!

I've been to hundreds of threads over the last few days trying to puzzle this out, with no luck.

The problem:

  1. Caddy v2 with acme HTTP-1 ACME challenge (Changed from TLS-ALPN challenge)
  2. Cloudflair DNS with proxy ON
  3. All cloudflair https is off
  4. This is a .co domain

Any attempt to get certificates fails with an invalid challenge response. If I try and navigate (or curl) to the challenge directly I always get SSL validation errors as if all the requests are trying to upgrade to HTTPS.

I'm kind of at my wit's end here and am running out of things to try.

If I turn Cloud flare proxy off and go back to TLS-ALPN challenge, everything works as expected. However I do not wish to expose myself directly and want to use the proxy.

What should I be doing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Got to love ignorant hot tapes based on article headings.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's.... Literally just a long password.

I assumed you were talking about a private key as in cryptographic private key, where your data is encrypted on the remote server and your private key is required for it to be decrypted and for you to use it.

If you just talking about something to get into an SSH key then all that is is a longer password.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It should be $0 because this was a credential stuffing attack (Using breached passwords people reused), and affected people who knowingly shared their data with other people.

23&me didn't leak data, they didn't have any database breaches, their infrastructure wasn't compromised due to negligence...etc The majority share of negligence is in the users here.

Yes, they should have MFA, but also no, most sites and services don't force you to use MFA to begin with, and that's not a regulatory requirement anyways.

This is, for the most part, the fault of the folks using terrible security practices such as refusing passwords and sharing their data with other users. And this is a shitty precedent to set where the technical reasons for this event are thrown out the window in favor of the politics of it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

That's literally just a long password that you can never recover your data from when you inevitably lose or forget it (remember we're talking about the majority of users here who do not use password managers).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Custom launchers have their own issues. I've tried them such as Nova launcher and I really just don't like the experience.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but this requires you to use an entirely different launcher which has its own caveats...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

You can if you are in the EU.

Google just says fuck you to everyone else because they get away with anti-competitive practices.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

For a huge number of phones it's a requirement because Google and Android do not allow you to customize or change this aspect of the device.

Unless you're in the European Union in which you get the right to.

Fuck Google.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (6 children)

If only we had a choice to... You know... Not use the stupid thing

Unfortunately that right is only reserved for EU Citizens.

Google needs to be broken up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The comment two above this links to a tool that literally does live syncing on a line by line level. Unless you're editing the same lines at the same time you're not going to get sync conflicts.

I use it as well and it works wonderfully in real time.

216
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

This is great news, and a strong step forward.

A big part of this are the limitations around part pairing. Which often prevents repairs as the parts on the device are paired to each other and do not allow you to swap them out.

Recently this has become a problem even for EUVs like OneWheel. Who lock consumers out of repairing or modifying their devices.

 

Seems an engineer stole source code, docs, presentations...etc related to car technology.

view more: next ›