From the resulting string I take the first 16 characters and use that as a password. Every user/domain pair that I used also gets stored for later retrieval. The secret password is never stored anywhere.
Can anyone comment on the security of this solution? I figured that using 16 characters from the base64 output gives a stronger password than using 16 characters from the hash directly. But basically, I'm a crypto newbie.
WTF are......A overlords? [.] is one character, a dot. That should definitely be just . . ()s are redundant. [AA] matches one character that could be either an A or.. an A. Well done. That's ^.*AA$ overlords for you, Mr. regex newbie.
I wonder why nobody talks about GRUB's netbooting ability. I can't remember fiddling with boot blocks and MBR vs. partition and all that awkward x86 crap. Just put a pxegrub and a config on a TFTP server and off you go. You still can boot any system on the local disk in addition to diskless boots. You just don't have to deal with unbootable systems and such anymore.
Or use something like Truecrypt's hidden volumes. AFAICS proving the existence of the second volume is impossible. So you don't have to hide the fact that you used encryption. You can even provide the password to the outer volume containing dismissible "secret" data.
Here's a nice read on the "quality" of today's mastering processes. And it's not that the sound engineers have turned incompetent. The marketroids want it louder and louder.
What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.
Funny. Until recently, I could just do that. Now it's forbidden if the original is copy protected. If I buy a non-protected CD today, I can share it with my friends as I want, legally.
Do you have _any_ sources to back this up? Compared to keeping a connection state, gzipping is _way_ more expensive. I find it very hard to believe that there is a case where keeping the connection longer was more expensive than gzipping the content.
I don't mind ads when they are for something that interests me
But that's the crux of the issue. To make ads that fit you perfectly you'd have to give the marketing assholes as much information about you as possible.
So on the one hand you don't want ads that are not targeted at you. OTOH, at least I don't want to give those wankers any information about me. So I just block ads and that's it. No "I'd take ads if they were more targeted" from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, from the Rebirth Museum site:
"The ReBirth RB-338 ReFill can be downloaded, free of charge, from the Propellerhead website ReFill section by all registered Reason users."
What they give away is a so-called refill, a sample set for their major application called Reason.
This place gets dumber every time I visit
Do I see a pattern there?
I use my own method.
For web forums, shops, misc services etc. I take the username I used, the domain and a secret masterpassword.
Then, my script basically does this:
echo -n "$user:$domain:$masterpass" | sha1 | openssl base64
From the resulting string I take the first 16 characters and use that as a password. Every user/domain pair that I used also gets stored for later retrieval. The secret password is never stored anywhere.
Can anyone comment on the security of this solution? I figured that using 16 characters from the base64 output gives a stronger password than using 16 characters from the hash directly. But basically, I'm a crypto newbie.
What's your point? It depends on context. A dot is any character, a dot in [] is a dot. [.]* is any number of dots.
Your post seems completely redundant to me. Enlighten me about its hidden meaning.
Yeah, I always suspected this evil MP organisation.
Seriously, (MP|RI)AA is what you mean.
WTF are ......A overlords? [.] is one character, a dot. That should definitely be just . . ()s are redundant. [AA] matches one character that could be either an A or.. an A. Well done. That's ^.*AA$ overlords for you, Mr. regex newbie.
Duh.
$ unzip '*.zip'
or
$ unzip \*.zip
Actually, no. example.com ist for usage in documentation, not actual installations.
If someone has a better link, please reply.
Here, I think this link is better: http://www.netbsd.org/
I prefer noscript. Javascript/Java/anything whitelist based on hostname/domainname/url.
"PC Load Letter"? What the fuck does that mean?
I wonder why nobody talks about GRUB's netbooting ability. I can't remember fiddling with boot blocks and MBR vs. partition and all that awkward x86 crap. Just put a pxegrub and a config on a TFTP server and off you go. You still can boot any system on the local disk in addition to diskless boots. You just don't have to deal with unbootable systems and such anymore.
Or use something like Truecrypt's hidden volumes. AFAICS proving the existence of the second volume is impossible. So you don't have to hide the fact that you used encryption. You can even provide the password to the outer volume containing dismissible "secret" data.
I don't know.
Did you try to ROT13 them?
I just noticed the article is from 2002. Go figure.
Here's a nice read on the "quality" of today's mastering processes. And it's not that the sound engineers have turned incompetent. The marketroids want it louder and louder.
What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.
Funny. Until recently, I could just do that. Now it's forbidden if the original is copy protected. If I buy a non-protected CD today, I can share it with my friends as I want, legally.
Why do you automatically assume that I _have_ extra CPU cycles?
The cycles you save by sending $orig_size - $gzip_size less data are neglegible compared to the overhead of gzipping.
Where the hell do you get the idea these two processes are comparable cpu-wise?
*shakes head*
Do you have _any_ sources to back this up? Compared to keeping a connection state, gzipping is _way_ more expensive. I find it very hard to believe that there is a case where keeping the connection longer was more expensive than gzipping the content.
Of course every server is powerful enough that CPU time can't possibly become an issue, right?
Fucking hell! Is your second name Sisyphus? Plus you're doing half-assed stuff like sorting by file date and automatically overlooking old files?
Save yourself some of your lifespan dude and do what's the only right thing to do to a compromised machine: reinstall from fresh media.
I happen to be a young ad exec
OK, to make this quick and painless: could you tell me what domains and network blocks you use? Thanks.
I don't mind ads when they are for something that interests me
But that's the crux of the issue. To make ads that fit you perfectly you'd have to give the marketing assholes as much information about you as possible.
So on the one hand you don't want ads that are not targeted at you. OTOH, at least I don't want to give those wankers any information about me. So I just block ads and that's it. No "I'd take ads if they were more targeted" from me.