Laser

@ Laser @feddit.org

Posts

5
Comments

347
Joined

2 yr. ago

2y ago

Deleted

Permanently Deleted
Jump
2

Laser @feddit.org 2y ago
I don't really know. For text based discussion, I prefer something like Lemmy, also due to better moderation tools etc. It's a cool early thread-based discussion tool, but mostly outdated.
Unfortunately, there is absolutely zero other use for it, and nobody should ever bother, it's wasted time.

2y ago

Paid SSL vs Letsencrypt

I was also with a provider that didn't offer API access for the longest time. When they then increased prices, I switched, now paying a third of their asking price per year at a very good provider.

I guess migrating is difficult if the provider doesn't offer a mechanism to either dump the DNS to a file or perform a zone transfer (the later being part of the standard).

Can only recommend INWX for domains, though my personal requirements aren't the highest.

2y ago

A lot of paid cert providers were not so great before LE put the spotlight on the issue; it was more of a scheme to extract money from operators who couldn't afford to not offer TLS / SSL. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647959 was a famous post that made fun of / criticized the system before LE. This hurt security, and if not free, LE wouldn't have worked.

2y ago

Paid SSL vs Letsencrypt

Jump

Laser @feddit.org 2y ago

Also wildcard certificates are more difficult to do automated with let's encrypt.

They are trivial with a non-garbage domain provider.

If you want EV certificates (where the cert company actually calls you up and verifies you're the company you claim to be) you also need to go the paid route

The process however isn't as secure as one might think: https://cyberscoop.com/easy-fake-extended-validation-certificates-research-shows/

In my experience trustworthyness of certs is not an issue with LE. I sometimes check websites certs and of I see they're LE I'm more like "Good for them"

Basically, am LE cert says "we were able to verify that the operator of this service you're attempting to use controls (parts of) the domain it claims to be part of". Nothing more or less. Which in most cases is enough so that you can secure the connection. It's possibly even a stronger guarantee than some sketchy cert providers provided in the past which was like "we were able to verify that someone sent us money".

2y ago

It's good for Fish, so why not me?

Jump

Laser @feddit.org 2y ago

"Bacon causes cancer, smoking causes cancer... but smoking bacon cures it" is the version I know

2y ago

Windows NT vs. Unix: A design comparison

Jump

Laser @feddit.org 2y ago

The big issue that the author kind of mentions is that while the kernel has all these neat features, the overlaying OS seems to use them in such a way that they're often not effective. XP before SP1 was a security nightmare and we got lucky that blaster was not working correctly. A secure token for the processes in your session? It doesn't really help if every process you spawn gets this token with the user being the administrator (I know this is kind of different nowadays with UAC). A very cool architecture that allows easy porting? Let's only use it on x86. Even today, it's big news for Windows running on ARM, which the not-by-design-portable Unices have been doing for years.

Maybe if Microsoft had allowed the kernel to be used in other operating systems - not expecting a copyleft license - the current view is that Windows Is Bad, and the NT kernel is an inseparable part of Windows. And hell, even Windows CE which did run on other devices and architectures, doesn't use the NT kernel.

So while the design and maybe even large parts of its implementation may be good and clean, it's Microsoft's fault that the public perception of the NT kernel.