Yes, you could terminate your regular expressions.

You completely misunderstand what "be liberal in what you accept" means.

It doesn't mean to take any input and cherrypick single bits that you understand and ignore the rest. You rather try to parse inputs liberally, while making sure it's unambiguous in its meaning. For example, when parsing a config file, there could be more whitespace than necessary. As long as you find valid keywords in that extra whitespace, you're good to parse it liberally. When writing a config file, however, you're supposed to trim all that whitespace to a uniform scheme.

You would also be free to ignore invalid keywords to support forward compatibility.

What you shouldn't do and what being liberal doesn't mean is saying "this input would be correct to me if I threw away these letters in the keyword". That's just retarded.

What they should and should not do can be easily found out by looking at your contract. And that's the end of the story. If you want free market, act like a responsible market participant.

Then it's not just a modem. Do you have a separate router or just your "modem"?

If you have a router, then you're doing an unnecessary double-router setup. If you don't, then the whole point is moot. A modem is transparent to layer 3 and provides a common layer 2 among different layer 1s.

The (separate) router on the LAN side of the modem needs to be aware of the 192.168.100/24 on its WAN side or else it won't know how to reach it on layer 3, regardless of every traffic passing thourgh the modem on layer 2.

No, the default gateway is your ISP. Otherwise, your modem would be a router.

If you use 10/8 internally, then your router will either forward packets for 192.168.100.1 to your ISP or drop them entirely. What makes you think just putting a device with 192.168.100.1 on the WAN side of your router makes it reachable if your router doesn't know anything about 192.168.100/24 on that interface?

Seriously, get a clue about networking and routing.

If the modem is using an RFC1918 address and is sitting on the WAN side of the router and the router is blocking RFC1918 on its WAN interface, what do you think will happen?

Maybe you should think more or stop posting about topics you don't understand.

FUD.

Free certs technically are exactly the same as every other cert. What you probably mean is to choose a higher validation than DV. That's the only reason you should pay someone money. But that has nothing to do with which devices accept your cert. That is a matter of server config and how you configure your TLS algorithms.

The point is, when that thing is still running, what prevents the Internet service you're using from switchting it into recording state remotely? Just because it doesn't transmit data "right now", doesn't mean it can't be made to, remotely.

However, that's exactly the reason why I wouldn't use anything "cloud" in the first place. Give me a cam that can upload to my server. I don't care if it's really off or not, if I can firewall it to only talk to my services.

As such, this "problem" is only a problem because it highlights the bad decision someone made in the first place, namely using "cloud-based" bullshit.

Cryptographers are our best hope.

What is this headline supposed to suggest? Trust cloud providers? LOL.

It is worth exactly what he can make from it.

Which is apparently nothing. Thanks for clarifying.

Fear not. Microsoft itself is giving you hashes for all their images:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...

You can safely pirate and verify.

Simple, the username is to be considered public knowledge. It's visible when entering it everywhere, it may be in ~/.ssh/config, it's not a secret.

Just assume the whole world knows it already. All strength must come from the password either way, so don't even start to treat the username as some sort of secret.

"Oh, OP! Don't remove your CRL checks by means of a self-inflicted MitM attack because then you're not secure against real MitM attacks!"

It's hilarious how you fail to see the connection.

Are you referring to the zsh option which also wouldn't protect you from rm -fr /, funny man?