Still on LetsEncrypt support
Sadly this release still does not support LetsEncrypt SSL certificates.
38 posts • joined 17 Jul 2008
Sadly this release still does not support LetsEncrypt SSL certificates.
A hundred times this. I am losing trust in Google because of this. It makes me wonder, who decides that a CA is trust worthy in the first place? Millions of people implicitly trust companies like Google and Mozilla to be the gatekeepers of SSL trust. I wonder what guarantees they offer if someone is defrauded as the result a bad CA? Whilst the CA's sometimes offer protection, I believe the companies that curate the trust list should also shoulder some financial responsibility.
A newsgroup, really? Please let me know the address of the google groups nntp server so I can read it with my usenet client!
What's the big deal about 32Gbs FC when infiniband is already operating at 100Gbs (EDR)?
It seems to me that this could easily be done by Inverting the colours and increasing the contrast. Maybe if you were bored you would bother to colour it in.
Incidents like this make me long for them to be forced to open up their network to Virtual Network Operators. I do not want to switch to DSL or 3G because I find cable to be superior for high data rates and reliability, but since Telewest/Blueyonder was amalgamated into Virgin Media quality has gone downhill.
Is it possible to get them without hard disks and boot them using PXE?
I'm pretty sure your agreement with the site prevents you from sharing your credentials. If the company expects you to break that agreement, then they should not be surprised if you break your agreement with them (i.e. your contract of employment).
If the PDQs had bluetooth they could connect using a mobile phone in an emergency. An alternative for the business is an FCT (fixed cellular terminal) that would provide an FXS port to which they can connect the PDQ.
I have had a V+ HD box installed in the last couple of months, and it is a Samsung not a Cisco box, so it won't be upgradable to Tivo. Hopefully they will offer a replacement free of charge.
If you are looking at the £10 per month tariff which boasts "unlimited internet", be forewarned that "unlimited" actually means "500MB inclusive plus £4 per additional MB".
Here is a novel idea - charge customers based upon the actual speed they get, so that those with slower access do not end up subsidising those with faster access. E.g. if it is £16 for "Up to 16mbs" and you actually get 1mbs, then you should only pay £1.
I now have 5 versions of the .Net Framework installed - 2.0 SP2, 3.0 SP2, 3.5 SP1, 4 Client Profile, 4 Extended. This is getting silly!
Give me folders any day. Unless you configure it otherwise, when download mail via imap, you get a new copy of the same message for every label applied to it, as well as a copy from the "All Mail" folder (and "Inbox" until the mail is archived).
That would be rather contrary to their claim in a recent newspaper advertisement - "infinitely reliable".
It would help if broadband access was charged fairly. For example, the Market Bosworth exchange only supports 576kbs. Given that Pipex charge £14.50 per month (plus vat) for "up to 8Mbs", it only seems far that someone on that exchange should pay £1 per month as they can only get 1/16 of the advertised speed.
I am an opponent of DRM in consumer hardware. In this case it appears to be working exactly as designed. The cinema was trying to make easy money by screening more copies than it was entitled to. It should have paid for the extra keys it needed.
CoreIX is still claiming on their website "The Coreix Premium Network has obtained 100% Network uptime over the last 4+ years." That does not tally up with their status page at http://status.coreix.net/ - which was pretty useless when they were down. If you have a status page you should make sure it is run on an entirely separate infrastructure and domain.
You can just as easily broadcast MPEG-4 with DVB-T. Denmark is doing exactly thatl since the big switch on November 1, most channels now use H.264/AAC, including DR HD, so you don't need a new box to get high definition on DTV (at least not until 2012 when Denmark will switch to DVB-T2).
At the start of this month Denmark begin broadcasting DR HD nationwide with the existing DVB-T standard. The signal is not due to change to DVB-T2 until 2012. However, to receive the HD channel you still need a tv or box capable of decoding MPEG-4 (H.264/AAC). Some of the older ones do not have this capability.
I don't like built-in receivers anyway; much rather have a separate unit - even better if it runs open source software so it's easy to add new features.
More like public nuisance.
3rd-party Facebook apps are shitty. I wish you could banish the lot of them.
Cat6 is only supported up to 55m Cat6A/7 will work at 100m.
Sorry Reg, this does not allow someone to take over a blog, it merely allows the administrator password to be reset, which is just an annoyance. To take over the blog the attacker would also have to have control of the email account to which the password reset mail is sent.
That post is from 2 years ago. If they could see into the future, then why did they not prevent the problem from occurring in the first place? :-)
.. compared to SGI's 6120, which can fit 1.2PB in a single rack with 60 2TB drives per 4u (i.e. 120TB) - an increase by a factor of 5.
I could care less about both of these companies. What concerns me a lot more is why the British taxpayer is funding a legal dispute between two large foreign companies.
If Microsoft is seriously committed to open source, this would seem like the perfect project to demonstrate its commitment with.
I don't get it. Servers usually have a NIC and HBA each because they tend to max them out. If you start sharing all your servers with just a couple of each, then performance is going to drop drastically, surely? Even if you attach the storage directly to the fabric, you have a lot more speed, and you are going to hit the NIC limitation even faster.
The list of affected CAs can be found at http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/ in section 5.1, reproduced here for convenience:-
C=US, O=Equifax Secure Inc., CN=Equifax Secure Global eBusiness CA-1
FreeSSL (free trial certificates offered by RapidSSL)
C=US, ST=UT, L=Salt Lake City, O=The USERTRUST Network, OU=http://www.usertrust.com, CN=UTN-USERFirst-Network Applications
TC TrustCenter AG
C=DE, ST=Hamburg, L=Hamburg, O=TC TrustCenter for Security in Data Networks GmbH, OU=TC TrustCenter Class 3 CA/emailAddressemail@example.com
RSA Data Security
C=US, O=RSA Data Security, Inc., OU=Secure Server Certification Authority
C=ZA, ST=Western Cape, L=Cape Town, O=Thawte Consulting cc, OU=Certification Services Division, CN=Thawte Premium Server CA/emailAddressfirstname.lastname@example.org
O=VeriSign Trust Network, OU=VeriSign, Inc., OU=VeriSign International Server CA - Class 3, OU=www.verisign.com/CPS Incorp.by Ref. LIABILITY LTD.(c)97 VeriSign
Presumably the new rollout is based upon the new Docsis 3 standard of which IPv6 is a component. Hopefully this will mean that customers will be able to get a native v6 connection in the near future without resorting to 6to4, Teredo or a tunnel.
Why create a new tld when there is already a domain for the same purpose, e164.arpa? Oh that's right, to make more money. I for one will certainly not be purchasing any domains in tel.
18Gb/s is pathetic by today's standards. Even 5 years ago it was possible to tx/rx at up to 32x 40Gb/s (1,280Gb/s) on a single pair with dwdm.
Why no mention of infiniband? It is already running at 40Gb/s, with 10Gb/s and 20Gb/s common in the datacenter.
There are many suggestions that Ubuntu should switch to Iceweasel. If they truly want free software, they ought to use the GNU derivative, Icecat. Unlike Firefox and IceWeasel, it contains only free software, as well some privacy enhancements.
I have it on good authority that Level3 has been calling around Akamai customers offering hosting for 1/10 of what they are currently paying. I don't for one moment believe that Akamai cannot provide H.264 services.
7TB in 2U still does not compare to the 72TB you can get in 4U if you load up a Sun X4500 with the Seagate 1.5TB monsters! Even with "only" 1TB disks, you can still get a health 48TB. I wish more vendors would take the top-loading approach as it offers a much greater density than front-loading.