![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/028151d2-3692-416d-a8eb-9d3d4cc18b41.png)
You need a phone, tablet, or other device that’s been rooted.
😦
You need a phone, tablet, or other device that’s been rooted.
😦
I recommend “dnf automatic” to fetch the latest package index in background
Except if you ran the update from within a graphical session and your session crashed, as this will kill DNF, making the update incomplete and potentially corrupting files. I recommend you either:
You can do that, but it is not necessary.
Syncthing on Android has an option to only sync when on AC battery. The PC client might have a similar option. If not, you could probably configure something similar via systemd or udev under Linux.
I don’t think syncthing has proper means to synchronize contacts or anything else that’s not file-based though.
I use syncthing and prefer it for synchronizing files between my devices.
Except if you don’t connect the TV to the internet, but use it as a huge display only.
Username checks out.
You may use it as a display and connect it to a Raspberry Pi (or other mini-PC) with Kodi on it.
It seems like part of your thinking is: Why would a criminal invest effort to attack an average John Doe? The answer is: With a popular (widely used) operating system, the effort goes close to zero. Attacks can be automated, so they will be. Also, even if they are not interested in your data, they will be interested in other benefits they gain from controlling your computer:
I find it weird that some people call LGBTQI+ life a “sin”. On the other hand, some christian denominations accept and have gay priests. The people calling LGBTQI+ life a “sin” seem to me more like extremists in a “christian” trenchcoat.
If you put microphones into the table, the audio will be horrible, catching up any surface acoustic waves from any noise on the table. Like if someone touches the table anywhere, this will be caught by the microphone. If someone puts down a hard item to the table anywhere (e.g. a pen, fingertips with fingernails, smartphone) you won’t be able to hear anyone in the room through microphones due to the transient noise.
More “conservative” in terms of preserving the planet’s resources.
You don’t need Gigabytes of RAM for almost any consumer application, as long as the programming team was interested/incentivized to write quality software.
Innovation is orthogonal to code size. None of the software most modern computers are running cannot be solved on 10 year old computers. It’s just the question whether the team creating your software is plugging together gigantic pieces of bloatware or whether they actually develop a solution to a real problem.
This is partially correct, partially wrong.
As many have commented, flipping a signal by 180° cancels it out. However, this is only true for static noise though. Transient noise cannot be canceled out completely, because you would need to see into the future to know which signals to play to cancel out the noise.
The ANC headphones I own mainly cancel noise through passive shielding of the ears. The “active” noise canceling feature is not contributing a lot.
Yeah, that’s a very useful exception.
Operator overloading is adding complexity, making code subtly harder to read. The most important lesson for code is: It should primarily be written to be easy to read by humans because if code is not trash, it will be read way more often than written.
If it is just the location, then it could be spoofed.
If it is something that requires physical presence, then you need both devices to communicate with each other. If it is not done via QR code (like some online banking do), then both devices need to be connected, e.g. via WiFi or Bluetooth. In this case, if an attacker controls one of the devices (that’s the class of attacks 2FA should prevent you from), the attacker probably controls both devices. So what’s the point then?
I guess if there is WiFi, he won’t even need a mobile data plan, so he could safe lots of money.
How would MS Authenticator make it any better than TOTP?
To break TOTP, the attacker would need to:
a) be able to observe the initial exchange of the TOTP secrets. To do that, the attacker needs access to the victim’s computer (on user level) at that specific time they set up TOTP. TOTP is a TOFU concept and thus not designed to protect against that. However, if the attacker controls the victim’s computer at that time, the victim is screwed anyways even before setting up 2FA.
b) have access to the TOTP app’s secret storage and to the victim’s login credentials (e.g. by phishing). If the attacker can gain that level of access, they would also have access to the Microsoft Authenticator’s secret storage, so there is no benefit of the Microsoft app.
On the other hand, Microsoft Authenticator is a very huge app (>100MB is huge for an authenticator app, Aegis is just 6MB, FreeOTP+ 11MB), i.e. it brings a large attack surface, especially by connecting to the internet.
I don’t think Microsoft Authenticator brings security benefits over a clean and simple TOTP implementation.
In addition to the other comments here: Don’t run near cows. Quite often, they will start running with you, which is very impressive and dangerous at the same time. Cows generally are faster than you for the first few hundred meters at least.