deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Authentication is, explicitly, the process of validating that you are who you say you are. Like biometrics, your username is part of your digital identity. So you are correct in arguing that biometrics alone is little stronger than a username, but by definition, both are part of authentication.
That said, to securely authenticate your identity, you need to use multiple factors.
Could you? Yes. But there really is no point— biometrics alone are only a single factor for authentication.
You should have at least two of the three— something you are (fingerprint, facial, or retinal recognition), something you have (badge, token, secure device), and something you know (passphrase).
If they are also sending a validation email, it would fail, so no issue.
Interesting, but this article was published 3 years ago.
Two countries that can’t use SWIFT establish a transaction system no one else uses, that isn’t SWIFT. Got it.
Curious to see whether they are able to produce engines in sufficiently large volumes, and, which engines these exports will receive.
Allegedly, the WS-19 entered production earlier this year, but presumably, those are all destined for domestic J-31/35 production, and exports will continue to use the WS-13E.
The generalized approach in industry is to use API calls, and create classes to structure the data you receive as JSON or XML. At that point, it is entirely up to you how to format and display the data from your classes. Take a look at some of the Lemmy client code like Mlem, Memmy, or Voyager as examples. Though they have gotten more complicated, they all follow this client-server model for front end development.
However, due to recent shenanigans around API and RSS by companies, mostly those looking to prevent AI companies from using their data for free, the alternative, much worse method is to take the HTML output from a standard web request, and try to reverse engineer the page information into a class structure. This sucks, breaks frequently, and requires you to code around ads and other junk on pages in order to get at the content.
Why would you send authentication to a known good identity while on TOR? This literally defeats the purpose of anonymity.
While Microsoft should absolutely be held accountable for flaws in its code and its failures to disclose actively-exploited attacks in the wild against said flaws, most organizations have policies (or the lack thereof) resulting in security flaws you can drive a truck through.
Specifically, a lack of M365 and Teams “app” review and approval processes, a lack of CASB tooling, and grossly inadequate asset inventories and security agent coverage. You can’t protect what you can’t see, and most Microsoft customers are barely doing the minimum.
Is that Microsoft’s fault, when they explicitly tell your admins you’ve got a “Secure Score” of 19%, and they don’t do shit about it?
Keep in mind that in real life, there are two types of energy radiation, reflection and emission.
First, photos are static records of light at a point in time, and don’t naturally emit light as radiation (in significant enough quantities for consideration). As such, they are only reflective, which is dependent on the light that is already in your environment (e.g., the LEDs in your home are missing huge bands of the spectrum), and as such, these wavelengths may not exist to be reflected by the photo.
Secondly, photos are generated by either film, or based on a cmos/ccd sensor, which are calibrated to capture a subset of em radiation in the human visible spectrum. As such, they have filtered the light that may be usable to other organisms.
So based on both of these, depending on similarity to human eyes, no, most animals (non mammals, in particular) would not see photos in the same way as real life.
It was absolutely worth the money ruling it out. That’s literally how science works.