New and Fresh Private + Public Proxies Lists Everyday!
Get and Download New Proxies from NewProxyLists.com
Could these two attack scenarios exploit the recently publicized vulnerability?
And if one or both would work: what would be a reliable way to protect against this on such computers (Thunderbolt-enabled or Thunderbolt not disabled and hardware-replaceable)?
As for my specific situation: I’m running an Asrock B450-HDV R4.0 with a ryzen 5 3600 and a Geforce 1080. As the board does not come with onboard wifi, I intend to install a network card in the PCIe 1x slot. Would a NVMe SSD (installed in the slot in the board) cause problems with any of this? If it would, would a SATA M.2 card take up a SATA slot on this particular board (the manual is of little help)?
(I am aware that the difference in day-to-day use between the two is marginal, but the same is true for the price, so I may as well get the shiniest toy).
I am making a multi-classification neural network for a dataset. I created the net but i think i need to specify a loss port to for each classification
Here are the labels for the classification and the encoder and decoders.
labels = {"Dark Colour", "Light Colour", "Mixture"}
sublabels = {"Blue", "Yellow", "Mauve"}
labeldec = NetDecoder({"Class", labels});
sublabdec = NetDecoder({"Class", sublabels});
bothdec = NetDecoder({"Class", Flatten@{labels, sublabels}})
enc = NetEncoder({"Class", {"Dark Colour", "Light Colour", "Mixture",
"Blue", "Yellow", "Mauve"}})
Here is the Net
SNNnet(inputno_, outputno_, dropoutrate_, nlayers_, class_: True) :=
Module({nhidden, linin, linout, bias},
nhidden = Flatten({Table({(nlayers*100) - i},
{i, 0, (nlayers*100), 100})});
linin = Flatten({inputno, nhidden((;; -2))});
linout = Flatten({nhidden((1 ;; -2)), outputno});
NetChain(
Join(
Table(
NetChain(
{BatchNormalizationLayer(),
LinearLayer(linout((i)), "Input" -> linin((i))),
ElementwiseLayer("SELU"),
DropoutLayer(dropoutrate)}),
{i, Length(nhidden) - 1}),
{LinearLayer(outputno),
If(class, SoftmaxLayer(),
Nothing)})))
net = NetInitialize@SNNnet(4, 6, 0.01, 8, True);
Here are the nodes used for the Netgraph function
nodes = Association("net" -> net, "l1" -> LinearLayer(3),
"sm1" -> SoftmaxLayer(), "l2" -> LinearLayer(3),
"sm2" -> SoftmaxLayer(),
"myloss1" -> CrossEntropyLossLayer("Index", "Target" -> enc),
"myloss2" -> CrossEntropyLossLayer("Index", "Target" -> enc));
Here's what I want the NetGraph to do
connectivity = {NetPort("Data") ->
"net" -> "l1" -> "sm1" -> NetPort("Label"),
"sm1" -> NetPort("myloss1", "Input"),
NetPort(sublabels) -> NetPort("myloss1", "Target"),
"myloss1" -> NetPort("Loss1"),
"net" -> "l2" -> "sm2" -> NetPort("Sublabel"),
"myloss2" -> NetPort("Loss2"),
"sm2" -> NetPort("myloss2", "Input"),
NetPort(labels) -> NetPort("myloss2", "Target")};
Data diverges to "net" for each classification and passes through the next linear and softmax layer and to the corresponding NetPort
The problem that I have is the loss port that diverges with each softmax layer.
When I run this code
NetGraph(nodes, connectivity, "Label" -> labeldec,
"Sublabel" -> sublabdec)
I get the error message: NetGraph :: invedgesrc: NetPort ({Blue, Yellow, Mauve}) is not a valid source for NetPort ({myloss1, Target}).
Could someone tell me why this happened?
Thanks for reading.
I'm looking for an open-source tool to check open / closed / filtered ports between a source IP and a target IP.
It must independently check the open ports that if in the target port there is a listening service, the tool must therefore have a client (in the source IP) and a server (in the 39; target IP) listening in all ports not currently used.
I am interested in checking if there is something in the network (firewall, ACL, routing) that is blocking communication between two IPs.
I would like to ask for suggestions regarding the problem I am facing.
We have a strange problem with the performance of printing from machines in a different domain from that of the print server. The difference in speed is significant. During the print test, it takes less than 2 seconds to print the 6MB PDF file from the client to the print server in this same area. If the client is in the child domain, it takes about 3 minutes. I discover during the netstat analysis a strange behavior with the ports and the processes used in the printing. I must add that the Windows firewall is disabled and that there is no difference if the machines are in this same vlan.
It looks like this for a correct impression:
[Domain = PROD] printserver_w2016 = 10.3.60.197
[Domain = PROD] client_W10 = 10.3.6.126
Command: [netstat -ano 1 | find "10.3.6.126"] executed on printserver_w2016 = 10.3.60.197
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.3.6.126:62330 ESTABLISHED 4 [SYSTEM PID]
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62332 ESTABLISHED 1856 [spoolsv PID]
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62333 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62335 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:135 10.3.6.126:62331 ESTABLISHED 864 [Explorer.exe]
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.3.6.126:62330 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62332 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62333 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62335 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:135 10.3.6.126:62331 ESTABLISHED 864
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.3.6.126:62330 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62332 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62333 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:49685 10.3.6.126:62335 ESTABLISHED 1856
TCP 10.3.60.197:135 10.3.6.126:62331 ESTABLISHED 864
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.3.6.126:62330 ESTABLISHED 4
Command: [netstat -ano 1 | find "10.3.60.197"] executed on client_W10 = 10.3.6.126
TCP 10.3.6.126:62330 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4 [SYSTEM PID]
TCP 10.3.6.126:62331 10.3.60.197:135 ESTABLISHED 7244 [spoolsv PID]
TCP 10.3.6.126:62332 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62330 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.6.126:62331 10.3.60.197:135 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62332 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62333 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62335 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62330 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.6.126:62331 10.3.60.197:135 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62332 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62333 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62335 10.3.60.197:49685 ESTABLISHED 7244
TCP 10.3.6.126:62330 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
Printing takes <2 seconds for a 6MB PDF file [the same file used for all tests]. The spooler participates in printing.
Defective situation
[Domain = PROD] printserver_w2016 = 10.3.60.197
[Domain = CHILD] client_W10 = 10.215.10.230
Command: [netstat -ano 1 | find "10.215.10.230"] executed on printserver_w2016 = 10.3.60.197
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4[SYSTEM PID]
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:59872 10.215.10.230:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:59872 10.215.10.230:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:59872 10.215.10.230:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:59872 10.215.10.230:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:59872 10.215.10.230:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:445 10.215.10.230:50122 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.3.60.197:59872 10.215.10.230:445 ESTABLISHED 4
Command: [netstat -ano 1 | find "10.3.60.197"] executed on client_W10 = 10.215.10.230
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 SYN_RECEIVED 4 [SYSTEM PID]
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50122 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50130 10.3.60.197:135 SYN_SENT 7800 [Explorer.exe PID]
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50122 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50130 10.3.60.197:135 SYN_SENT 7800
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50122 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50130 10.3.60.197:135 SYN_SENT 7800
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50122 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50130 10.3.60.197:135 SYN_SENT 7800
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50122 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50130 10.3.60.197:135 SYN_SENT 7800
TCP 10.215.10.230:445 10.3.60.197:59872 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50122 10.3.60.197:445 ESTABLISHED 4
TCP 10.215.10.230:50130 10.3.60.197:135 SYN_SENT 7800
My conclusion is that in the correct scenario, the print spooler is used and in the faulty scenario is not.
In the correct scenario, communications start from port 445 listened to by the system process, then pass to the high port and are passed to the spooler, and communication continues between the spoolers on the server and the client.
In a faulty scenario, communication is not transmitted to the spooler on the client and the server only by the system process
In a correct situation, the printing takes less than 2 seconds and in default almost 3 minutes for this same file. What could be the problem?
Is it possible to run multiple web server applications from my home network? So with the same IP transfer port 80 and 443 to different devices, depending on the domain name. At the moment, I use different ports, like 1001, 1002 and 1003 and on my router, I forward them to a specific device on the appropriate ports. What I want however is to go to sub.mydomaina.nl for application A, sub.mydomainb.nl for application B and so on, or with the same domain, only a different subdomain.
To complicate matters, I manage two networks at home. I have the network 192.168.2.x from which I run a router as a private network from the range 192.168.1.x. On both networks, I have web applications running. At the moment there are only two, Synology and Pihole, but I want to experiment with converting an old laptop to an Apache server and be able to run websites from there. I know I can configure multiple domains in Apache, but could that also work for other devices? How could I configure this?
Is it possible, and if it is possible, how could I do it?
Thanks in advance! :]
Let's say I am trying to use iptables to route all TCP traffic from ports 80,443,9090 to a signle port (8080).
How can I do it on a single iptables line?
I tried to launch this:
iptables -I INPUT -d 127.0.0.1/8 -p tcp -m multiport --sports 80,443 --dport 8081 -j NFQUEUE
but this is the error:
multiport: option "--source-ports" cannot be used together with "--destination-ports"
What am I missing?
I have never used Nginx before and I have been responsible for configuring it as a reverse proxy for a website in the Production Lan. I have port 80 working, but I also need port 443 and port 18081 to work on this same web server as well. The Nginx server is a Windows 2012 server with Mginx 1.17.9 running. I know this configuration is messy because I took one that was supposed to work for multiple ports and noticed what I thought I would not need in my situation. Any help would be appreciated to make it work for proxy all 3 ports to the indoor server. The URL that external users will use is https://website.domain.com/mydealer/#/login/QS36F
worker_processes 1;
events {
workers_connections 1024;
}
http {
server{
listen 80;
server_name website.domain.com;
location / {
proxy_pass http://1.2.3.4/;
#proxy_redirect off;
#proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
#proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
#proxy_set_header Host $http_host;
#proxy_set_header X-Nginx-Proxy true;
#error_page 404 /404.html;
# redirect server error pages to the static page /50x.html
#
error_page 500 502 503 504 /50x.html;
location = /50x.html {
root html;
}
# proxy the PHP scripts to Apache listening on 127.0.0.1:80
#
#location ~ .php$ {
# proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1;
#}
# pass the PHP scripts to FastCGI server listening on 127.0.0.1:9000
#
#location ~ .php$ {
# root html;
# fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000;
# fastcgi_index index.php;
# fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME /scripts$fastcgi_script_name;
# include fastcgi_params;
#}
# deny access to .htaccess files, if Apache's document root
# concurs with nginx's one
#
#location ~ /.ht {
# deny all;
#}
}
# another virtual host using mix of IP-, name-, and port-based configuration
#
#server {
listen 18081;
# listen somename:8080;
server_name website.domain.com;
location / {
proxy_pass http://1.2.3.4/;
# root html;
# index index.html index.htm;
# }
#}
# HTTPS server
#
#server {
listen 443;
server_name website.domain.com;
location / {
proxy_pass https://1.2.3.4/;
# ssl_certificate cert.pem;
# ssl_certificate_key cert.key;
# ssl_session_cache shared:SSL:1m;
# ssl_session_timeout 5m;
# ssl_ciphers HIGH:!aNULL:!MD5;
# ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;
# location / {
# root html;
# index index.html index.htm;
# }
#}
}
}
When traveling on a low-cost commercial plane to a location, they often make a "stop in the middle" for some reason, forcing all passengers to leave the plane, to wait at or near the airport , then board another plane, maybe many hours of waiting between
Thefts don't stop "for a reason" as if it were some kind of mystery. The time that the aircraft is on the ground is the time that it does not carry passengers, and therefore does not make any money for the airline. There are always specific reasons to stop. Sometimes particularly long routes have stops for fuel, and some flights serve multiple destinations in the same way as a bus or train, but these stops are usually quite short. Much more often, the reason is that you are talking about multiple different thefts. For example, the Swiss do not fly from Hamburg to Barcelona, but they do fly from Hamburg to Zurich and from Zurich to Barcelona. So if you are in Hamburg and want to go to Barcelona, they will be perfectly happy to sell you a ticket from Hamburg to Barcelona via Zurich. Passengers can choose this option because it is cheaper or at a more convenient time than direct flight (or, with other destinations, as there are no direct flights available) .
Meanwhile, as I understand it, passengers / travelers are allowed to freely leave the airport and go around the city in any city in the country where they are stopping, as long as they return in time for the next Departure?
Yes, as long as you meet the standard immigration requirements (depending on nationality, you might need a visa, for example).
Isn't that a bit strange from a security standpoint, considering the rigorous (or perceived) security measures they have when you board an airplane or (I thought ) that you are leaving the airport to enter the country / city?
When you leave, you follow the same immigration procedures as people who have this airport as their final destination. When you return to the airport, you are going through exactly the same security as everyone preparing to embark on their first flight. At many airports, this means that when you are permit to leave between flights, it is useless unless you have at least 4-5 hours (or more in some cases) between flights.
But how is it possible? I thought airports and ports these days had tons of "security theater" nonsense, with tons of "paperwork", making it an absolute pain to manage and something to avoid at all costs? Or is it somehow overlooked for cruise lines? They just show their bracelet and people say, "Sure! Enjoy your few hours here!"?
See this link posted by @Traveller in the comments for an example of how immigration requirements are handled on cruises. Details will vary between operators and destinations, but it's basically the same thing: Passengers must provide the tour operator with details of their passport and other required documents. The cruise operator makes these details available to immigration to cruise destinations. Passengers' documents are checked upon arrival on board, to ensure that they have the documents they claim. If you do not have the necessary documents to enter the cruise destinations, you will not be allowed on board.
At destinations, people generally do not need to pass immigration, since checks are carried out remotely on the basis of documents which have already been collected. Upon returning to the ship, each operator will use different techniques, but there is an identity check to make sure you are one of the passengers on the ship.
And the same goes for airports when they "stop over"? If so, why is security so different for people who (maybe) will only stay there for a few hours?
As I said earlier, you are faced with the same security procedures at the entrance and the exit of the airport as all the people who take only one flight.
Can't they also hurry up and commit all kinds of crimes during these hours? I do not understand.
Can't you just commit all kinds of crimes in the few hours before your first theft of the day? I don't understand what you think the stopovers have to do with it.
Something about it doesn't suit me. It seems like you can "cheat" or "bypass" your way to visit all kinds of places just by taking a cruise or flying cheaply (flights that stop on the way seem much cheaper by money terms), but something tells me that they must have been thinking about something that I didn't have.
Buying tickets for places is not a "way" to visit them. Visiting multiple places is literally the starting point for a cruise (ok, of course, this is not the all – but this is usually a major selling point and the main goal of many passengers). With flights, stopovers are often just an irritation that you endure as it saves money or avoids having to wake up at 3 a.m. . But yes, it can sometimes be a good bonus to have a few hours to explore somewhere.
I am using a VPN client on Ubuntu and am looking for advice on how to exclude certain the ports to be routed through the VPN client (OpenVPN).
For example, how could we exclude ports 22 and 80 from routing via VPN?
I'm not a networking expert, but I understand that this would be called rule-based routing and is possible on a Linux machine. However, I have not found any clear guidance on how to achieve this.