Cloudteh =>[20% OFF FOR LIFE] WordPress hosting ✅ LSCache ✅ LiteSpeed ​​+ CloudLinux ✅ 100% secure

Hello visitor,

Thank you for your visit 20% discount on WordPress Hosting FOR LIFE Cloud hosting!

What is guaranteed:

—> LiteSpeed ​​+ LSCache + CloudLinux <—

—> FREE SSL for all websites <—

—> FREE automated daily backups <—

—> 100% NVMe Pure SSD storage <—

—> Instant and automated activation <—

—> FREE migration to Cloudteh <—

—> 100% secure (hardware and software firewalls) <—


Get your WordPress Cloud hosting Now! (LiteSpeed ​​+ CloudLinux)


WordPress Cloud 1

1 WordPress website
ten GB Pure SSD NVMe
1 CPU core
1 GB of RAM
Cache LiteSpeed

Price: $ 8 / month
Promo price: $ 6.4 PER MONTH FOR LIFE (use promo code "REDUCTION OF 20")
Buy now:…romocode=20OFF
Find out more:

WordPress Cloud 2

ten WordPress websites
50 GB Pure SSD NVMe
2 CPU core
2 GB of RAM
Cache LiteSpeed

Price: $ 12 / month
Promo price: $ 9.6 PER MONTH FOR LIFE (use promo code "REDUCTION OF 20")
Buy now:…romocode=20OFF
Find out more:

WordPress Cloud 3

20 WordPress websites
Unlimited Pure NVMe SSD
4 CPU core
4 GB of RAM
Cache LiteSpeed

Price: $ 20 / month
Promo price: $ 16 PER MONTH FOR LIFE (use promo code "REDUCTION OF 20")
Buy now:…romocode=20OFF
Find out more:


Each WordPress hosting plan comes with 30 days no questions asked money back guarantee.

We are available 24/7, send us an email on support (at) or submit a support ticket on our customer portal and one of our NOC engineers will get back to you as soon as possible. as possible!

Forex trading is the well known and secure investment platform – discussions & help

TopGold Forum is rapidly becoming the number one online finance destination for the Internet.

We are a leading authority and forum destination for professional investors, forex traders, affiliates and individuals who want to make a living online or make more money.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking on the link above. You must register before you can post: click on the registration link above to continue.

audit – Is attribute-based encryption secure for production use?

I am very interested in attribute based encryption (ABE). I see various examples of online work, and I want to know, has it been verified as ready for production? What does it mean to have a security audit and how do you know if ABE can be used safely with real customer data?

I tried to create the tags attribute-based-encryption, abe, and cp-abe, but I don't have enough reputation yet to make them. Since these don't yet exist on, I think I deserve the reputation points for this question 😉

malware – How can I verify that my budget Android smartphone is secure?

I received a cheap smartphone as a gift and seeing that it is a device from a company that I had never heard of before, I went to Google to search for its name and nothing good. (Yes, I also tried DuckDuckGo, but nothing more.) It seems like I can't find any information on this device except the company's official website and Facebook page which has a low rate of ; subscribers (0).

It makes me nervous because I don't know the development, quality assurance or security process for this company, so I can't be sure it was created and verified correctly or even if nothing malware has not been placed on the device software.

Do I have to worry and if so, is there a way to check if the phone is reliable and secure?

Server to server – secure connection from separate domains

I have a box with Windows Datacenter 2019 in one domain and I have Windows Datacenter 2019 in a completely different domain – I'm looking for the best way to connect the two and secure the data. I would like to establish the connection so that they can share files and access each other's directories. This may be a basic question, but I'm looking for the best way to put it in place. Right now, I'm thinking of using Windows Firewall with advanced security to create a point-to-point connection, but I'm still not sure what is required to establish it as a secure connection.

Secure your website and get an instant 20% discount | VTMscan – bodHOST – Advertising, Offers

TopGold Forum is rapidly becoming the number one online finance destination for the Internet.

We are a leading authority and forum destination for professional investors, forex traders, affiliates and individuals who want to make a living online or make more money.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You must register before you can post: click on the registration link above to continue.


Is it possible to receive secure cookies after Apache has rewritten http to https?

When updating our applications to deal with changes to the samesite = none cookie, we encountered this problem:

In our vhost for an older application, we have this rule which rewrites http requests in https:

RewriteRule (.*)$1 (NE,L,R=301)

Unfortunately, when this rule is used and requests are rewritten, we lose all samesite = none cookies, because the new "samesite = none" also requires "secure = true".

If I understand correctly, when the server receives the initial http request, it does not receive these cookies, then this request is transmitted to the https version, but there are no cookies to transmit with the request

Here is our apache and centos information:

Server version: Apache/2.4.6 (CentOS)

My question

Is there a way to redirect http to https that would send secure = true cookies in the https request?

tl; dr stuff

  • We have updated all local URLs for this app to point to https, this avoids a lot of trouble.
  • the main concern would be links from sources we do not control. This is an almost 20 year old application that is connected to many other systems, there are bound to be links somewhere that always point to http and are redirected by this rule.

Is the use of Tor in public WIFI secure?

Using the Tor network to visit web pages in public wifi is secure or not because The Tor will help us anonymize (to hide metadata such as visit URLs) and HTTPS helps us prevent content . Will Tor and HTTPS requests help us to secure our navigation and our other stubs?

usability – secure banking applications

Single-factor authentication (usually with "something you know", usually a password) is not particularly secure.

For banking, it is common to use two-factor authentication methods with "something you know" and "something you have", traditionally a combination of a card in plastic you have and a PIN you know. Older forms of online banking use TAN lists, and "something you have" is the paper list. Theoretically, you could argue that a TAN is something you can know, but in practice, no one carries in their mind a list of 100 TANs mapped to their current number.

Newer online banking is based on the fact that most people have a smartphone and use the smartphone as "something you have". Benny Skogberg described one way of doing it. What my bank does is allow me to register a mobile number with them and then send a valid mTAN for a single transaction to that number via SMS. This may be safer than a single factor, but it is not foolproof.

The problem is as old as security itself: two factors are always more complicated than one factor and usability is less. Only one factor is not particularly safe and frequently breaks when the thief has the right motivation (such as having access to a celebrity bank account or inbox). There are hundreds of ways to implement proper two-factor security, and most of them will have the same ease of use as your TAN plus online password list. No variation for mobile can have a higher usability and remain secure, by definition, because for a double factor:

  • you must have a physical item that cannot be duplicated. You must have it with you whenever you want to access it.
  • you must have information that is impossible to guess with high entropy AND it cannot be written or recorded near your physical element.

So you will still have to deal with the cognitive effort of remembering a long password or carrying an encrypted note on a note taking device different from the device you are using as a factor "something I have". Both versions are not very usable and very secure.

Examples of the insecurity of modern systems to almost two factors:

  • This becomes a factor if the phone browser saves passwords, which is the default setting, or if there is a banking app that does not require a PIN code when starting on a registered phone (which can be the case in the example of Benny Skroberg – I didn't get this detail). Imagine a thief stealing my phone, unlocking it by looking at the spots my finger left on the touch screen and starting the browser. If my online banking site is in the history and the password is saved, the mTAN is sent to the phone held by the thief.

  • There have been cases in Germany over the past year where fraudsters have requested a second SIM card with the same phone number from the victim's mobile phone provider and have it delivered to their own address. They could then do online banking from the victim's account using a phone with that second SIM card as a factor "something I have" (they got the password through phishing, the Trojans and other common methods). It works because the cell phone provider would accept a faxed request for a second SIM card without doing anything to make sure it came from the rightful owner of the cell phone contract. The victims never reimbursed anything because the bank said the mobile provider was responsible and the mobile provider said the bank was responsible.

By the way, the old paper TAN system would also not be secure for mobiles either, because if you carry a TAN list in your wallet, chances are that whoever steals your phone will also get your wallet.

Unfortunately, if you want to have something reasonably safe, you will have to give up a lot of usability. The banks seem rather ready to accept a compromise in terms of security.

Addition: there are actually three possible factors, not two. The third is "something that you are". Although it is considered to be more secure because it cannot be reproduced as "something you know", there is no commercially viable method for use in automated settings with technology. 39; aujourd & # 39; hui. Some solutions have been lost as niche technology for years and could become more widespread once they have reached sufficient maturity to be widely accepted, as tablets have done. For example, I have seen fingerprint readers in the wild. But they are not only expensive, nor are they precise enough. Face recognition systems are also known for false positives (show a printed photo of your victim on camera) and false negatives (imagine waking up with a swollen face due to a root canal infection and not be able to connect to the highly secure system). -because your health care provider’s privacy system). Voice fingerprint technologies are also easy to fool with recordings and will deny you entry if you catch a severe cold. Currently, a living person needs to confirm your identity by looking at the photo of your ID. We are probably stuck with the other two factors for online banking for many years, which is sad because a fingerprint reader is much more usable than having to take care of it. a plastic card or a fob for the generation of unique tokens (which is the modern and secure version of the TAN of the paper list).

linux – Secure partitioning: does LVM affect the reinforcement directives?

this is the second in a series of questions about strengthening Linux servers at the file system level. The first one is here. The same scenario applies; I copy it here for convenience:

At work, I harden an installation of the Ubuntu 18.04 server by following the CIS 2.0.1 benchmark. Instead of just running a reinforcement script, I do it manually to really understand what's going on. For exercise, I assume the system will be a high-performance corporate server in a hostile / compromised network, so defense in depth is crucial.

The partitioning scheme recommended by CIS (Section 1.1) prescribes the addition of the following partitions and mounting options:

/tmp            nodev,nosuid,noexec
/var/tmp        nodev,nosuid,noexec
/home           nodev
/dev/shm        nodev,nosuid,noexec
(removable)     nodev,nosuid,noexec

The CIS benchmark does not mention whether the partitions must be physical or can be, for example, LVM logical volumes. Can I apply the advice on partition configuration to it? Is LVM introducing new security pitfalls requiring additional reinforcement? My research has given me no definitive answer.

Thank you all.