Why ssh validates host keys using the exact name you supplied
One of the little things that ssh does is that it checks and maintainshost keys using exactly and only the name you used on the command line;it doesn't canonicalize the name. (Well, not much; these days it willalso try the IP address that the name resolves to.)
The problem around here is that the names of machines can be specifiedin all sorts of different ways, because of domain search paths; oftenwe have bare name, bare name plus the subdomain, and then two
創作100問
在 森月靈 那邊看到的,我覺得我非答不可。
2. 你的筆名是?
寂然
3. 將自己當成小說中的人物,介紹一下自己吧。
阿力、阿傑、芊芊、素素,都是一個普通人。
4. 你的職業是?
文字苦力。
5. 請說一下你的打工經歷
A small script: bsearch-nums
Sometimes I write little scripts partly in order toplay around with a command I haven't used before. Such is the case withtoday's script, which I have unimaginatively called bsearch-nums . Hereit is:
#!/bin/sh# usage: bsearch-nums START ENDlo=$1; hi=$2while [ $lo -lt $hi ]; do mid=`echo $lo $hi +2/p | dc` echo "try: $mid"
卡夫卡的身體
welcome to the desert of real 歡迎來到真實的荒漠
渴睡
A DiskSuite annoyance: metastat
In the traditional illustrated form:
; metastat fs5/d40
metastat: sandiego.cs: fs5: set name is inconsistent
Almost all DiskSuite commands that deal with disk sets will accept fsN/dN to specify the set and the disk at once, and metastat itselfproduces output in this form. But metastat refuses to accept it asinput; instead you have to use ' metastat -s fs5 d40 '.
This isn't just a cosmetic issue. The fsN/dNN format is
四五六,越跳越木獨
難怪我既最佳玩伴W,都訝異於我既驚人耐力。
將clubbing當成正職而空姐當成副業既我,每晚聽住差唔多一樣既音樂,對住
Weekly spam summary on November 18th, 2006
This week, we:
- got 15,266 messages from 269 different IP addresses.
- handled 22,009 sessions from 1,693 different IP addresses.
- received 897,934 connections from at least 48,417 different IPaddresses.
- hit a highwater of 10 connections being checked at once.
Just like last time , that is not a typo (andnothing on the system was affected enough to make me notice it beforenow,
How https: should work
I just got yet another prompt about certificate issues on the occasionof visiting yet another website (I think because it had a self-signedcertificate, but who can tell with Firefox's dialog about it?). And allthis reminded me of how badly implemented SSL is in web browsers.
There are three actual good things that can be done with SSL: encryptingthe conversation, stopping man in the middle attacks, and certifyingthat the website is in some sense trustworthy. The web SSL experienceis so bad