• 6 Posts
  • 2.05K Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 3rd, 2024

help-circle

  • And when you are requesting a certificate for foobar.bank.com, your certificate request must come from an authorized email address at bank.com. That is also where your issued certificate would be sent. So, in order to get a certificate from a third party issuer, you have to:

    • Control the domain registration at the level just above the TLD (I don’t know how it works for co.uk, probably similar though)
    • Have access to a mailbox at the domain, where that mailbox has an address which is authorized to request certificates (this would be configured in the domain registration)

    Could a malicious actor compromise that mailbox in a way that allows them to request a certificate and then receive it? It’s not impossible, but it would be a huge effort with a small payout. Honestly, if you’ve got access to that mailbox, you don’t want to give yourself away by making false certreqs through it. You want to just exfiltrate as much data from it as you can. There’s certainly something way more valuable in there.




  • I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. On my current dose, I’m pretty good. Less? I very quickly go back to the state that brought me to where I needed to get on this medication. I am much better off staying on this dose until the end of my days, and frankly, so is everyone who has to interact with me.

    That said, “not being free” made it so that I couldn’t stay on meds when I was in my twenties. The several other obstacles I dealt with over the decades mostly had to do with insurance that I had.












  • This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.

    This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.

    The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”

    It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.

    Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.