. ________________________________ From: Abhishek [ABK] Kumar To: Mike Cc: Michal Zalewski ; "websecurity@webappsec.org" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [WEB SECURITY] a new 'Secret Key' Cryptographic Algorithm ~ any analysis/suggestions

Pierce County Environmental Health Trends Forum May 31, 6-8 pm Topic: Toxics in the Marine Food Web Speakers: Jim West and Heather Trim Location: Evergreen State College Tacoma Campus Draft agenda at www.tpchd.org/ehindicators Please forward - all are welcome!

The generic part number is >> CP3033A, but it does not show up in their product line on their web >> site.

hl=nl&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.eefocus.com/lymexbg2vo/blog en&u=http://www.eefocus.com/lymexbg2vo/blog> Rob.

Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

Roughly here: > https://goo.gl/maps/sfAQBEG8xCvYToUP9 > > Please post an update if the bird is currently being seen or not. > > Yesterday's report: https://ebird.org/checklist/S72027585 > Today's (August 2) report with photo: > https://ebird.org/checklist/S72050200 > > Swallow-tailed Kite is on the review list for Ontario and anyone who > observes it is encouraged

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:10 AM Rob Kossler via USRP-users < usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote: > I am interested in purchasing a Thunderbolt to SFP adapter and I found > this QNAP QNA-T310G1S <https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/qna-tb-10gbe> available > from B&H for $169 > <https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1452479-REG/qnap_qna_t310g1s_single_port_thunderbolt3

Like us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=86050006565&fref=ts> or Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/greendrinks253/?hl=en>!

Learn more at https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

milar access, then net impact is 0. If pre-CORS* the sites were not > explicitly defining any privileges, then the sites were governed by > same-origin and therefore the net impact is risk increasing. The article mentions that with a wildcard, a request can be sent with cookies, but JavaScript can't read the response. I think we only need to really worry about requests with cookies - without this (and knowing the URL) the attacker could just make that request themselves directly (although this may be a way to bypass IP based restrictions). The status quo, is that you can send such a request anyway, using something like an image tag or a form target - but the cross origin model prevents reading the response. So I think the risk for these sites is quite minor. Probably biggest risk is that some clients may incorrectly implement CORS, and having this header exposes you to related bugs. > 20% of sites using CORS explicitly define a single origin (presumably their > own). If these sites were susceptible to XSS pre-CORS (a good assumption) > then the impact is risk reducing. If the sites were not susceptible to XSS > then the impact is 0. If the site is susceptible to XSS without CORS, then I don't think having a CORS header greatly reduces the risk. For a simple XSS, like getting a user to click a link to http://vuln/vuln?id= - CORS will make no difference. I think CORS is not intended as a security mechanism, more as new functionality to allow cross-domain requests. It seems to me to be designed to do this reasonably securely - although looking for implementation bugs would be interesting. There is the more general trust issue of allowing an external site to access response bodies with cookies, but that's not greatly different to existing trust issues around JSONP and