Why after dd’ing ISO file to entire USB flash device, only the first partition match the ISO checksum?

I use dd to “burn” an ISO file to USB stick:

dd bs=4M if=/mnt/media/ISO/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-31-1.9.iso   of=/dev/sdd conv=fdatasync  status=progress 

Now I can see several partitions has been created:

sdd      8:48   1   1.9G  0 disk  ├─sdd1   8:49   1   1.8G  0 part /run/media/alex/Fedora-WS-Live-31-1-9 ├─sdd2   8:50   1  10.6M  0 part  └─sdd3   8:51   1  22.2M  0 part  

Why only sdd1 matches the ISO checksum, not an entire drive? I checked files on other partitions, they contain this ISO related files..

How can I get my entire game to scale based on screensize?

I’m currently building a 2d mobile game and I’m currently stuck trying to get my game to scale with screen sizes. Currently my background is scaled to 1920 X 1080. When I run the game on my Galaxy S10+, it scales to 1920 X 1080, but you can see blue space on the sides (See Image). How do I get that 1920 x 1080 background to fill the entire screen without using a UI canvas?

I want the game to fill the entire screen. If I set the resolution to the Galaxy resolution, it fills the entire screen. But won’t this look weird on other screens that don’t have the same resolution?

I’m not trying to scale any UI. Everything I find online is only talking about scaling UI. That’s not the issue. I’m trying to get the entire game to adjust based on screen sizes. 1920 x 1080 Scale

Could you anonymously upload a file on the internet if the threat model was the entire world trying to find your identity after you do so?

Thought experiment: You need to upload a file, and the threat model is the entire world trying to find out who you are after you do so.

I know this is absurd, but bear with me, it’s a thought experiment that I thought would be fun to have, where the scenario is the following:

You are a normal citizen, and you have a file (assume that you just have it, and the file doesn’t have metadata or information related to you) that is somehow so compromising that, if uploaded on the internet, the entire world would actively try to find out who you are. Everyone, military, every country’s agencies, civilians, that grandma going to the grocery store, yes, her too, to the best of her ability. People who run TOR relays too, everyone.

Your mission is to upload it on the internet without your identity being revealed. How would you go about it?

Update: File is in your pendrive, has a size of few MB, it’s ok if it just shows up eventually. No-one should really guess what country you might live in. We can think of the user as average-citizen, with average knowledge of technology, but can follow instructions (for example, setting up Tails). Assume that who had access to this information was not relevant, because no-one had access to this data before. We can invent an unrealistic scenario for this, for example, you have material that prove the existence of aliens or something.

Is it possible to encrypt portions of a file for upload so that one does not need to encrypt the entire file first?

Normally, to upload an encrypted file I would first encrypt the entire file, then upload the encrypted file. However, for large files this is not that easy as I need a external hard drive to hold the encrypted file. I am wondering if it is possible to perhaps encrypt a large file, say of 500 GB size, bit by bit, and to send the bit by bit encrypted information to an upload stream to say, Google Drive? Thanks.

How can I give a network load balancer (of any type) access to a port on a machine without opening that port to an entire VPC?

Is it possible to make an AWS load balancer for a non-HTTP port allowed to access a specific port on a host without opening that port open to the entire VPC’s subnet? I seem to remember reading that this might be possible with an IAM policy based around specific resources or something like that.

As you create a non-classic network load balancer it says: ” The security groups for your instances must allow traffic from the VPC CIDR on the health check port.”

Which is ok, but just barely since this service really doesn’t have much/any authentication.

Isn’t there a way this can be done with IAM permissions instead of a security group? I was reading about AWS firewall security somewhere and they mentioned that sometimes you can use an IAM policy, sometimes even a cross-account IAM policy to connect to the machines behind the firewall.

Any suggestions? I can definitely deploy more machines or AWS stuff.

JWT: In a server-to-server request, should I sign the entire request body?

Let’s set the scene with two servers:

  1. an “auth” server which provides users with authorization tokens containing claims relevant to their account
  2. a “paywall” server, which after receiving payment from a user, will send a request to the auth server to add the “premium” claim to the user’s account (and also this server can serve out restricted content to users who have the claim)

Both servers have access to a shared secret key, so the paywall server can verify the user’s claim to view restricted content.

I want to verify that any claim-altering-requests which the auth server receives are actually coming from my trusted paywall server.

My thinking is that the paywall server should simply sign every claim-altering-request in its entirety within a JSON Web Token, such that the auth server can verify the identity of the sender, and also verify that none of the requests have been tampered with.

In this case, it seems like the entire request body would simply be one big JSON Web Token (instead of a mere Authorization header) because I can’t trust any data which isn’t signed within the JWT.

Does this reasoning make sense, or is this overkill? is my solution redundant? perhaps HTTPS can already effectively solve this problem? I think of HTTPS as a means to secure the communications between two points, however, this might not guarantee the identity of either end?

See pending workflows of entire sharepoint

We have SharePoint 2013 Environment, we have some issue with workflow manager services. because of that no workflows are starting automatically on create/update.

Even if I manually start workflow on any item it will stay in not started state.

I am in communication with Microsoft support and they have suggested to update the workflow manager version.

before doing that I wanted to see how many workflows are pending in all sites.

Is there any way I can see that.

Switching entire SharePoint to Modern Experience

How do I change an entire SharePoint from classic experience to modern Experience ?

I have already figured it out that once your sharepoint is switched to modern experience there is no way back to the classic one. You can only switch back and forth with lists and document libraries.

Do I need specific right for changing the entire SharePoint to modern experience? As it for now I have the right to change the experience of lists and document libraries

How to add permission to the entire site from a list

I have a list “managers”, this list have a name picker, this list will be used every time a new manager leaves or join. How can I give the people on this list permission to the entire site? I mean, if I add someone on list “managers”, it will automatically give this person the “owner” permission on the site.

Is this possible?