What can be a reason of a “The requested URL / was not found on this server” error in case of an addon domain?

Let’s say I have a site hosted on a.example.com. I’m adding an addon domain to the server (shared hosting): b.example.com and point this domain to the server IP address.

Visiting b.example.com provides the same site as a.example.com, since they point to the same server. That’s OK.

Then I’m adding an other addon domain c.example.com and point it to the server IP. When visiting c.example.com I get the error: The requested URL / was not found on this server.

Can you tell me a reason how this could happen? I don’t get it.

Is there a reason not to take the optional class features from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything?

Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything includes optional class features for every class from the Player’s Handbook. Barbarians, for example, can choose to gain an extra skill proficiency at 3rd level, and/or choose to gain a small bonus move as part of the action they take to start raging at 7th.

These features are listed as optional, but they don’t seem to have any drawbacks attached, besides a note that you should consult with your DM about taking them. Given DM approval, is there any good mechanical reason not to take an optional class feature, or should they essentially be considered upgrades over the base class?

I gave a too powerful magic item at too low level for a bad reason, what to do?

When a paladin in the game I run went into the local store ran by an ex adventurer, he went to the back to see the fancy swords, and asked if any looked like his holy symbol. The god he follows is illegal in that world, so I thought it would be cool if the shopkeep had one, so I narrated an old padded box that she takes out with a sword that exactly matched his holy symbol (which is a sword in a cicle). I narrated a tingling feeling when he touched it. But then I realized; he’s level two, the game has barely started, and I had him buy what seems to be a potentially extremely powerful magic item for 60 gp. I don’t want to backpedal lamely and make it weak, but it seems like a sorta dumb way to get a great item. What should I do?

To clarify, neither I nor the player know what item he has. I don’t want to make it a lame +1 sword or something, when I narraed it as something powerful. I was thinking of teiring it, at 1st teir it does nohing, second teir 1d6 extra radiant damage and +1 AC or something, add an extra d6 and armor boost per teir, by L17 itll be +3 AC an 3d6 extra radiant, but I am afraid that might be too good for something he bought and didnt even do anything to get.

Is there a legitimate reason for a USB-ethernet hardware device to have been connected to my laptop?

There was an unknown network adapter in my device manager. I found out it was for a USB-RJ45 ethernet device, which I have never even seen before. This device was not present when I bought the machine. As far as I have researched, it is not installed by any software or devices I use.

I’m concerned because there is a known vulnerability in Windows that’s exploited using these devices. A malicious person with access to the device could have stolen my credentials and logged in. (Google Usb-ethernet windows vulnerability if you don’t believe me.)

I believe the police or another malicious party exploited that vulnerability, and they used it to install a keylogger and acquire my hardware info. Is the presence of this device suspicious enough, from an information security standpoint, to support my belief? What would you do if you discovered the same on an enterprise machine?

What is the mechanical reason for rolling the same initiative for a group of creatures?

The 5th ed Players handbook states that

The GM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.

Historically in other systems I have rolled initiative for all NPC’s individually, allowing for the fact some may react quicker then there counterparts.

Has the reason for this bulk rolling of NPCs ever been explained, or is it simply a mechanic to make things run smoother?

Using lulu on osx in home business setup. Any reason for external router base firewall?

I have Lulu setup under osx on my Mac. So say an errant program, curl, if it tries to access outside address is stopped.

Would an external router based firewall bring any extra level of protection? I surmise that it will not be fine-grained enough to stop a particular process.

I believe that outgoing request are more risky than incoming request as I do not have any programming listening for request. e.g. No web server enabled.

What use would external router based firewall bring?

Is there a good reason (and what can it be) to require DAC restriction on IPC in addition to SELinux rules?

Our company is developing an AOSP-based platform for our customer. Some of our vendor services are using HWBinder for IPC which is using SELinux to restrict service discovery and access. The problem is that our customer insists that SELinux restriction is not enough and we need to provide a DAC-based restriction as well.

Our customer is basing this requirement on a security audit that was conducted on an earlier version of the platform. This security audit, however, didn’t evaluate HWBinder IPC, but a socket-based IPC that was used in older services. The issue that was highlighted during this audit is that Unix sockets had 0666 access and a recommendation was to change it to 0660 and use Unix groups to allow only specific services to access the socket.

For some reason our customer is now requiring to apply the same (or similar) approach to HWBinder IPC which, however, doesn’t have anything to attach these permissions to.

Unfortunately so far I couldn’t get a straight answer regarding their threat model, so my question is: Does it even make sense to require DAC + SELinux and if so, what threat model should I be considering to properly implement this restriction?

Also, any ideas regarding how I can get our customer an additional layer of security without changing the IPC method would be greatly appreciated.

Does a Monk have any reason to take the Mobile feat?

I am currently playing the Curse of Strahd adventure and we just leveled to 8. I was thinking about taking the Blade Mastery feat (from Unearthed Arcana: Feats) or the Healer feat (PHB, p. 167). A fellow player suggested I take the Mobile feat (PHB, p. 168) for my monk.

Is there any reason to choose the Mobile feat over another possible feat (such as Blade Mastery, Savage Attacker, Durable, Healer) for a monk since they already get increased movement?

My stats are:

  • Str 10
  • Dex 19
  • Con 16
  • Int 12
  • Wis 18
  • Cha 10

I am a half-elf of the high elf variant with the fire bolt cantrip. I have no other feats currently.

Any reason why Turing Machine would prevail on recursion theory?

Nowadays, most introduction books, videos, and comments about theoretical computer science talk about Turing machines but don’t discuss recursion theory anymore. These approaches are known to be equivalent.

What is the reason behind this? Has recursion theory simply gone out of fashion or is there a fundamental/mathematical reason explaining this?