John the Ripper / Hashcat rule, reject candidate if char at position X is the same as character at position Y

I’m using John to generate some word lists and I’m trying to figure out the most optimized way to do the next step. What I want to do is add ever possible 3 digit number to a set where the first digit of the number is not the same as the first digit in the set

Set example 123ABC

to add

+ 213 = 123ABC213 OK

+ 131 = 123ABC131 REJECT

I see rules that reject unless a string includes, but not a comparison function like this.

I could make the whole list and prune it after with a python script, but it would be way bigger than needed.

Thank you!

Enforcing DMARC policy (reject) on an Office 365 tenant

The domain & tenant has SPF and DKIM properly configured and DMARC policy set to p=reject. Still, emails spoofed with the domain in the From header aren’t rejected, but appear in the Junk Email folder on Office 365. People do check their Junk Email for false positives, and are still reading all the CEO frauds, sextortion letters etc.

This seems a feature instead of a bug, as described in Microsoft’s documentation:

How Office 365 handles inbound email that fails DMARC

If the DMARC policy of the sending server is p=reject, EOP marks the message as spam instead of rejecting it. In other words, for inbound email, Office 365 treats p=reject and p=quarantine the same way.

Office 365 is configured like this because some legitimate email may fail DMARC. For example, a message might fail DMARC if it is sent to a mailing list that then relays the message to all list participants. If Office 365 rejected these messages, people could lose legitimate email and have no way to retrieve it. Instead, these messages will still fail DMARC but they will be marked as spam and not rejected.

However, this reasoning has some flaws:

  • DKIM protects legitimate mail; DKIM signed messages do pass with the DMARC policy even if it fails to align with the SPF when forwarded on a mailing list. (Mailing lists should change the envelope sender to pass SPF checks, anyway, so the SPF checks are probably passed, but not aligned.)

  • By implementing p=reject instead of p=quarantine the owner of the domain has stated that the emails should be rejected. Therefore, Microsoft’s implementation is against RFC 7489, 6.3:

    p: Requested Mail Receiver policy ...     reject:  The Domain Owner wishes for Mail Receivers to reject       email that fails the DMARC mechanism check.  Rejection SHOULD       occur during the SMTP transaction. 

Is there any setting on Office 365 to alter this behaviour and reject these messages?

If I “swipe down to reject”, will caller get a chance to leave voicemail?

A few times a year someone who isn’t in my address book might call me, but every day I get several spam/scam calls. So basically anytime I see a plain number, I swipe down to make my phone stop ringing.

I’ve been assuming this sends the call straight to voicemail (so that if it is legit they can leave a message) but it strikes me that “rejecting” a call might hang up completely on the caller.

What happens when I “swipe down to reject” a call from the homescreen? Is there a way I can quickly ignore a call while still leaving the other party a chance to wait for it to go through to voicemail?

This is a fairly stock phone, an “Android One” Moto x4 bought from Google Fi but it does have some extra Motorola tentacles on it.

(I’m also interested in doing this automatically, but only if it uses a built-in feature and not some random app that you happen to trust, sorry.)

Postfix reject SPAM using FROM in header_check

I’m using postfix (3.1.12) and receiving spam with prevents to be sent from my email address to me. The trick the spammer does is to differ the FROM mail address and the from address in the DATA header.

Jun 13 01:48:01 localhost postfix/cleanup[57940]: AD3DDE06BE: message-id=<> Jun 13 01:48:01 localhost postfix/qmgr[31745]: AD3DDE06BE: from=<>, size=241607, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jun 13 01:48:01 localhost postfix/local[57941]: AD3DDE06BE: to=<xxx@yyy.tld>, relay=local, delay=1.8, delays=1.8/0.02/0/0.02, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered to maildir) 

But in mail header

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:47:22 +0200 Message-ID: <> From: <xxx@yyy.tld> Errors-To: Subject: xxx Feedback-ID: 5:hc_gfxoi_okpbsv:laceq X-Sender: List-Unsubscribe: <> To: xxx@yyy.tld 

I founded many scripts and ways to block a list of specific FROM addresses with header_check using regular expressions.

But is there a way to use header_check verifying that the FROM and the DATA FROM are equal ?

Exim – How to reject mail to RCPT ${run

In reference to the recently publicized Exim vulnerability CVE-2019-10149, I am running supposedly patched Exim v. 4.90_1 (built June 4th, 2019) on Ubuntu 18.04.2 LTS.

Although it is supposedly patched, according to Canonical, I’m getting a lot of exploit attempt that are ending up as Frozen messages.

This is somewhat worrysome.

Is there a way to reject messages for recipients starting with a ‘$ ‘?

And how could I test to be sure these exploits aren’t working?

Turing machine loop and reject example

I’m getting confused on these both. Reject the string does a stop while loop the machine goes on and on.

My textbook has one example on a reject state and no physical one for loop:

Assume that no reject state was given. And I input a string

$ 1^{q_{1}}011$

After all the transitions the turing machine is now on the empty string $ 1011 \epsilon^{q_{8}}$ with no where else to go and its not on a accept state, so it rejects.

Now consider if its on q2 at string $ 0$ so $ $ 10^{q2}11$ $

And it cant go anywhere. Would that also reject? Or only if its on the empty string?

Now what is a loop? My idea is

$ $ 1^{q_{1}}011$ $

$ $ 1^{q_{2}}011$ $

$ $ 1^{q_{1}}011$ $

$ \dots$


Recognizably turing machine question (reject / loop)

The definition of proving recognizability using dove tailing is below. However I’m wondering if we can also prove loop or reject in the same way?

Give a deterministic TM D that recognizes L such that if $ w \in L$ then D accepts w. or if $ w \notin L$ , then D does not accept w. I realized this definition on states if D accepts a w


$ L = \{\langle M \rangle \mid M$ is a TM, and $ M$ accepts some string that ends with 111} is recognizably and easy to prove through dove tailing

now how about

$ L = \{\langle M \rangle \mid M$ is a TM, and $ M$ reject some string that ends with 111} is this also recognizable and would the proof be the same as the one above ? I think this will work but

$ L = \{\langle M \rangle \mid M$ is a TM, and $ M$ loops on some string that ends with 111}

How do you check if something loops?

Reject in ansible list variable

I have such a variable:

apps:  - {name: kapitalism, extension: .war}  - {name: socialism, extension: .war}  - {name: somethingelse, extension: .ear} 

And I need to make another one based on it, which will not include some of the list. I’m trying this:

- name: Reject this please   set_fact:     apps: "{{ apps | map(attribute='name') | reject('search', | list }}"   when: "'socialism') != -1"   with_items: "{{ apps }}" 

But here I get such a problem that the extension parameter is lost and I get the variable:

apps: [u'kapitalism', u'somethingelse'] 

How to make a variable like this:

apps:  - {name: kapitalism, extension: .war}  - {name: somethingelse, extension: .ear} 


Is “Reject Someone’s Influence” allowed against “Take Advantage Of Your Influence Over Someone”?

There are three normal ways to use existing Influence over someone,

  • +1 ongoing for all moves targeting them
  • “Telling them who they are or how the world works” to shift their Labels
  • “Taking advantage of your influence,” which expends the Influence, but gives you either another +1 after your roll, them a -2 after their roll, or gives them a Condition.

In the book (p80 (original edition?)) it says that you can Reject Someone’s Influence either “on your own, unprompted, or you might do it in response to a move of theirs.”

If that were all it said anywhere, I’d assume one could risk a Reject Someone’s Influence roll against any of those three—after all, it’s an option both “unprompted” or after “a move of theirs.” But the (p78 & Basic Moves sheet) description of “When someone with Infuence over you tells you who you are or how the world works” says, (emphasis mine):

accept what they say or reject their Influence. If you accept what they say, the GM will adjust your Labels accordingly; if you want to keep your Labels as they are, you must reject their Influence.

So it is spelled out there, whereas Rejecting Their Influence is not mentioned attached to the descriptions of the other two common uses of Influence, +1 ongoing and Taking Advantage.

Anything I missed in The Book that would cover this? Any outside sources? I don’t know any related games; are there clues from related Powered by the Apocalypse games, their own Epyllion or Urban Shadows, etc.?

I’m new to TTRPGs overall, but have a vague understanding there’s some unwritten rule resembling, “if it’s not in the rules, it’s not in the rules” —which would apply here if all else fails.