Not able to receive any notification from netconf test tool [closed]

I am working with netconf test tool to simulate devices. I was able to edit configuration on the devices. I was working with notification even tough I subscribed to a stream I was not able to get any notification from the device. If anybody has an understanding or have worked on netconf test tool with notification, it would be a great help .

Here is my python code

import sys import logging from ncclient import manager from ncclient import operations  log = logging.getLogger(__name__)  CREATE_SUBSCRIPTION = '''<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>   <rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" message-id="{}">     <create-subscription xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0">       <stream>NETCONF</stream>     </create-subscription>   </rpc>''' # Fill the device information and establish a NETCONF session def connect(host, port, user, password):     return manager.connect(host=host,                            port=port,                            username=user,                            password=password,                            hostkey_verify=False,                            allow_agent=False,                            look_for_keys=False)   def test_notification(host, port, user, password):     # 1.Create a NETCONF session     with connect(host, port=port, user=user, password=password) as m:         # 2.Set the message-id for the rpc         msgId = 1002         rpc = CREATE_SUBSCRIPTION.format(msgId)          # 3.Send rpc         result = m._session.send(rpc)         m.take_notification(block=True, timeout=None)   if __name__ == '__main__':     logging.basicConfig(level=logging.DEBUG)     test_notification(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2], sys.argv[3], sys.argv[4]) 

Can Living Gloves combined with Remove Curse be used to gain access to multiple artisan tool skills?

Living Gloves (p278 ERftLW) Says:

While attuned to these gloves, you gain one of the following proficiencies (your choice when you attune to the gloves):

  • Sleight of Hand
  • Thieves’ tools
  • One kind of artisan’s tools of your choice
  • One kind of musical instrument of your choice

Symbiotic Nature. The gloves can’t be removed from you while you’re attuned to them, and you can’t voluntarily end your attunement to them. If you’re targeted by a spell that ends a curse, your attunement to the gloves ends, and they can be removed.

Can remove curse (p271 PHB) be used to end the curse, then you can put the gloves back on to attune once again and choose a different proficiency?

Tool for combat management

I’m working on my own homebrew rpg system which I want to keep light on rules. Therefore I add only rules when they are needed. One rule which I did not use was an implementation of "initiative".

In combat, everyone’s actions happen at the same time. There is no order imposed by stats, dice rolls, or activity chosen, i.e. no initiative scores or initiative rolls such as in DnD 5e. It is more like melee from Warhammer Fantasy (the strategy game, not the rpg).

I did like the feeling in general during playtest, however management of combat turns was very chaotic, since I could obviously not do all the adjudication at the same time.

My question therefore is: What mechanics, tools, and techniques can I use to facilitate combat adjudication without imposing an order of action? I prefer answers referencing published RPG systems. Nonmechanical concepts should work without the use of online tools / software.

Does Tool Expertise and Wonder Maker stack? [closed]

I have a Rock Gnome Artificer, which grants Tool Expertise, but I want to take the Wonder Maker feat. Do you add +3 for proficiency, +3 because of Tool Expertise, and +3 because of Wonder Maker when doing a tinker’s tools check?

Tool Expertise

Starting at 3rd level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool.

Starting at 6th level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool.

Wonder Maker

When you make a check using your proficiency with tinker’s tools, you add double your proficiency bonus to the check.

Who (Designer or User) Should be Resposible for the Correct/Secure Usage of a Tool Intended for Developers/Admins?

There is a healthy debate around a series of stack overflow posts that refer to the "RunAs" command. Specifically the discussion is in reference to design decision that the folks at Microsoft made a long time ago, to users of this command to enter the users password in one specific way, Raymond Chen accurately summarizes one side of the argument quite clearly:

The RunAs program demands that you type the password manually. Why doesn’t it accept a password on the command line?

This was a conscious decision. If it were possible to pass the password on the command line, people would start embedding passwords into batch files and logon scripts, which is laughably insecure.

In other words, the feature is missing to remove the temptation to use the feature insecurely.

If this offends you and you want to be insecure and pass the password on the command line anyway (for everyone to see in the command window title bar), you can write your own program that calls the CreateProcessWithLogonW function.

I’m doing exactly what is being suggested in the last line of Raymond’s comment, implementing my own (C#) version of this application that complete circumvents this restriction. There are also many others who have done this as well. I find this all quite irritating and agree with sentiment expressed by @AndrejaDjokovic who states:

Which is completely defeating. It is a really tiresome that idea of "security" is invoked by software designers who are trying to be smarter than the user. If the user wants to embed the password, then that is their prerogative. Instead all of us coming across this link are going to go and search other ways to utilize SUDO equivalent in windows through other unsavory means, bending the rules and wasting times. Instead of having one batch file vulnerable, i am going to sendup reducing overall security on the machine to get "sudo" to work. Design should never smarter than the user. You fail!

Now while I agree with the sentiment expressed by Microsoft and their concern with "embedding passwords into batch files" (I personally have seen poor practice myself way too many times), it really does strike me as wrong what Microsoft has done here. In my specific example I’m still following best practices and my script won’t store credentials, however I’m forced to resort to a workaround like everybody else.

This decision really follows a common pattern at Microsoft of applications acting in ways that are contrary to the needs of the specific users with the intention of "helping" the users by preventing them from completing a action that is viewed as unfavorable. Then obfuscating or purposely making the implementation of workarounds more difficult.

This leads us to a broader question, extremely relevant to this issue, who is the true responsible party when it comes to security around credentials, the user of the software or the designer of the software? Obviously both parties hold some responsibility, but where is the dividing line?

When you create tools for other developers should you seek to the best of your ability to prevent them from using your application in an insecure manner, or do you only need to be concerned about the application itself and whether it’s secure internally (irregardless to how the user invokes it)? If you are concerned about "how" they are using your application, to what extent do you need validate their usage (example: should "RunAs" fail if the system is not fully "up to date" i.e. insecure in another way), if that example seems far fetched, then define that line, in the case of "RunAs" the intention is quite clear, the developers who created it are not only concerned about managing credentials securely internally with their application but also care deeply about the security implications of how you use it. Was their decision correct in validating the usage in this case, and if so/or not where should that dividing line be for the applications that are created in the future?

Is there a tool to see every WordPress site that’s using a particular plugin?

Is there a tool to see every WordPress site that’s using a particular plugin? For example: if I wanted to know every website in the world that is currently (or historically) using Yoast SEO.

I realize this would probably be a third party tool, so I don’t know if it’s appropriate for this forum. But, I figured it’s a good place to ask seeing as it’s related to WordPress.