263 reputation
29
bio website
location United States
age 28
visits member for 2 years, 3 months
seen Oct 6 at 15:06

I actively encourage the editing of any of my Question, Answer, and Tag Wiki content on all StackExchange sites except for meta sites. In other words, if you spot an inaccuracy or wish to clarify or improve a post of mine, add sources, etc., PLEASE do so! It will greatly benefit the net welfare and knowledge capital of the community. I am writing this here just in case you are of the misconception that answers are like forum posts, indelible articles authored by a single person.

The edit function is there for a reason, folks. I promise to never lash out at someone for substantially editing content originally authored by me, as long as your edit is constructive. If you don't yet have the site privilege to make instantaneous edits and I see your edit in the suggestion queue, I will do my best to either accept your edit outright, or incorporate the most useful parts of your edit into my post by "editing your edit".

If you have been told before that you shouldn't substantially edit others' answers, or if you've been the victim of polemic as a result of doing so, I'd like to apologize for that behavior. I think it's very counterproductive; our community is much worse-off for that kind of attitude.

Future visitors are best served by being able to read one cohesive, well-edited answer with sources to get the sum-total of the community's best knowledge in a single answer. A string of answers or comments each with their own nuggets of truth is much harder to decipher than one cohesive text. With the edit function, thanks to the fact that we each bring our own perspectives and unique knowledge, it is possible for us to author one cohesive text that eliminates the natural tendency of comment strings, replacing it with high-quality works that rival those of Wikipedia.

BTW, I don't approve of most edits on meta sites because I very rarely find questions on meta sites which deal purely in factual matters, so my answers are generally just my personal feelings on the matter.


Apr
11
comment Is saving passwords in Chrome as safe as using LastPass if you leave it signed in?
From a practical perspective, the most common way to exfiltrate data for a malicious client-side program running with user trust is to (1) capture keystrokes, and (2) send them to a remote server. Both LastPass and Chrome (and any other system involving passwords whatsoever) are wholly and completely vulnerable to this technique. You type your password and you're owned.
Jan
24
comment What are the major security concerns for smartphones?
Looks like you beat me by 1 minute talking about root stuff :) FGITW!
Jan
23
comment Apparently PayPal-affiliated site with very suspect security
Is it normal for two different EV certificates (for two different domains on .com) to have the same serial number but a different OU and O? How would this be possible? Maybe they have some kind of special agreement with Verisign only available to the largest of corporations (PayPal certainly qualifies as large)?
Jan
22
comment Apparently PayPal-affiliated site with very suspect security
I just made a new In-Private Tab in Firefox (thus, not using any of my main browser's cookies) and still was able to get in without entering a valid email. Not sure why you are seeing something different. Might be the restrictive proxy I'm using for web access, but in that case, the question becomes, why would a restrictive proxy allow you through, unless it's doing client-side validation :P
Jul
18
comment Citation Needed for FIPS Anecdote Regarding MD5 and RC4
The document you linked is very informative. I will be able to extract the info I need from it, thanks to your help, to make an educated argument to my superiors that we have a problem. Thank you!!
Jul
18
comment Citation Needed for FIPS Anecdote Regarding MD5 and RC4
What about RC4 as the stream cipher? And what about SSLv3? Sorry for the questions; your answer is already helpful as-is, but you seem to be on top of the issue...
Jul
18
comment How to securely set up wifi?
I also defend my product recommendation by the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Cisco hardware is the industry standard, an order of magnitude more forcefully than Microsoft Windows is the industry standard desktop operating system. So recommending Cisco is like recommending Ford when the Model T was the only car on the market.
Jul
18
comment How to securely set up wifi?
Google keywords: Cisco WPA2-EAP RADIUS IPSec. It's very difficult to set up a reliable and enterprise-grade wifi network without going with Cisco equipment, so although this is kind of a product recommendation, be aware that open source implementations of all the relevant protocols do exist, so if you had proper hardware, you could set something like this up on Ubuntu on a spare laptop using free software. It wouldn't be very reliable, from my experience, though -- and the config would be insanely tedious. If you don't want to go that route, "Aironet" is the Cisco product line for wifi.