Prevent Internet access to certain user accounts … with netplan?

I just want to block internet access in my children's accounts.

This is possible with iptables (See question: restrict- network- access-for-a-special-user-on-the-plan-use-of-iptables? Noredirect = 1 & lq = .) 1).

But Ubuntu 18.04 used netplan, I've searched, searched, searched and I can not seem to find a way to do something similar netplan, Maybe there is no such way and the answer is to disable netplan,

To prevent users from creating message flows on a SharePoint site

Flow runs outside of SharePoint and most likely invokes Web services. The only limitations are the normal SharePoint permissions for the user to read or update items. Another way to think about it … Anyone with read permissions can read data from a SharePoint list using a web browser or the REST API (Web Services). SharePoint Web Services can be called from JavaScript, PowerShell, Flow, PowerApps, Power BI, and almost any programming toolset. The same applies to the update and deletion.

For example, open a web browser, visit one of your SharePoint sites, and edit your URL as follows:


dnd 5e – Can the Spell of Motion spell prevent the Gibbering Mouther's Aberrant Ground property from lowering a creature's speed to 0 in the event of a failed Rescue?

The freedom of movement The spell only prevents difficult terrain from affecting our target Move, The saving throw happens anyway

The freedom of movement Spell states:

During the entire time, the movement of the target remains unaffected by difficult terrain. Spells and other magical effects can not reduce the target's speed or cause the target to be paralyzed or held back.

From this we can conclude what the spell does:

  1. Difficult terrain does not affect your Move. Note that this does not say anything about your speed, hit points or other effects on difficult terrain.

  2. Spells and magical effects can not reduce your speed.

  3. Spells and magical effects can not paralyze or hold you back.

Gibbering Mouther's Aberrant Ground feature is not magical, so the last two points do not apply. The function causes the following:

The ground within a radius of 10 feet around the mountain is doughy terrain. Each creature starting their turn in this area must receive a DC Save Throw of 10 or reduce their pace to 0 by the beginning of their next turn.

  1. Ground within a 10 foot radius becomes difficult terrain.

  2. If a creature starts its turn within a 10 foot radius, it must make a save throw. If you do not perform this save, your speed will become 0.

The function never says that we automatically (or should not) make the saving throw if we are immune to the normal effect of difficult terrain. Since freedom of movement only helps to prevent changes to ours Move However, this is a change in our speed, which is still normal for us.

Likewise with a spell like tip growthcreating a damaging area of ​​difficult terrain,freedom of movement will not stop us somehow from being damaged; it only prevents the area from costing extra Move,

Corporate Development – How can I prevent the sharing of internal API keys in a company?

Together sum up:

Relief, benefits, friction and police:

A few more words

relief: First, make it easy for a team to get a new API key. For example, include a reminder in the business processes for launching new projects and offer a friendly service to request new keys without asking for justification.

Services: Use a custom API key for the team or product owner. For example, suggest feedback on app usage based on this key.

friction: Depending on the key function, you can create friction points, such as: For example, if the key is associated with a domain defined by the app (that is, key reuse would not necessarily provide access to all desired services).

police workFinally, you may need to provide some monitoring. For example, you can monitor the use of API functions with an API key, and after a period of time, make a request to use API parts that is not expected in terms of the baseline. If this is not realistic, just include a confirmation in the Company's Project Checklists that a valid key has been used.

*Annotation: You may need to clearly define your API key policy: Does a new major release require its own API key? What about a fork or when an app is split? what if another team is responsible, etc …

18.04 – How to prevent the system from being "minimized"

Today I noticed a new message when I log in to my Ubuntu 18.04 Docker container.

This system has been minimized by removing packages and content
are not required on a system where users do not log on.

To restore this content, you can use the command & # 39; Unminimize & # 39; To run.

However, this is a container that I log into from time to time.

IMHO does not think it's a very sensible strategy to change systems this way without the user's permission, but other than that, how can I prevent Ubuntu from minimizing my systems?

The minimization breaks the functionality of my container and the unminimize Command ends with a kernel error.

Prevent installation, update and overwriting questions

I am very new to wanking I have just read the firegiant documentation and created a sample installer. I have a few questions.

  1. Can I use wix to create a .msi file that will be both installed and updated? If a product already exists on the user's system, the MSI file should be run in update mode. If the product does not exist, the same .msi file should be run in reinstall mode. How do I pack files for such .msi? Does this work based on the conditions during the installation?

  2. If the user's system has a newer file, the installer should not override it. The catch is that this newer file on the user's system has been manually updated by the user. Does wix leave it alone, if it determines that the newer file is not bound to any version of wix?

To prevent overwriting changes in TFS version control by another team member

I ask this question as a UI test engineer.
We have a small software team that uses a TFS repository.
We use the Mantis bug tracking system to track issues.

Here is the situation:
When I manually tested a program, I found an error and reported it to the developers.
A few days later, a developer informed me that the problem was resolved.
On another day, I started testing to see if the bug was fixed, but found exactly the same mistake.

Someone has changed the code to fix the error.
A few days later, someone else in the team changed the code, did not know about the bug, and reintroduced the bug into the program.

Are there ways to prevent such errors from ever occurring? Or is this just a sloppy work by the developer who restored the code to its original form?