How can I copy some Windows Defender Firewall rules to another PC?

I've set up some outgoing rules on a PC in Windows 10 Defender Firewall.
I like to copy these rules to another PC.
The rules prevent some programs from accessing the Internet. These programs will be installed in the same directories on both PCs and should be copied 1: 1.

How can I copy or export / import these firewall rules?

What I have already tried:

There is a "Export List" function that exports the rules to a text file. But I have not seen the corresponding import list function.

There are also functions at the root level in the Action menu for exporting and importing policies. But it seems that everything is exported and imported and that's not what I want.

Rewrite Rules – Create endpoints for a single page

Forgive the inexperienced question. I'm green in this topic.

I want to create an endpoint from a single, defined WordPress page.
The current permalink for the page is "/ Details /". I would like to have a wildcard effect so that all endpoints on this page / details / are redisplayed in detail.

The planned endpoint format would be XXX-XXX, for example domain.com/Details/333-222/. It can also be any combination of numbers separated by a hyphen.

I see the use of add_rewrite_endpoint ($ var, EP_PAGES); on the internet, but
If I understand this process correctly, it would be an effective "/ Details / *"

 add_rewrite_endpoint('Details', EP_PAGES);

The code for this would be:

add_action( 'init', 'CreateDetailsEndPoint' );
function CreateDetailsEndPoint()
  {
  add_rewrite_endpoint('Details', EP_PAGES);
  }

  add_action('init', 'EndPoint_rewrite_rule', 10, 0);
  function EndPoint_rewrite_rule()
   {
   add_rewrite_rule( 'direct/((^/)*)', 'index.php? 
   pagename=direct&urltags=$matches(1)','top' );  <=== have no idea if this is right.
  flush_rewrite_rules();
   }

Before I engage in a live work site without the ability to work offline, I want to make sure I fully understand this.

I'm not too proud to be wrong here ... Tell me what I'm missing.

Open Source – Top Git Collaboration Rules?

I have read many good articles about working with git, many tasks and prohibitions, etc. For example, the ten most common mistakes in reviewing pull requests and a nice article about the git workflow. Quite similar to the popular A successful Git branching model. I also really like this article, especially regarding rules with git or ethics, if you want the 11 rules of GitLab Flow.

What I do not understand, however, is why hardly any article mentions what I consider the most important rule of all. To Always make sure that your main branch (usually Master) is always fully functional, The worst thing I know is when I work on my feature branch. I'm just putting the master together to realize that my branch is not working anymore. Or to stop developers from starting a new feature because the master does not work as it should. In my opinion, tests in combination with the code check should cover this. But I rarely see any articles that mention this particular rule.

What do you think about it?

DNS is automatically reset secretly and DNS servers are not blocked by the Windows 10 firewall rules

I've noticed that on a Windows 10 computer, if I let DHS configure automatically or change the DNS server to OpenNIC addresses, they will be automatically reassigned

8.8.8.8

75,75,75,75

Malware scanners detect nothing, but colleagues say it's a known attack vector to defeat DNS anonymity.

Only SpyHunter detects and reports this change, though I've found evidence through testing before. It also seems to override DNS configured by the VPN software. It forces itself at the top of the list, so it always checks Google before considering OpenNIC as a fallback.

As a workaround, I have used custom inbound / outbound firewall rules to block all traffic in a wide range of IP addresses. However, these rules do not seem to work because I can still ping these IP addresses.

How can I find and fix the root cause and / or how can I completely block all DNS traffic to these IPs?

ubuntu – iptables INPUT rules work, but FORWARD does not

Nmap of the network: –

Starting Nmap 7.60 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2019-11-09 18:03 IST
Nmap scan report for 192.168.56.1
Host is up (0.0011s latency).
Nmap scan report for 192.168.56.101
Host is up (0.00093s latency).
Nmap scan report for 192.168.56.102
Host is up (0.00056s latency).
Nmap scan report for 192.168.56.103
Host is up (0.00059s latency).
Nmap done: 256 IP addresses (4 hosts up) scanned in 18.82 seconds

192.168.56.101 & 192.168.56.102 & 192.168.56.103 to have 192.168.56.1 as your gatewayIP.

I assume that this means that all packets go through 192.168.56.1,

At first all PCs could ping each other and the iptables looked like this.

Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 5 packets, 289 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:67
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:67
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:67
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:67

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            192.168.122.0/24     ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 *       192.168.122.0/24     0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            192.168.122.0/24     ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 *       192.168.122.0/24     0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  vboxnet0 eth0    192.168.56.0/24      0.0.0.0/0            ctstate NEW
 2720   16M ACCEPT     all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 4 packets, 200 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:68
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:68

I added a rule to prevent this 192.168.56.103 from Ping 192.168.56.1 With

sudo iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.56.103 -d 192.168.56.1 -j REJECT

and then the INPUT table looked like this:

Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 22 packets, 3444 bytes)

 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:67
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:67
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:53
    0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            udp dpt:67
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:67
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      *       192.168.56.103       192.168.56.1         reject-with icmp-port-unreachable

It worked as expected.

But when I wanted to block 192.168.56.103 from Ping 192.168.56.101 I applied the following rule:

sudo iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.56.103 -d 192.168.56.101 -j REJECT

I used both REJECT and DROP.

The new FORWARD table looked like this:

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 3 packets, 213 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            192.168.122.0/24     ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 *       192.168.122.0/24     0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            192.168.122.0/24     ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 *       192.168.122.0/24     0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  virbr0 virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      virbr0  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  virbr0 *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
    0     0 ACCEPT     all  --  vboxnet0 eth0    192.168.56.0/24      0.0.0.0/0            ctstate NEW
 2720   16M ACCEPT     all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      *       192.168.56.103       192.168.56.101       reject-with icmp-port-unreachable

However, I still could ping 192.168.56.101 from 192.168.56.103,

How are the networks structured?

192.168.56.1 is my host PC and 192.168.56.101&192.168.56.102&192.168.56.103 exist in VirtualBox and are virtual PCs.

Why does the iptables rule work with INPUT but not with FORWARD?

Every help is appreciated.

Character Creation – What 3.5e power / spell / ability does you know if you are breaking a vow / the rules of your god as a free action?

I build a D & D 3.5e clergyman in the monastery with a vow of poverty and the vow of peace. In the last two weeks, I've come across a character ability (an ability, a talent, a spell, an alternate class function, a domain skill, or something else) that had the following wording:

as a free act, you can consult your intuition and know if something is in tune with your God's will (or make a vow, I'm not sure what the benefit is)

I explicitly recall that this was a free action that allowed you to check the status of a contemplated action. But I spent 3 hours searching through the book of sublime deeds, the player's manual, and Google, and can not find it.

Blitz – Are the rules for guide numbers over unusually long distances still valid?

Theoretically, a combination of a GN 45m flash with ISO100, an F1.1 lens, and a full-frame camera that delivers results at 51200 ISO should reach a range of nearly one kilometer – or two, if 4 charges are used, four kilometers 16 charges to a bulb exposure.

Which factors will or can sabotage this naive calculation? Apart from the fact that the stray light of the strong flash does not find a direct way to the lens and must cause light reflections and obviously must be taken to ensure that the bystanders are not dazzled or frightened and / or nearby traffic?

Rules – Sending SMS text messages from my Drupal site

I'm trying to send a text message that will be sent to site users as soon as a new node is created. I've installed the SMS Framework module and the Clickatell module, set up an account with Clickatell, and configured the gateway. Finally, I set up the rule engine to send when a new node is created. However, nothing seems to happen when nodes are created.

I referred to this question before writing: How do I send a text message when a web form is sent?

Do I have to write a function that calls the Clickatell API or is there something missing in my module configuration?