Ain’t nobody gonna buy your stupid Nazibots either, di ckhead. You are universally despised.

Are you just SAVING as these file extensions, or EXPORTING as each type of file extensions.

Not the difference, and see in the File menu that you need to use the EXPORT function to change actual file type.

1. What’s a PFP?
2. What format are you uploading them in?
3. What app are they generated with?
4. Do they also look corrupted on other devices you may have handy?

The simplest and most pragmatic option.

#3

Interesting if true…

This again? 🙄

Yeah…this seems like OP is doing this in extra hard mode, and there are simpler ways to handle the problem.

Unless there is a mapping between a UID of a user across many different machines (something like a domain controller), you’re not going to be able to set proper permissions by user. You need to use a generic group, or provide global read access at a minimum.

I’m not 100% sure why you’ve chosen this route, but there are MUCH simpler ways of doing this that don’t involve VMs and NTFS volumes.

At this point, you’re butting up against 3 levels of nested permissions, including the VM. My suggestion would be to make sure all the files on the NTFS volume have global read access, then go into the VM and attempt to set NTFS permissions on the files (they are different). If that becomes too tedious, you could just try setting 777 on all shared files. It’s unsafe, but may get you through until you find a more…workable solution for what you’re doing here.

I think the overall solution is to just not need this Windows VM, so look at moving these sites off to Nginx or something ASAP.

I did answer your questions, but if I missed something, feel free to ask and I can clarify.

The clients (apps) enforce key symmetry for your own keys, server identity, and the exchanged with the other person part of a conversation. Constantly. There is no way to MITM that.

The clients are open source, and audited regularly, and yes, builds are binary reproduceable and fingerprinted on release.

That’s not to say someone can’t build a malicious copy that does dumb stuff and put it in your phone to replace the other copy, but the server would catch and reject it if it’s fingerprints don’t match the previously known good copy, or a public version.

Now you’re just coming up with weird things to justify the paranoia. None of this has anything to do with Signal itself, which is as secure as it gets.

The closest you’re probably going to get to a half decent looking WYSIWYG editor is something templatized top to bottom. Odoo, Ghost…things like that.

Nothing in particular. They all seem about the same to me. Check top rankings on GitHub perhaps.

It blocks on all the major engines. DDG included.

This will change your life: https://ublacklist.github.io/docs

I don’t use any Meta products, so not sure how you mean. If you are a user that has been sending e2e messages, then you can surely decrypt said messages if you’re a participant in those messages transactions.

It doesn’t matter if it’s criminal or civil. The costs to bring such a case are massive, and you’re leaving yourself open to a behemoth like Meta just dragging out the case for lengthy periods of time which drastically increase those costs.

No law firm files suit against a giant company like this unless they have rock solid proof they will, at the very least, land a settlement plus recuperation of costs. Just not a thing.

🤣🤣🤣

You need a juice and a nap, Ke-mo sah-bee.

Do you know what size channel attacks are? Because nothing you’ve even tried to bring up describes one at all, or how it applies to your original comments.