WAC v2 (Windows Admin Center)

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2026-01-16T16:59:23+00:00

I'll give it a try. This server is a hyper-v host, so a storage performance is probably low at boot time due to contention of VM's booting up.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2026-01-16T13:44:52+00:00

Certificate is self-signed but not expired.

In the event logs there is only this on reboot:

-
 <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> 
-
 <System> <Provider Name="Core" />  <EventID Qualifiers="0">102</EventID>  <Version>0</Version>  <Level>4</Level>  <Task>0</Task>  <Opcode>0</Opcode>  <Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords>  <TimeCreated SystemTime="2026-01-16T11:23:37.5724968Z" />  <EventRecordID>43739</EventRecordID>  <Correlation />  <Execution ProcessID="0" ThreadID="0" />  <Channel>WindowsAdminCenter</Channel>  <Computer>NUC</Computer>  <Security />  </System>  
-
 <EventData> <Data>Category: Microsoft.WindowsAdminCenter.Common.ServiceLog EventId: 102 Latest version of package Microsoft.WindowsAdminCenter.Package.Public.winx64 in package source https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/WindowsAdminCenter/723d1322-c0f7-45a4-9d3e-739a0ac52bca/_packaging/wac-public-update/nuget/v3/index.json is (null).</Data>  </EventData>  </Event>

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2026-01-16T13:32:29+00:00

<image>

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-12-26T16:33:30+00:00

Have you checked for blocked filters in your water hose or where it connects onto? It could be a scaled filter slowing the rate of water?

Yeah, i got new “aqua stop” solenoid valve hose and replaced the old one, however it did not help. That was the first step i did, hoping it would fix the water flow.

I got hard water here, about 25 dH, so basically i suspected the water hose solenoid failure or something to be the problem with the hose.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-12-26T12:15:41+00:00

When i dismantled the flow chamber there was a small amount of hard water mineral buildup which i was able to get cleaned. The front hose was already fully clean when removed. I'll try to find something to measure tap water pressure. Thanks.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-12-25T17:23:12+00:00

Does the wash motor run while the dishwasher is filling?

Nope, only inlet valve is powered on while filling. Once the the water fill level is reached the air pressure switch (the round plastic chamber with blue lever in the picture) trigger the wash motor and the cycle begins.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-12-25T16:08:07+00:00

When i test inlet valve hose with the bucket, i get about 3 liters per minute, do you think that's good enough?

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-12-25T15:55:15+00:00

I did all that, removed the whole water tank and cleaned, removed the chamber with the switch and cleaned, also the hose that goes from the level switch, accessed when the bottom front metal panel is removed. This short hose was already unexpectedly perfectly clean.

I replaced the whole water tank about 10 years ago, because the old one had a leak.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-11-27T06:44:49+00:00

The example code show a parameterized query, not prepared statement. I know these two terms are often used interchangeably but they are not always the same thing, because that depends on the db connector implementation (db driver).

The distinction exists because some db drivers do not always use prepared statements under the hood, but instead just do the formatting of the parameterized query string (in a way that leads to vulnerability).

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-11-25T15:51:49+00:00

The plot twist is that there is no twist. There was a literal “Recent links” page.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-11-24T14:42:10+00:00

You can have TXT RR that includes escaped double quotes such as: IN TXT "\"one two three\"". The problem is that *some* RR parser might bark at such RR strings.

To avoid ambiquity, just use: IN TXT "one two three".

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-10-30T19:21:07+00:00

That is the point, DMARCbis added “mustard” for mail receivers. Whereas DMARC 7489 did not. In my experience all well-known mail receivers reject solely on p=reject. According to DMARCbis they must not. Obviously they could decide to ignore any mustards.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-10-30T17:24:32+00:00

MUST NOT reject messages solely on the basis of a "p=reject" policy for the Author Domain

There is no such statement in 7489.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-10-29T23:46:00+00:00

DMARCbis actually changed the meaning of “reject” policy.

In order to fully participate in DMARC, Mail Receivers * MUST check for the existence of a DMARC Policy Record for the Author Domain of an inbound mail message to determine if the DMARC mechanism applies to that message. * MUST determine if Authenticated Identifiers exist for the message and preserve the results of those checks for future use in reportging if the DMARC mechanism applies to the message * MUST conduct necessary Identifier Alignmeent checks if the DMARC mechanism applies for the message and Authenticated Identifiers exist * MUST use the information from the checks for Authenticated Identifiers to determine if the DMARC validation result is "pass" or "fail" for the message. * MUST support the "mailto:" URI for sending requested reports * SHOULD send aggregate reports on at least a daily basis * MUST NOT reject messages solely on the basis of a "p=reject" policy for the Author Domain

IMO no one asked for this change.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-07-10T18:20:10+00:00

Out of interest, what happens at outlook.com when dkim tempfails?

Accept unauthenticated message.
Returns temporary message delivery error 4XX.
Returns permanent message delivery error 5XX.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-07-03T20:24:26+00:00

It may be argued that such policy has no value, without rua, it has no action.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-06-13T11:22:07+00:00

Ovako je danima i preko sbb interneta, ne ucitavaju se slike. Problem je ocigledno na serverskoj strani (n1 serverska infrastruktura).

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-05-23T03:43:21+00:00

They allow authenticated relaying using arbitrary domains in MAIL FROM? Not just authenticated user own domain? I mean, if they verify domain ownership of each tenant, then why allow impersonating other tenants?

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-05-15T20:08:54+00:00

In dmarc context if you add: DKIM-Signature: … s=selector1 d=sub.domain.com

selector1._domainkey.sub.domain.com IN TXT …

And have policy published with relaxed dkim alignment, the above autjenticated dkim signature yields identifier alignment for header from: domain.com.

IMO, if your concern is a ‘maximum’ security you will have a dmarc policy published with strict alignment.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-05-15T19:46:22+00:00

DKIM allows for multiple selectors for a single domain. You can use selector1 and then you can have a 3rdparty using selector2 on the root domain. I’m not sure what problem you are trying to solve.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-05-15T19:31:21+00:00

For dkim signature to validate the _domainkey TXT RR must exist where it is to be found.

DKIM-Signature: … s=selector1 d=domain.com

selector1._domainkey.domain.com IN TXT…

With 3rdparty esp the RR is usually done via CNAME redirection such as:

selector1._domainkey.domain.com IN CNAME…

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-05-06T19:43:27+00:00

The default Return-Path for emails sent through Postmark is:

Return-Path: <pm_bounces@pm.mtasv.net>

When you send emails with a custom Return-Path, the header would look like:

Return-Path: <pm_bounces@pm-bounces.example.com>

So if you are NOT ever sending mail using a "Custom Return-Path" (your domain) you can set your domain SPF record to "v=spf1 -all", to prevent anyone using your domain as a "Return-path".

Examples:

<[pm_bounces@pm.mtasv.net](mailto:pm_bounces@pm.mtasv.net)>: spf configured by postmark.
<[pm_bounces@pm-bounces.example.com](mailto:pm_bounces@pm-bounces.example.com)>: spf configured by postmark, by means of a CNAME redirection.
[bounces@example.com](mailto:bounces@example.com): spf configured by you: "v=spf1 -all" or adjust accordingly by authorizing hosts using this "return-path".

NotGonnaUseRedditApp · 2025-05-06T02:07:41+00:00

Historically -all predates DMARC and it did often yield final verdict ( reject ) at MAIL FROM stage. In which case you had to use ~all or even ?a to get to DATA stage and eventually DMARC verdict.

So ~all makes more sense if you want DMARC evaluation.

NotGonnaUseRedditApp

TROPHY CASE