• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 26 days ago
cake
Cake day: March 3rd, 2025

help-circle
  • Yeah, Mint is fine and has enough users to have decent guides out there, a broad support system and great comparability. Think of it like a phone: you can pick a Samsung phone of a specific model, or a Motorola, or a Google Pixel or whatever and they can all run the same apps. The brand and model are mostly a preference thing, and while they do have their differences, once you have an Android phone you can see what those differences are firsthand and change later down the road. The biggest shift would be going from an iPhone to any Android phone. Later on you can worry about which Android brand you like best, what you like about specific interfaces or whatever. Some are nicer to use than others for sure, but it’s not as big of a deal as some people make it out to be as long as you get something generally popular, modern and with enough support/backing/users. Whether for Android phones or Linux distros tho, it’s normal for people to have their own preferences and recommendations based on their personal experience and needs since there are so many possibilities out there.



  • Very true. You can find many cases of that though. Just the other day I was trying to get crypto quotes and accounting inside Gnucash, which has been supported by the backend API’s since forever ago, but the interface essentially doesn’t allow for it because the developers don’t consider crypto as currency, and don’t want to support custom currencies or even just using the existing data source API for anything but stocks, derivatives and fiat currencies.


  • Because you can make it so that the required certificate/signature has to meet certain criteria to work. For instance, imagine there was a PayPal equivalent type app for paying QR codes, and they required all codes to be signed by one of their business customers (who they have on file). Or with a certificate they themselves issue their customers.



  • It wouldn’t need a separate app if, for instance, a standard QR payment format way created. If you just want a link to a website to pay, then naturally that would be less secure, but you could always put the URL below the QR code for redundancy (QR would only save time typing then).







  • This seems to be a gross misunderstanding of public key cryptography. Public keys allow you to verify an existing signature is valid and made by the correct entity, but they absolutely don’t allow you to forge a signature: that’s actually what they are designed to prevent.



  • Caedarai@reddthat.comtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldQuishing
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    Well, because it won’t be signed by a trusted CA for that task. Like if CAs had a category of certificate issuance that applied here (the standardisation issue) then it would be easy to spot a fake (which wouldn’t be correctly signed). Alternatively, you could take the European approach of having everything government related (like public street parking, though Europe mostly uses apps for that, not signed QR codes) rely on government entities and those in turn on a national set of government CAs.