jammiescone

That is a very sweet deal for a 12 core processor, wow!

That is a very sweet deal for a 12 core processor, wow!

Worth noting that US listed prices usually do not include taxes, whereas UK prices do

That is a very sweet deal for a 12 core processor, wow!

Competition: Announces/Releases a new product
AMD:

AMD be like "Bet you cant slash your price like this"
 
 

for 400 dollars that a steal. 12 core 24t cpu for 400dollars? that is pretty nice.
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/tLCD4D/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-36-ghz-12-core-processor-100-100000023box

Original source from KitGuru.
 
UK-based bank NatWest is trialling new debit cards with built in fingerprint readers, in order to improve payment security.
 
Currently, in the UK, NFC payments can be made with your card under the contactless scheme for payments up to £30, without the need for any further authentication. Adding the fingerprint sensor to the card will allow users to remove that cap, effectively replacing the current chip-and-pin system. NFC payments made using Apple or Google pay are already unrestricted in many major stores.
 
The technology has been developed by Gemalto, and is explained in their video here: 
 
All fingerprint data is stored locally on the card and is not transferred to the bank's servers. 
 
Hopefully this will improve the security of contactless payments, and I think it could be a step in pushing reluctant adopters to use it more often.
 

Currently you have to physically go into the branch to activate the card, at least the way NatWest are running it. The video suggests that there may be scope to activate it through a mobile app in the future, but I suspect the in-branch method will stay too.

Original source from KitGuru.
 
UK-based bank NatWest is trialling new debit cards with built in fingerprint readers, in order to improve payment security.
 
Currently, in the UK, NFC payments can be made with your card under the contactless scheme for payments up to £30, without the need for any further authentication. Adding the fingerprint sensor to the card will allow users to remove that cap, effectively replacing the current chip-and-pin system. NFC payments made using Apple or Google pay are already unrestricted in many major stores.
 
The technology has been developed by Gemalto, and is explained in their video here: 
 
All fingerprint data is stored locally on the card and is not transferred to the bank's servers. 
 
Hopefully this will improve the security of contactless payments, and I think it could be a step in pushing reluctant adopters to use it more often.
 

Original source from KitGuru.
 
UK-based bank NatWest is trialling new debit cards with built in fingerprint readers, in order to improve payment security.
 
Currently, in the UK, NFC payments can be made with your card under the contactless scheme for payments up to £30, without the need for any further authentication. Adding the fingerprint sensor to the card will allow users to remove that cap, effectively replacing the current chip-and-pin system. NFC payments made using Apple or Google pay are already unrestricted in many major stores.
 
The technology has been developed by Gemalto, and is explained in their video here: 
 
All fingerprint data is stored locally on the card and is not transferred to the bank's servers. 
 
Hopefully this will improve the security of contactless payments, and I think it could be a step in pushing reluctant adopters to use it more often.
 

Original source from KitGuru.
 
UK-based bank NatWest is trialling new debit cards with built in fingerprint readers, in order to improve payment security.
 
Currently, in the UK, NFC payments can be made with your card under the contactless scheme for payments up to £30, without the need for any further authentication. Adding the fingerprint sensor to the card will allow users to remove that cap, effectively replacing the current chip-and-pin system. NFC payments made using Apple or Google pay are already unrestricted in many major stores.
 
The technology has been developed by Gemalto, and is explained in their video here: 
 
All fingerprint data is stored locally on the card and is not transferred to the bank's servers. 
 
Hopefully this will improve the security of contactless payments, and I think it could be a step in pushing reluctant adopters to use it more often.
 

Original source from KitGuru.
 
UK-based bank NatWest is trialling new debit cards with built in fingerprint readers, in order to improve payment security.
 
Currently, in the UK, NFC payments can be made with your card under the contactless scheme for payments up to £30, without the need for any further authentication. Adding the fingerprint sensor to the card will allow users to remove that cap, effectively replacing the current chip-and-pin system. NFC payments made using Apple or Google pay are already unrestricted in many major stores.
 
The technology has been developed by Gemalto, and is explained in their video here: 
 
All fingerprint data is stored locally on the card and is not transferred to the bank's servers. 
 
Hopefully this will improve the security of contactless payments, and I think it could be a step in pushing reluctant adopters to use it more often.
 

New from Microsoft: Slightly-less-functional-than-before-Windows 10 1809 (SP36)

Source: https://www.eteknix.com/windows-10-october-update-may-ruin-admin-account/?fbclid=IwAR1etKL1YiWwgzVF9t1hAX8TihPk27RAfPfD50NdTqACZc7lTwE1SqnbZb8
 
It looks like the Windows 10 October Update is not out of the woods yet with new bugs still rearing their heads. 
 
This time, it's being reported that under a specific set of conditions, the default Administrator account can end up being invalidated after upgrading from 1803 to 1809. According to the reports, originally from GHacks:
 
 
The biggest thing for me on this is that Microsoft's recommended fix is that you either:
Create a separate account with admin privileges BEFORE installing the update, to use going forward, or; Avoid meeting the criteria Neither of these feel like real solutions to me, and there is no advice offered for anyone who might already be in this position. 
 
I can't imagine this having too much of a drastic effect for most people, but it's just another issue to add to a long line of issues, and I'm not a big fan of Microsoft's response.
 
Anyone here who uses the default administrator account and could be affected by this?
 

That's a user admin account. These days the default system admin account has to be enabled manually, usually for a specific purpose, hence I don't see it affecting too many people overall!

I can't put my finger on it, but it feels like using a separate account is just a false sense of security.
If someone is in the position where they can brute force the Administrator password, then chances are they can detect the usernames anyway. I haven't thought it all through yet, but my gut tells me that using a different account name is similar to just hiding the SSID (which is to say, delays the attack by like a minute at best). Ophcrack doesn't need to know the username to list all the local accounts and their passwords for example. It probably fetches that info from some local database within Windows.
 
 
Not really, no.
 
 
I know quite a few customers who use it.
It's widely used in small companies where they are big enough to have AD and some privilege management, but small enough that the IT people want to just be able to walk up to any computer unprepared, and login to a local admin account without having to look up some randomly generated password specific to that computer (which is the proper way of doing it).
 
 
Nope, not similar at all.
Administrator is still a normal account, but with administrator privileges. It doesn't run things with escalated privileges at all times.
Disabling UAC and running with an account that has administrator privileges (any admin account, not just Administrator) would kind of be like running as constantly running as root in GNU/Linux. Although even that has some differences.
 
 
Broken how exactly? Like I said, I know quite a few small businesses that use it, and it works fine for them.
 
Sounds like the Administrator profile was broken in some way. Can happen to any account, Administrator or not.
 
 
 
You shouldn't have had to do that. This particular bug/issue seems to only happen if you have a second account with admin privileges already. So you should have been able to still login with a different account.
 
And before someone says it's a feature not a bug/issue, Microsoft disabling accounts on computers without warning is an issue, even if it was done "for a good cause".

I'm not sure it was intentional, because I think Microsoft knows that there are still sysadmins out there who use it responsibly when it's required. It will be an accidental security improvement for regular users who had it activated without knowing, but I don't reckon there's many of those around since it's not something you can really enable by accident! More likely to just cause minor headaches for those using it as a last resort tool!

That's a user admin account. These days the default system admin account has to be enabled manually, usually for a specific purpose, hence I don't see it affecting too many people overall!

That's a user admin account. These days the default system admin account has to be enabled manually, usually for a specific purpose, hence I don't see it affecting too many people overall!

i think Microsoft broke a record with 1809... most broken update ever. 

Source: https://www.eteknix.com/windows-10-october-update-may-ruin-admin-account/?fbclid=IwAR1etKL1YiWwgzVF9t1hAX8TihPk27RAfPfD50NdTqACZc7lTwE1SqnbZb8
 
It looks like the Windows 10 October Update is not out of the woods yet with new bugs still rearing their heads. 
 
This time, it's being reported that under a specific set of conditions, the default Administrator account can end up being invalidated after upgrading from 1803 to 1809. According to the reports, originally from GHacks:
 
 
The biggest thing for me on this is that Microsoft's recommended fix is that you either:
Create a separate account with admin privileges BEFORE installing the update, to use going forward, or; Avoid meeting the criteria Neither of these feel like real solutions to me, and there is no advice offered for anyone who might already be in this position. 
 
I can't imagine this having too much of a drastic effect for most people, but it's just another issue to add to a long line of issues, and I'm not a big fan of Microsoft's response.
 
Anyone here who uses the default administrator account and could be affected by this?
 

New from Microsoft: Slightly-less-functional-than-before-Windows 10 1809 (SP36)

Source: https://www.eteknix.com/windows-10-october-update-may-ruin-admin-account/?fbclid=IwAR1etKL1YiWwgzVF9t1hAX8TihPk27RAfPfD50NdTqACZc7lTwE1SqnbZb8
 
It looks like the Windows 10 October Update is not out of the woods yet with new bugs still rearing their heads. 
 
This time, it's being reported that under a specific set of conditions, the default Administrator account can end up being invalidated after upgrading from 1803 to 1809. According to the reports, originally from GHacks:
 
 
The biggest thing for me on this is that Microsoft's recommended fix is that you either:
Create a separate account with admin privileges BEFORE installing the update, to use going forward, or; Avoid meeting the criteria Neither of these feel like real solutions to me, and there is no advice offered for anyone who might already be in this position. 
 
I can't imagine this having too much of a drastic effect for most people, but it's just another issue to add to a long line of issues, and I'm not a big fan of Microsoft's response.
 
Anyone here who uses the default administrator account and could be affected by this?
 

Being root all the time is a bit silly, i get that.
But root is still enabled by default on linux (usually) and you can use/need root privileges for a lot of things.
 
Disabling root so you can't use it at all is a really bad idea in most cases. I get that enabling the admin on windows isn't a good idea, but i can see it making sense when you have it enabled and use it only when you need it (run as a different user is a thing soo...).
 
And the annoying bit is that the built-in admin is not the same as an admin you create. As being root allows you to do everything, even if that completely breaks the system. Being a "normal" windows admin however doesn't really give you access to everything which can be REALLY annoying sometimes compared to the built-in admin that still does not give you access to completely break everything in 5 seconds as root does, but it's a step higher than a normal admin.