mentions | social sites like user mention plugin for e107 CMS | Plugin library

It varies between implementations, but generally, this is managed by the cache coherency protocol of the multiprocessor. In simplest terms, what happens is that when CPU1 writes to a memory location, that location will be invalidated in every other cache in the system. So that write will invalidate the line in CPU2's instruction cache as well as any (partially) decoded instructions in CPU2's uop cache (if it has such a thing). So when CPU2 goes to fetch/execute the next instruction, all those caches will miss and it will stall while things are refetched. Depending on the cache coherency protocol, that may involve waiting for the write to get to memory, or may fetch the modified data directly from CPU1's dcache, or things might go via some shared cache.

The reason seems to be explained in the source:

try this code, if you project allows you to create classes for the JSON you receives.

first created these classes

I had the same problem and I found a workaround here at https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll/issues/8523

Add gem "webrick" to the Gemfile in your website. Than run bundle install

At this point you can run bundle exec jekyll serve

For me it works!

You used the message parameter instead of command. Instead of message === 'xxx' put command === 'xxx'. Simple mistake, I think that was what you meant anyways. Of course the purge command worked because you put command === 'purge' there

I can't remember the hierarchy of an embed, but I know that doing: message.delete(time in milliseconds) will delete the original command message (in your case being !kick)

I think doing embed.message.delete(time) or embed.delete(time) should delete the embed. I haven't used discord.js in forever though so don't quote me on that.

Is it the local path to the certificate that is downloaded as CER/PEM format from Azure Key Vault ?

"clientCertificatePath is the path to a file which contains both the client certificate and private key." It always is the local path, but if you store it to OneDrive the path will format like "C:\Users\myuser\OneDrive - Microsoft\Documents\Certs".

if I am operating in private cloud, does it really matter (client secret / client certificate)?

In short, certificate is more secure than secret but it's complex to use. Which one you choose depends on your requirement. In my opinion, client secret can protect the Azure Key Vault when updating secret every few months.

There are the pros and cons of client secret and client certificate:

Client secret:

Pro: Easy to deploy - just takes some code and a secure data store. Depending on the security policy, can autogenerate passwords or force new users to create them.

Pro: Easy to administrate - password resets can (for some security policies) be done with automated tools

Con: For good security, passwords should be reset early and often. User's forgetting or failing to change passwords is either a security risk or a usability hassle.

Con: Good passwords can be hard to remember, which leads to the issues of users reusing passwords or writing them down.

Con: Password data stores are a weak point - if an intruder gets the password store, he gets the motherload.

Con: All parts of password transmission can lead to exposure - websites that store passwords locally for ease of use, internal server components that transmit in the clear, log files in COTS products that store passwords in the clear. With the secret being part of the transmission, you're only as strong as your weakest link - it takes serious effort to prevent exposure and the requirement is on both the user and the system developer.

Certificates:

Pro: Doesn't require the transmission of the secret. Proof of private key contains no secret information - mitigates all sorts of storage/transmission weak points.

Pro: Issued by a trusted party (the CA) which allows for a centralized management system for status across multiple applications. If a cert goes bad, it can get revoked. Fixing a password breakin must be done separately for each system unless a shared ID is used.

Pro: Non-repudiation case is stronger - in most password systems, the way the user is initially authenticated prior to account creation is pretty weak and the password reset mechanisms can offer another factor of plausible deniability. With many forms of certificate issuance, it's far harder for a user to say it wasn't them. Caveat - you're still only as good as your CA's issuance policies.

Pro: Serves more purposes than just authentication - can provide integrity and confidentiality as well.

Con: Still requires a password/pin - almost any private key pair storage mechanism is then unlocked with a PIN. SmartCards can have tamper protection and lockout capabilities to prevent brute force, but that doesn't fix the fact the user wrote his PIN on a sticky note next to the computer where the card is docked. Sometimes password issues reappear on a smaller scale with PKI.

Con: Complexity of infrastructure - setting up a PKI is no easy task and generally so expensive in both deployment and maintenance that it can only be used for large/expensive systems.

Con: Certificate Status reporting and updates are not easy - revoking a user credential that has become corrupted is onerous due to the size and complexity of the infrastructure. Usually, a CA generates a CRL that may or may not be provisioned within an OCSP server. Then every application should check every login for the CRL or OCSP status. This introduces a variety of time delays into the system between the time a PKI credential is reported as compromised and the time when the systems that rely on that credential actually start denying access. The speed of status update can be accelerated - but at a greater system complexity cost.

"kick" is not the event you want. "message" is what you use instead

I can get this behavior by giving a branch a name that matches the SHA1 prefix of a commit.