Still haven't fixed https://xkcd.com/773/
863 karma · joined January 8, 2015
"yeah but you could serve a different page with the curl UA"
ok, then you just change about:config?
Lots of apps include features that were never really asked for by the customer, but are included because it was easier for the developer.
Uhh. So, this point to a book called Less is More — How Degrowth Will Save the World. In that book this statement is indeed made, and as a source it points to "Andre Gorz, Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology, trans. Chris Turner (London: Verso, 1994).". But in that book I can't find any reference to it. Was is completely made up?
After he retired from politics, he was featured in several advertisements:
- In 1994 for Apple Computer: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/10/07/The-first-advertisem...
- In 1998 for Pizza Hut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev_Pizza_Hut_commercial
- In 2000 for the ÖBB, the Austrian railways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLscz8kEg6c
- In 2007 for Louis Vuitton: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05vuitton....
Bubblejail is an acceptable alternative https://github.com/igo95862/bubblejail
Or do you mean that downgrade attacks are still easy to deploy? Under what circumstances?
Can some mod or the OP that submitted this post change the title to "Wi-Fine: it is fine to use public Wi-Fi"? The current one is not very descriptive.
Also, let me know if any of you have comments to me specifically.
> We have decades of odd random kernel oopses that could never be explained and were likely due to bad memory. And if it causes a kernel oops, I can guarantee that there are several orders of magnitude more cases where it just caused a bit-flip that just never ended up being so critical.
It might be false, but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
I have watched the stream, it consists of an overview of security holes in SS7 and newer protocols. The vulnerabilities are either blocked by the ISP, or not blocked but require the attacker to have a lot of information about the target. An exception to this is https://simjacker.com/ which is unlikely to be blocked and only requires the full phone number of the victim.
An interesting point in the talk was the missing "economy of scale" in the pricing system of the surveillance companies. If you want to spy on more victims, the costs rises exponentially, because it becomes more likely that the attacker will be blocked by the ISP.
They were designed by Peter Verheul[2] and were used in replacing all the logos of Dutch government agencies with a new style that is easy to recognize, combined with the new Rijkslogo.[3]
[1] https://www.rijkshuisstijl.nl/basiselementen/basiselementen-...
In an ideal situation, me neither. But there are a lot of users who use for example Windows 7, which will never get encrypted DNS on system level. Browsers get updates and can provide more DNS security for the average user. Not a single average user is going to configure a DNSCrypt client on their computer.
> Especially since DNS encryption and anonymization is already done on the router for the whole network.
So you would prefer using a DHCP provided DNS server on untrusted Wi-Fi networks and let it snoop on DNS queries?
Yeah no. OpenBSD developers did a really good job by improving the codebase of OpenSSL. See also some of their presentations: https://www.libressl.org/papers.html