tinus_hn

A delay for all these things after a password reset should have been there from the start and should not require an iOS upgrade as it should be server side.

It’s like the sleazy old Microsoft tricks where every update to Frontpage introduced a little new construct that would ‘happen to’ cause Netscape to crash. Just typical monopolist behavior.

Yeah, the action is just ‘Google Chrome gets the good settings and the rest can eat dirt’. It’s not specifically Asahi Linux that Google/Youtube is acting antisocially to here.

Alternatively if you can’t have a closed ecosystem, there’s no incentive in creating the next generation of consoles and console gaming is dead.

Even if you limit it to the US, they have 56% which is only a very small majority. Are you trying to argue that that 44% of users not on iOS can’t message others because of that terrible Apple monopoly? Frankly, that’s just ridiculous and your fantasy case is so hopelessly going nowhere nobody is going to even start it.

If you only have friends that also have iOS devices, you can create an iMessage group and send messages in it. I don’t know how that works in the US but apparently it’s really popular.

You wonder how anyone survives in all of the world where nobody uses iMessage (which is everywhere except the US). How do people even manage to open WhatsApp? How do people survive this horror!

A case against a monopoly with a minority market share. Good luck with that!

‘Default bindings’ sounds like it’s configurable to be different. Is it?

You wonder why the company with 95% market share is treated differently than the company with 40% market share.

You need a device key to use an iCloud account, and all Beeper clients were using the same device key. So unsurprisingly, it’s not hard for Apple to block. And this doesn’t mean they peep into the messages.

Yes. And then as with that solution, in many cases it doesn’t work and you have to fall back to regular polling. If you remember to detect that the connection has dropped. And then the testing defeats the purpose because it wakes up the radios.

So now you’ve packaged the problem in a new layer that doesn’t solve anything but creates new problems.

The concept of an open connection waiting for the server to say anything is not novel or special, it just, as we already know, doesn’t really work reliably, you have to do more work to make it reliable.

The interesting part is not in sending the messages but in receiving them. How are you going to fetch that email?

That theory clearly is from before efficient patent enforcement and licensing. If you do the research, you get a ton of patents so you can charge the companies that are actually successful at putting your work in a marketable solution.

Gee, I wonder what little trick they have up their sleeves so they can at least make sure Google Tag Manager can keep tracking users. For their own benefit, of course.

This solution also works:

* if you’re this paranoid, do not give your phone to a stranger

That is not what this attack does. You steal the laptop and then do a trick to unlock the secrets without giving back the laptop. Your MITM is fooling the fingerprint reader and the OS, not the user.

The point of the system is to protect against an attacker who steals the laptop so it is a complete failure.

Take a look at how secure Microsoft’s solution really is:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/22/23972220/microsoft-windo...

You can rest assured that the phone company 100% securely knows who to bill for the call. They just aren’t telling you.

Just use another service where you pay €5 a month by volunteering your private data.

Running servers and writing software is not free.

Why would there be a demand for solving someone else’s problem, when you can just say ‘it’s aviation, change is too hard’ and people will eat it up anyway.

Now there’s something Google Chrome would never do, phoning home.

Luckily most people have finally tired of this endless whinery and realized that summertime really isn’t a big deal and we have bigger fish to fry.

No, the problem is this Shrödinger’s unsafety.

If the environment is safe, don’t expose it, functions that expose it are unsafe and should be documented as unsafe and unavailable in production.

If the functions are normal, the environment is unsafe, don’t store secrets there.

You have to make a choice, it can’t be half of both. That is the real issue.

The series is like the old quaint quirky Twilight Zone series. Except it takes itself so serious it’s just not quaint and quirky.

Then perhaps you shouldn’t be doing that? Or if the position is that environment variables are suitable to hold secrets, the php folks should document the phpinfo function as a security risk and something that should not be available to unauthenticated users.

Not choosing is not an option, it leads to this ‘max severity score’ ‘vulnerability’.

The ‘exploit’ is running phpinfo. Is this really that big of a deal?

What do you mean by ‘a player that decodes an app on an AppleTV’?

If your AppleTV is running an app that is playing media, that app is the player. And that app will add the new keys, that it finds in the media it is playing, to its revocation list so that app can no longer play any protected media to the blocked device. It will refuse to communicate with the inline box because the key used by the box is now on the revocation list.

And there probably is some mechanism that causes this to apply systemwide, either because the encryption and list management is in some dedicated chip or because the list is shared systemwide.

There is a provision that works using new content which could instruct the player to add certain keys to a revocation list. So if you buy a new Blu-ray and play it your player can be longer work with that key.

These systems are so thoroughly broken though that as far as I know this has never been used and the protection is more of a legal one.

It could be a thin metal foil that comes in rolls and alternatively would be usable to create a protective hat!