Posts by Jamie Jones 4304 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
No.
The network has gone (BGP apparently)
Even if you manually overrode your DNS entries with the Facebook IP addresses, you'd not be able to connect.
You think DNS, because it's the first point of contact.
No point trying to get through the front door - the whole house has disappeared!
I agree, but it"s always been like this.
I remember dishonest developers would demonstrate their websites to the client on a fast system serving files locally, whilst the client didn't realise it was impractical on typical desktop hardware at the time with 56Kbs modems
Reminds me of the time I was messaging a friend back and fore via whatsapp. I knew she watched out for the "typing..." status message, so after a particular bit of insulting banter, I wrote something like "Oh, just remembered something. This is important:"
I sent that and then just kept tapping keys for about 15 minutes whilst I watched youtube videos on another device.
My God, it's like an article out of The Onion.
In a "debate" online with a brexitter recently, he kept spouting bollocks that he'd obviously read in the tabloids by the buzzwords he used (I mean, not debatable stuff, just out and out lies) - I posted links to trusted sources debunking his claims, he of course couldn't produce anything to back them up.
I then kept asking him what advantages brexit has given us. The only answer hr could give is that he no longer has to expkain himself to "remoaners(sic)"
Then his "mate" (who wrote in the same style, and was probably a sockpuppet) told him not to bother, as I was a brainwashed sheep who couldn't be helped. Funny, from the people that regurgitate talking points with no proof to back them up.
Yep, I tried to report an issue with the NHS DNS about a year ago, but got nowhere. Emails to their contacts details, and nominet were ignored.
Basically, one million years ago, an article for tightening up DNS servers went "viral" - stupidly, it had a list of non-assigned nets that it said you should block.
2.0.0.0/8 was one such block.
Many DNS servers to this day still block that range.
The NHS servers do. Basically, If your DNS resolver sits on a 2.0.0.0/8 address, it cannot resolve the NHS addresses (all their nameservers block 2.0.0.0/8) [ Well, they did last time I checked 6 months ago, it may be fixed now. ]
I used to generally check for sites that still blocked those addresses, and reported them. I had some successful feedback, but too much hoop-traversing that I grew tired of it. Now I just avoid setting up DNS on 2.0.0.0/8
(I just found this article about the issue http://blog.e-shell.org/302)
I haven't actually used Windows routinely since W7, so don't actually know!
Maybe I should have said "you expect admin/root on desktop computers"
The problem is, mobile phones are strictly targeting the consumer market. And android (whilst initially dev-friendly) is going the same way. And this isn't to do with "security". - Things can be made more secure without sacrificing the things that have been sacrificed.
Yeah, but many can't be disabled (like the one mentioned in this article), and besides, they still use up space.
There are many other advantages to root, manipulating storage (e.g. fighting against the dumb /sdcard /extcard fudges that have existed forever), also controlling backups, access to media files (especially after the latest android iphone-style lockup), killing rogue processes, accessing system stats (things that used to be available, but were blocked rather than put behind a specific permission), controlling adverts and "call-homes" etc.
Each successive version of android has disabled more and more functionality, and I'm fed up of having to fight to access my own property!
There is no special privileges an app like this would require. It's only a "system app" because they don't want people to uninstall it.
Any preinstalled software should be installed as a "user app" only.
I've been burnt with one of my android devices (Huawei) - it's actually a decent piece of hardware, let down by crappy software and artificial restrictions. I won't buy again from them, and won't buy another device that I can't root.
Who'd buy a windows PC that doesn't give "admin" access?
The last quarter of a century, where legislation controlling police searches of digital devices and cloud storage failed to keep pace with technology, is a blip against a long legal and historical tradition that kept police on a short leash when it came to searches and seizures.
Very much this!
Remember in the good old days, "terrorists and paedos" were not caught by dragnet wiretapping of everyones phone. We don't have every pub in Britain recording every table conversation.
Imagine the outcry if the government announced that every letter sent through Royal Mail will be opened, scanned, copied, kept, and scanned for key phrases. ? But why not? Think of the children!
People seem to accept this stuff in the digital world. Unfortunately, this propaganda TV campaign will be quite successful unless it's countered properly.
I found this article on Fox News itself, but I fear it still won't convince you - looking at your other posts, you're definitely more of an OAN/Newsmax sheep.
If you don't consider Fox News to be fake news, communist fascist socialists bankrolled by Soros, here you go:
FOX NEWS: Capitol Police officer 'didn't have a choice' in shooting Babbitt, GOP congressman says https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-officer-shooting-ashli-babbitt-gop-congressman
Mind you, he's obviously not really a GOP congressman, he's really antifa in disguise...
I know you were being largely rhetorical, so this reply isn't directly for you.
Anyway...
Trump. It all still boils down to Trump.
As you know, Trump still holds the republican base, and the Republicans are basically sucking up to these MAGAs.
It's the same reason that masks and vaccines are attacked by Texas and Florida governors, the same reason Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene are a thing.
It's all about pandering to the stupid and proudly ignorant MAGA - many of who think 6th January was justified, and should be repeated.
Nearly Half Of Republican Voters Call January 6 Riot ‘Legitimate Protest,’ Poll Finds
Trump loved enhancing dividing the American people.
Cummings and Johnson over here realised its success, and used the same tactics here for brexit.
Now we have big divides too. Brexit is still a bitter subject ,and we also have our own anti-common-sense brigade, our own mini-MAGAS.
It's not yet as extreme over here, but it will be. I hate them all.
Of course, but that's down to the company using the link, and is nothing to do with whatever carrier owns the pipe!
The original point was about China spying on the metadata of the undersea link. I contend it won't be an issue.
Basically, if I ran a company on both sides of the pond, and I wanted to buy a connection to connect them (whether I'm an ISP, transit company, or even a private company wanting to reliably link 2 sites, I'd basically run a VPN connection between the 2 sites, over this link.
Therefore it doesn't matter if China or Facebook, or anyone else is involved in the link - the only metadata they will be able to gather is how much traffic goes A <> B and when.
These sorts of links won't be carrying individual connection streams, they'll be point-to-point links for whatever company signs up to use them, and the only metadata available will be whats associated with these links..
That was my point!
Oh, and split thread, yep! Sorry for repeating myself!
I'm thinking of the company that owns sites either side of the endpoint effectively running conceptually a single VPN over the "cable". All routing etc. would be done inside the companies sites. Any ongoing sniffing of metadata would not be related to the undersea cable.
The decrypting, and then the routing would be inside the "safe zone". After that, anyone checking the metadata for individual routes would be doing so outside the transatlantic cable anyway.
Think of the "cable" only being used as one big VPN between the carriers sites either side of the link.
I would have thought a big blob of encrypted data between 2 points (not individual streams) wouldn't offer much when there are so many simultaneous users either end!
As for your second point, yes, having China involved would make it harder for the US to snoop. I didn't think about that!
As the US government showed Google, even if you have private cables and manage the ends, your data isn't safe.
Isn't it therefore now standard practice to encrypt the traffic as soon as it's travelling outside your property? In which case, where's the issue?
As an aside, where I used to work, we had a MOD related network link to Northern Ireland, and that was encrypted because underwater wasn't considered secure, and that was 25 years ago.
She's already accused Jewish millionaires of funding space lasers beaming the suns energy from space to start Californian wild fires.. what will she think when she hears a Jewish millionaire is funding something this space-sun-energy project?
Android already needs specific permission to access the network.
However, a while back, google modified the play store to grant that permission to all apps that request it, silently, without mentioning it to the user, and without any option for a user to revoke it.
So, the code is already there, but Google chose to effectively disable it.
Draw your own conclusions!
https://developer.android.com/training/basics/network-ops/connecting
Which part isn't true?
The posts i linked to said that it's accessible over IPv6 if you add the DNS records (which I listed) manually.
Marco said that if anyone posts to the forum via IPv6 he'll delete their posts, because of forum issues, which is the only reason why they haven't enabled ipv6 yet.
That was 2 years ago, but the fact they still haven't added the AAAA records implies the situation is the same, but as I said, you can actually use IPv6 by adding the AAAA records.
Nope, they are fully connected, but their forum software isn't compatible (I presume they mean IP address logging etc.) - Check out my post and the official response: https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2019/11/25/ipv4_addresses_gone/#c_3923843
Ah, but...... https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2019/11/25/ipv4_addresses_gone/#c_3923843
Yep, that was in Swansea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7702913.stm
To be fair, who thinks it's a good idea to reply with an out-of-office message in Welsh, when they run the translation service ?
Also, remember the Chinese restaurant called "Translate server error" https://boingboing.net/2008/07/15/chinese-restaurant-c.html
The "trusted" networks should mark all caller-ids coming from untrusted networks as "unavailable".
The problem is BT etc. blindly accepting the CLI handed to them by incoming networks and PBX's. There's nothing stopping BT etc. rejecting caller ID from a certain PBX if the presented number doesn't match a whitelist.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
