Posts by Jamie Jones 4306 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
They man-in-the-middle web requests to your servers?
Anyway, if I was relying on google fonts, or anything else, I'd bundle them with my site, making their point moot.
Sure, there may be caching disadvantages, but for security, reliability, and privacy, you don't depend on third party sites in your html!
Still, not as bad as those bozos who link live code to third party libraries off the third party site. The world is getting dumber...
"Privacy discussion in progress here......"
That was not a discussion. You just posted random/encrypted text. Why? What point does it prove?
- "clever"....well there's Michelle Donelan....
Using the example of politicians to win that argument is cheating!
- "big"....a matter of opinion....I'd think "privacy" was "big"....
Privacy is big. Your post was not relevant.
That leaves "funny", which you admitted it's not, so.......
My cubot "king kong 7" (silly name, i know) lasts about a week, with its 5000mAh battery, and basically runs stock android (it has google play etc. but basically has no third-party shit or bundled apps)
It's probably passed it's sell by date by now, but as my previous cubot phone also had stock android, I'm sure the newer models will too.
:-) II'm sure there are many like that - although the additional things you mention struck a cord too!
He's dead now, but I won't mention his name, but I did Electrical & Electronic Engineering at Cardiff University, 1988 - 1992 (Yes, I know I don't look that old!)
As an aside, a little bit more:
As no-one could get his notes down, people agreed to "pair up" where one would write the left hand page, and the other the right hand page etc.
One day, one student had the bright idea to bring in a Dictaphone. He wasn't trying to hide it - he sat on the front row and had the dictaphone on the shelf-desk thingie in front of him, so as to maximise audio quality .
When the good old doctor saw it, he freaked... Started ranting about "If you expect to record my words, you'll have to pay me my commercial rates of £100 an hour.
Tosser
When I was a student, most lecturers were pretty good, but one in particular was as obnoxious and arrogant as hell. He was only there for access to the labs for his own personal work, and it showed.
He was internationally known for some of his work, and brought the university kudos, which is probably why they let him get away with his disdain for students, and they way he would just read his prepared overhead slides quickly and monotonically, whilst refusing any questions.
Anyway, each year, he INSISTED that we all bought his course books, and they had to be new. Of course, they were expensive. People like him don't get my sympathy at all.
Yes. Dodgy bunch of people - they aren't against true antisemitism, they are against anyone critical of Israels right wing government, and use antiSemitism as their cover - the Rachel Riley school of thinking. (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/rachel-riley-jeremy-corbyn-photoshop-tshirt-antisemitism-racism-labour-apartheid-a9212761.html)
For those that don't know, they are powerful lobbyists, and have even strong-armed many US states into making laws to ban their departments from dealing with any company that supports BDS (a group calling for the boycott of companies in Israeli settlements in Palestine.)
Imagine if the UK government at the time banned any government departments from dealing with companies vocal against South African apartheid? So much for free speech and "land of the free".
THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE made waves last May when, in a major speech at the organization’s national leadership summit, CEO Jonathan Greenblatt announced that the ADL would devote more energy to combating anti-Zionism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” he said, promising that the ADL would apply “more concentrated energy toward the threat of radical anti-Zionism” through lawsuits, research, and lobbying. He described Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—all of which advocate for Palestinian rights—as “extremist” and the “photo inverse of the extreme right,” and implicated them in a rise in antisemitic hate crimes.
By the way, I once had a small smear campaign ran against me (only lasted a week, as I'm a nobody) where a bunch of their members piled on me posting all sorts of antisemitic accusations just because I made some comment about the Israeli government in relation to Palestine.
That reminded me of the time hard-right Israelies attacked the car of my at the time Israeli-Jewish girlfriend, when we were living together near Tel Aviv because of a Palestine sticker on her car... Apparently, she is an antisemite too :rolleyes:
OK, I see now that "badflorist" has deleted his/her silver badged account, and their posts haven been moved to "anonymous coward".
Can't we all just get along?
Don't rely on switch port segmentation as a security measure on wired networks. That's not it's intended use, and is easily circumvented in most cases.
You really need a different LAN, or proper vlan support in your switch for that (and the assumption that no-one dodgy had physical access)
As for WiFi, best to create a separate AP for the toxic devices, with a different password, and the setting to deny access via that IP to the local lan.
Most non-ISP routers have such a facility
Check the data on the wire also.
I don't know about any of the devices you mentioned specifically, but I know of at least one app that connects to a hardcoded IP if the resolved connection fails in any way - presumably it makes sense to them as a last resort, because if their server IP changes, this hardcoded ip will be changed in the next update anyway.
If I was coding to be evil, I'd cache the last-working IP permanently (only update the cached entry when a successful access is made to a resolved IP)
If discovered, I'd simply say it was to improve reliability by mitigating DNS outages.
Putting "/private" etc. into robots.txt is akin to sticking a sign on your front lawn saying "Don't steal my diamonds when I'm out all day every Monday".
Blocking by IP is almost as flakey.
If you are unable to have proper protection on the content, at least just whitelist known safe addresses (and not the whole dynamic range of an ISP!)
All major webserving software allows you to restrict URL's to a user/password without needing to do any HTML or coding
Thanks for the reply.
No, it doesn't affect private messages - they are still "blocked" - in fact, unless you've set it liberally, private messages are enabled for followers only by default already.
So, I repeat, to the obvious "security experts" on here who downvoted without replying, why is replacing block with mute an issue, when mute basically does exactly the same thing, but without the pretence of actually blocking someone?
Disabling the "blocking" option is one of Musks few good ideas.
You can still "mute", and "blocks" will be converted to "mute". Mute stops you seeing their posts, notifications, or their ability to send you private messages.
The only thing extra that "block" adds is stopping the user read YOUR posts, but on an unauthenticated system where anyone can create extra accounts, or even browse without logging in, that's useless, and just provides a false sense of security to those less knowledgeable of how things work.
As it stands, if you REALLY want to restrict someone from seeing your posts (and this ignores people cut/pasting, or screenshots etc.) you need to restrict the tweet to your followers - that is this case now, and would be the case without the "block" function.
Good point. And I used to do similar on the ZX Spectrum. Saving one byte was a great thing.
Other examples: XOR A (xor a with a) was 1 byte, whilst "LD a, 0" was 2 bytes.
Blanking unused bits of the screen, and using the area to store data...
Also a lot of what would be called "self-modifying code" to speed up loops etc.
Fun times.
Your argument makes no sense.
One scenario is an infrastructure set up to allow private 1-to-1 messages between users.
The other scenario is also an infrastructure set up to allow private 1-to-1 messages between users.
As for your firewall example, ignoring the fact your example and phrasing shows you obviously aren't very tech-literate, you may be citing the policy of certain individual companies. Definitely not all, and definitely nor on any firewall I've ever worked with.
But still, it's got nothing to do with allowing the government to hobble encryption so that they (and anyone else) can spy on your communication.
Incidentally, as a boss, if you read an employees obviously personal email, you are comiting an offence.
https://robsols.co.uk/video/can-and-employer-read-employees-emails/
"And no, I didn't create a new ID."
So you're saying that it'a a coincidence that this thread was started by CyberGRC and you register only a few days ago as cybergrcgb, and both of you post ignorant and uninfrormed comments with the style and wit of a Daily Mail reader posting on twitter?
"Truth Social is a Yank thing. You'd be happier there, it's where your trendy crowdthink comes from."
You post knee-jerk and deliberately provocative posts with the intelligence of a MAGA supporter. Now you've just added projection to the list, it just makes my case stronger.
You join here only a few months ago, and spend the whole time writing abusive, paranoid, delusional, and bigoted posts, and now you call others bigoted?
You even created a new ID yesterday because your first one was so unpopular. Congratulations - that worked out well.
Bored of "truth social", are you?
The messaging infrastructure? Talk about shooting the messenger!
So, in your world, phone companies should also be targeted.
Car manufacturers should be blamed when criminals flee crimes in vehicles, and all media companies that mention a certain concert that then gets targeted by a terrorist are also culpable?
P.S. You are weird. Worrying weird. What skeletons are you hiding?
Well said, sir. There are problems with criminal behaviour on the internet which are obvious to ordinary people even if the computer nerds deny that. Law enforcement needs powers that ordinary folk don't have.
Ok, but why pick on the internet specifically? Let's introduce the practices you seem to desire, along with:
1) Microphones in pubs and other public locations recording everything someone says, just in case someone is a pædophile or terrorist planning their attack. Hell, also in all cars and homes for the same reason.
2) Banning gatherings in outdoor places. Until we can reliably record the conversations of 2 people walking together in a park, ban such events, just in case someone is a pædophile or terrorist planning their attack.
3) Actually, don't bother with microphones in cars, ban them completely, as people can use them for pædophile or terrorist related attacks.
Who said anything about crashing?
I don't tend to crash a number of times a day - if I did, then I guess that would also be a way to log everywhere I'd been on a database that would probably be hacked and leaked.
But anyway, if you actually bothered to read what I wrote in context of the thread, I was talking about location so that it could be tied in with speed limits -- the whole comment was about speed, and I even pointed out that speeding is bad, but inappropriate and arbitrary speed limits aren't the answer.
So, nothing to do with where I live, or where my car normally sleeps or my frigging address whatsoever.
Weird how you accuse me of being a conspiracy nutter when you're the one making up conspiracies to attack me on.
incidentally, I post on here with my real name. I've posted enough on these forums that it would be piss easy to google me and find my home address. If someone from here did that, it would be unexpected, because it would mean stalking through my posts, but it wouldn't really surprise me.
Now, don't get me wrong - aliases and nicknames are fine - but don't hide anonymously whilst accusing others of being paranoid.
Now, be a dear, and re-read the post and the thread. Your therapist will thank you for doing so.
That's why I wrote "denied insurance specifically", but I concede it was rather clumsy phrasing.
I don't remember the cost differences they mentioned in their cases, but you're right - that's how this will creep in to becoming effectively compulsory - and not to be conspiratorial about it, but I'm sure the government of the day will be "persuading" the insurance companies to do this - it will save them having to legislate.
My niece and nephew haven't been denied insurance specifically, but they are both new drivers (aged 18 and 20), and have relatively expensive cars bought for them by their grandmother (on the other side).. No old bangers like in my day...
Maybe that's the reason?
I know we don't talk about up/down votes here, but I had to read your post again to try and work out why you were downvoted... Still can't see it.
Anyone wanting to protect personal privacy is on the side of filth, fraud, and terrorism?
What an idiot.
And your comparison to the EFF reminds me of the meme "anything I don't like is woke"
"Let's disable encryption to catch the bad people! It won't affect the good people!"
I suppose you're against the ECHR too because it helps "baddies" (presumably you aren't human, so don't care about your rights), and think that brexit was for *them* and not for *us*, and the EU are just picking on us by blocking our freedom of movement. In Spain, we are expats, not immigrants, after all, yeah?
How about advertising? The number of scam adverts on "respectable" services like facebook and twitter is unbelievable. And the best you can do is report them and hope they are removed.
Imagine if ITV or any other commerical television stations attempted that sort of lax oversight.
Exactly. They are just spending the rest of the time maxing out donor potential, lining themselves up for "consulting jobs" (*cough*) and generally asset stripping the country they claim to love, whilst pushing and exploiting division.
mpi didn't say anything about the EUs encryption proposals.
He/she said that this is bad for the economy, as was leaving the EU. Both statements are clearly true, and not mutually exclusive.
And if anything, it shows that leaving the EU was even more stupid if we are copying their silly ideas.
My nephew and niece have black boxes on their cars that continually log their speed. Apparently, it's to get cheaper insurance, and they're fine with that.
How long before location is also logged, and you suddenly can't get any insurance without it?
The danger isn't the careful driver driving 80 on a quiet, dry motorway, it's the idiot who drives 30 or even 20 through a crowded estate with cars parked either side, whilst kids play in the area.
Fair enough if there were clear T&C's being violated (as opposed to the vague weasely ones the ISPs used), but it's still unfair to call it "abuse" for those that simply used more space than the company expected.
And as Jimmy2cows said, "hate" is far too strong. I don't use dropbox, I don't care really, but it does bug me when "UNLIMITED" is quoted when it's not meant (And if there is "hate", it's more directed to the ISPs I mentioned - sorry dropbox!)
P.S. Not my downvote!
I've done some googling. Whilst the chromeos part is "clean",Google does allow manufacturers to effectively preload android apps (the OEM can place a startup config which is used each time arc is rebuilt/updated)
Fortunately, the apps are installed as if a user installed them, so can be deleted again. I guess this is what is going on..
https://www.omgchrome.com/chromebook-oems-ship-android-bloatware
My interest is piqued now - I'll check it out when I next visit my mum!
Cheers
Thanks.
I'm guessing that that's the case, but I don't remember.
The thing does still receive full updates from google, has had ARC replaced with ARCvm (which it isn't powerful enough to handle :-( Asus Chromebook CM3) and has even been through a complete reset "powerwash" - I do have the thing in 'developer mode' and can access as root the arcvm partition, so I may have a look sometime next time I'm over there.
I guess rhere must be some vendor-specific area that is untouched that contains it.
On the subject of being forced to, I have a chromebook I keep over my mums that I use when I'm staying with her, and EVERY time there is a chromeos update, dropbox is installed as an android app, with startup privileges.
Every time, I uninstall it, I don't use dropbox at all. Damn annoying.Even worse that a U2 album (just!)
I came here to say the same thing.
Remember when network data was more expensive, but to get more customers, some residential ISPs offered "unlimited bandwidth", .. then they all did.... yet when people started using that bandwidth, they too moaned about abusive behaviour.
Same situation.
The only abuse is by companies offering something and then backtracking.
If you really don't want users to go over 35TB, then cap it at 35TB and quit the bullshit advertising.
Don't use a meta tag - you're still trusting people to honour your decision.
You need to block pages/directories explicitly at the server level. If you are going to make use of the declared "user-agent" (as you sort of are if you are thinking of robots.txt, but again, this has issues), then block the page using that:
In apache, you can use setenvif - it's easier, but less powerful, or you can use mod_rewrite.
Either method can be applied to specific files or directories.
apache mod_rewrite and nginx: https://geekflare.com/block-unwanted-requests/
apache setenvif: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51972679/how-to-block-a-specific-user-agent-in-apache
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
