[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Oh yeah, please do imagine there is no such thing as a time zone.

On an ellipsoid!

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

If you use HTTPS, the attacker can still see what websites you connect to, they just can't see what you are sending or receiving. So basically they can steal your browsing history, which defeats the purpose of a commercial VPN for many users.

This is blatantly false. They can see IP addresses and ports of you connect to from IP packets, and hostnames from TLS negotiation phase (and DNS requests if you don’t use custom DNS settings). HTTP data is fully encrypted when using HTTPS.

If exposing hostnames and IP addresses is dangerous, chances are that establishing a VPN connection is as dangerous.

[-] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

Control of the DHCP server in the victim’s network is required for the attack to work.

This is not a VPN vulnerability, but a lower level networking setup manipulation that negates naive VPN setups by instructing your OS to send traffic outside of VPN tunnel.

In conclusion, if your VPN setup doesn’t include routing guards or an indirection layer, ISP controlled routers and public WiFis will make you drop out of the tunnel now that there’s a simple video instruction out there.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Support for QUIC and HTTP/3 protocols is available since 1.25.0. Also, since 1.25.0, the QUIC and HTTP/3 support is available in Linux binary packages.

https://nginx.org/en/docs/quic.html

2023-05-23 nginx-1.25.0 mainline version has been released, featuring experimental HTTP/3 support.

https://nginx.org/2023.html

It’s not a dev code. It would also take a mere minute to check this before failing to sound smart.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Even better, the dude forked because a security issue in “experimental” but nonetheless released feature was responsibly announced.

Talk about an ego.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this allow one to represent virtually any resource as a mail inbox/outbox with access through a generic mail app?

I’m working with a specialized healthcare company right now, and this looks like a way to represent patient treatments data as an intuitive timeline of messages. With a local offline cache in case of outages. Security of local workstations is a weak point of course, but when is it not…

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That’s not how evolution works. Traits don’t evolve “to be useful”. Anyone who claims a goal to evolution has failed to grasp evolution.

Evolution converges on local maxima by selecting for traits that are good enough to continuously propagate through the filter of individuals death. For sexual reproduction, if a trait is not bad enough to continuously reduce carriers’ presence in a mating pool, it can and will remain.

It’s survival of not inadequate enough.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They don’t measure emission but body absorption. Body limit is 2 W/kg, limbs limit is 4 W/kg. Apparently only the latter limit is violated.

For meat sacks like us it primarily translates to heat. At frequencies used, this radiation can nudge molecules a bit, which directly translates to heating up. If it was in a hundreds of watts, we’d be approaching microwave ovens territory.

The limits are there because there’s a limit to how much heat a body can efficiently dissipate, and quite a few sources of it. There’s also a concern that localized RF heating can cause cancer, which is not empirically confirmed. I personally care more about a confirmed issue of the nuclear ball in the sky causing one.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/france-demands-apple-pull-iphone-12-due-to-high-rf-radiation-levels/amp/

PS: Totally forgot, just by existing and occasionally eating, you’re generating roughly 1W per kilogram of body mass, probably a bit more.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Every time someone confidently claims that we can cryptographically verify voting, they are deliberately or ignorantly keeping the complexity and necessity of verifying the verifier runtime, the data source, and the communication channels out of the picture.

Cryptography doesn’t solve voting verification problem, it obscures and shifts it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

By becoming a CTO and having an early retirement. Or not at all.

view more: next ›

Slotos

joined 1 year ago