Skip to content

Google kills the fact-checking snippet

Technology
13 9 142
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 199 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    535 Aufrufe
    C
    I spoke about the country not the people. you cannot deny the fact the capitalist hell that is the US is greedy enough to ruin anything for money.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Dyson Has Killed Its Bizarre Zone Air-Purifying Headphones

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    226 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    654 Aufrufe
    rob_t_firefly@lemmy.worldR
    I have been chuckling like a dork at this particular patent since such things first became searchable online, and have never found any evidence of it being manufactured and marketed at all. The "non-adhesive adherence" is illustrated in the diagrams on the patent which you can see at the link. The inventor proposes "a facing of fluffy fibrous material" to provide the filtration and the adherence; basically this thing is the softer side of a velcro strip, bent in half with the fluff facing outward so it sticks to the inside of your buttcrack to hold itself in place in front of your anus and filter your farts through it.
  • X/Twitter Pause Encrypted DMs.

    Technology technology
    52
    2
    255 Stimmen
    52 Beiträge
    503 Aufrufe
    L
    There may be several reasons for this. If I had to guess, they found a critical flaw and had to shut it down for security reasons.
  • 228 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    110 Aufrufe
    Z
    I'm having a hard time believing the EU cant afford a $5 wrench for decryption
  • 76 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    250 Aufrufe
    F
    https://web.archive.org/web/20250526132003/https://www.yahoo.com/news/cias-communications-suffered-catastrophic-compromise-started-iran-090018710.html?ref=404media.co
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    83 Aufrufe
    L
    I think the principle could be applied to scan outside of the machine. It is making requests to 127.0.0.1:{port} - effectively using your computer as a "server" in a sort of reverse-SSRF attack. There's no reason it can't make requests to 10.10.10.1:{port} as well. Of course you'd need to guess the netmask of the network address range first, but this isn't that hard. In fact, if you consider that at least as far as the desktop site goes, most people will be browsing the web behind a standard consumer router left on defaults where it will be the first device in the DHCP range (e.g. 192.168.0.1 or 10.10.10.1), which tends to have a web UI on the LAN interface (port 8080, 80 or 443), then you'd only realistically need to scan a few addresses to determine the network address range. If you want to keep noise even lower, using just 192.168.0.1:80 and 192.168.1.1:80 I'd wager would cover 99% of consumer routers. From there you could assume that it's a /24 netmask and scan IPs to your heart's content. You could do top 10 most common ports type scans and go in-depth on anything you get a result on. I haven't tested this, but I don't see why it wouldn't work, when I was testing 13ft.io - a self-hosted 12ft.io paywall remover, an SSRF flaw like this absolutely let you perform any network request to any LAN address in range.