Skip to content

FTC’s click-to-cancel rule has been struck down by federal judges at the eleventh hour

Technology
11 11 0
  • 75 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    What's the difference? They all look the same. Let's call him the boy with the golden spoon in his mouth who got offended.
  • I build a YouTube to Transcript online tool

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Secure Your Gmail Now As Google Warns Of Password Attacks

    Technology technology
    9
    1
    53 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    J
    I tried to but they wanted to force me to give them my phone number. Fuck them, they don't need it.
  • 437 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    mcasq_qsacj_234@lemmy.zipM
    Oh well, Apple its time to form an alliance with Microsoft to create the iOS Subsystem for Windows and the macOS Subsystem for Windows.
  • You're not alone: This email from Google's Gemini team is concerning

    Technology technology
    298
    1
    838 Stimmen
    298 Beiträge
    700 Aufrufe
    M
    My understanding is that, in broad strokes... Aurora acts like a proxy or mirror that doesn't require you to sign in to get Google Play Store apps. It doesn't provide any other software besides what you specifically download from it, and it doesn't include any telemetry/tracking like normal Google Play Store would. microG is a reimplementation of Google Play services (the suite of proprietary background services that Google runs on normal Android phones). MicroG doesn't have the bloat and tracking and other closed source functionality, but rather acts as a stand-in that other apps can talk to (when they'd normally be talking to Google Play services). This has to be installed and configured and I would refer to the microG github or other documentation. GrapheneOS has its own sandboxed Google Play Services which is basically unmodified Google Play Services, crammed into its own sandbox with no special permissions, and a compatibility layer that retains some functionality while keeping it from being able to access app data with high level permissions like it would normally do on a vanilla Android phone.
  • A.I. Companies Believe They're Making God with Karen Hao [1:14:07]

    Technology technology
    8
    45 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    P
    … it was
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    218 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    34 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.