Skip to content

matrix is cooked

Technology
75 33 175
  • 254 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    150 Aufrufe
    W
    Did you, by any chance, ever wonder, why people deal with hunger instead of just eating cake?
  • 53 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    B
    There is nothing open about openai, and that was obvious way before they released chatgpt.
  • 257 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    L
    Maybe you're right: is there verification? Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA. TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language. Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn't exclusively mean content removal, though they're doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.) Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they're chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it's unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that's contorting language for the sake of avoiding idiotic restrictions.
  • How the US is turning into a mass techno-surveillance state

    Technology technology
    66
    1
    484 Stimmen
    66 Beiträge
    215 Aufrufe
    D
    Are these people retarded? Did they forget Edward Snowden?
  • 24 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    S
    Said it the day Broadcom bought them, they're going to squeeze the smaller customers out. This behavior is by design.
  • X launches E2E encrypted Chat

    Technology technology
    55
    2
    10 Stimmen
    55 Beiträge
    187 Aufrufe
    F
    So you do have evidence? Where is it?
  • 175 Stimmen
    38 Beiträge
    139 Aufrufe
    whotookkarl@lemmy.worldW
    It's not a back door, it's just a rear entryway
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    36 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.