Skip to content

Apple to Australians: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps

Technology
49 39 0
  • Firefox is dead to me – and I'm not the only one who is fed up

    Technology technology
    55
    1
    44 Stimmen
    55 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    Never had issue with Firefox in my day to day use, sites load fine, uBlock stops all the annoyances and thankfully youtube works well for me.
  • 811 Stimmen
    150 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    C
    The top hits for my "WSB" search are: World Sports Betting r/WallStreetBets World Superbikes I don't think any of their goons are astroturfing (well, maybe World Superbikes). Did you mean a different entity?
  • 2k Stimmen
    317 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    M
    I have a perfectly fine moral framework According to what? Not everyone has the same beliefs and negative attitude toward it Not everyone thinks female circumcision is bad either. for some it can even have a positive impact. Lol I don’t believe in absolutist terms. Do you absolutely believe that? While your continued failure to comprehend my initial comment is astonishing Your initial comment is indicative of somebody who hasn't thought seriously about their worldview but feels confident about critiquing others.
  • You probably don't remember these but I have a question

    Technology technology
    52
    2
    96 Stimmen
    52 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    lordwiggle@lemmy.worldL
    Priorities man, priorities
  • 366 Stimmen
    198 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    F
    Okay but we were talking about BTC pump and dumps and to perform that on the massive scale which dwarfs any stock ticker below the top 5 by hundreds of billions of dollars while somehow completely illuding people who watch the blockchain like hawks for big movers... It's just not feasible. You would have to be much richer than the official richest man on earth and have almost all of your assets liquid and then on top of that you would need millions of wallets acting asynchronously. And why would you even bother? If you're that rich you could just not hide it.
  • 479 Stimmen
    81 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    douglasg14b@lemmy.worldD
    Did I say that it did? No? Then why the rhetorical question for something that I never stated? Now that we're past that, I'm not sure if I think it's okay, but I at least recognize that it's normalized within society. And has been for like 70+ years now. The problem happens with how the data is used, and particularly abused. If you walk into my store, you expect that I am monitoring you. You expect that you are on camera and that your shopping patterns, like all foot traffic, are probably being analyzed and aggregated. What you buy is tracked, at least in aggregate, by default really, that's just volume tracking and prediction. Suffice to say that broad customer behavior analysis has been a thing for a couple generations now, at least. When you go to a website, why would you think that it is not keeping track of where you go and what you click on in the same manner? Now that I've stated that I do want to say that the real problems that we experience come in with how this data is misused out of what it's scope should be. And that we should have strong regulatory agencies forcing compliance of how this data is used and enforcing the right to privacy for people that want it removed.
  • European Open Web Index goes public in June 2025

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    13 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    5 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.