Skip to content

Rule34 blocked the UK entirely rather than comply due to the new law.

Technology
178 109 59
  • 322 Stimmen
    27 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    E
    It's been proven several times that the amount of money they spend tackling benefit forward far exceeds the amount of fraud. It would literally be cheaper if they just moved over to UBI
  • 181 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    95 Aufrufe
    P
    I really want to know the name of the contractor who made that proposal.
  • Something I noticed

    Technology technology
    2
    3 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    H
    This would be better suited in some casual ranting community. Or one concerned with tech bros. I think it's completely off topic here.
  • How not to lose your job to AI

    Technology technology
    16
    1
    9 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    76 Aufrufe
    rikudou@lemmings.worldR
    A nice "trick": After 4 or so responses where you can't get anywhere, start a new chat without the wrong context. Of course refine your question with whatever you have found out in the previous chat.
  • 558 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    397 Aufrufe
    N
    In this year of 2025? No. But it still is basically setting oneself for failure from the perspective of Graphene, IMO. Like, the strongest protection in the world (assuming Graphene even is, which is quite a tall order statement) is useless if it only works on the mornings of a Tuesday that falls in a prime number day that has a blue moon and where there are no ATP tennis matches going on. Everyone else is, like, living in the real world, and the uniqueness of your scenario is going to go down the drain once your users get presented with a $5 wrench, or even cheaper: a waterboard. Because cops, let alone ICE, are not going to stop to ask you if they can make you more comfortable with your privacy being violated.
  • 2 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    quarterswede@lemmy.worldQ
    I give it 5 years before this is on our phones.
  • 297 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    140 Aufrufe
    S
    This is not a typical home or office printer, very specialized.
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    40 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.