Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.8k
  • 11 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    128 Aufrufe
    jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldJ
    No, re-read. It is about technology.
  • Airbnb Hosting Assistants

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    176 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 29% of adults couldn't go hour without internet - survey

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    68 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    70 Aufrufe
    saltsong@startrek.websiteS
    Because we don't want them doing surge pricing.
  • 202 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    79 Aufrufe
    A
    If you are taking business advice from ChatGPT that includes purchasing a ChatGPT subscription or can’t be bothered to look up how it works beforehand then your business is probably going to fail.
  • Covert Web-to-App Tracking via Localhost on Android

    Technology technology
    3
    29 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    P
    That update though: "... completely removed..." I assume this is because someone at Meta realized this was a huge breach of trust, and likely quite illegal. Edit: I read somewhere that they're just being cautious about Google Play terms of service. That feels worse.
  • 31 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 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.