Skip to content

Google confirms more ads on your paid YouTube Premium Lite soon

Technology
268 191 0
  • 44 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    artocode404@lemmy.dbzer0.comA
    Googlebot sad when disallowed access to 18+ videos
  • Programming languages

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 18 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    freebooter69@lemmy.caF
    The US courts gave corporations person-hood, AI just around the corner.
  • 116 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    darkdarkhouse@lemmy.sdf.orgD
    The terror will continue until you join us, then we will be nice, I promise!
  • My AI Skeptic Friends Are All Nuts

    Technology technology
    25
    1
    12 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    owenfromcanada@lemmy.caO
    I'm a senior with a good boss, I pretty much just ignore it. And fortunately, at least in my company, most people have done that (especially with the safety critical stuff). But management still has a way of making your life miserable when you stand your ground on this kind of thing, so it's also common to just tell them some bullshit and go about your job.
  • 24 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    S
    I think you're missing some key points. Any file hosting service, no matter what, will have to deal with CSAM as long as people are able to upload to it. No matter what. This is an inescapable fact of hosting and the internet in general. Because CSAM is so ubiquitous and constant, one can only do so much to moderate any services, whether they're a large corporation are someone with a server in their closet. All of the larger platforms like 'meta', google, etc., mostly outsource that moderation to workers in developing countries so they don't have to also provide mental health counselling, but that's another story. The reason they own their own hardware is because the hosting services can and will disable your account and take down your servers if there's even a whiff of CSAM. Since it's a constant threat, it's better to own your own hardware and host everything from your closet so you don't have to eat the downtime and wait for some poor bastard in Nigeria to look through your logs and reinstate your account (not sure how that works exactly though).
  • 1 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    T
    ...is this some sort of joke my Nordic brain can't understand? I need to go hug a councilman.
  • 1 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    3 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.