Skip to content

Google confirms more ads on your paid YouTube Premium Lite soon

Technology
268 191 0
  • Stepping outside the algorithm

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    18 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Uploading The Human Mind Could Become a Reality, Expert Says

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    7 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    r3d4ct3d@midwest.socialR
    what mustard is best for the human body?
  • 1 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    Where and what is texas?
  • 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.
  • 12 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 163 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    L
    Online group started by a 15 year old in Texas playing Minecraft and watching extreme gore they said in this article. Were they also involved in said sexual exploiting of other kids, or was that just the spin offs that came from other people/countries? It all sounds terrible but I wonder if this was just a kid who did something for attention and then other perpetrators got involved and kept taking it further and down other rabbit holes. Definitely seems like a know what your kid is doing online scenario, but also yikes on all the 18+ members who joined and participated in such.
  • 33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet