221–230 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't you just redirect all that stuff it sends to 127.0.0.1 by editing your hosts file?
I've read somewhere that it ignores the hosts file for its microsoft communication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they're using DNS to resolve the name of the "mothership" just put a bogus record (or zone) in your DNS. If they're not using any name resolution protocol and you can isolate the IP addresses they're talking to just blackhole them at your border.
We're already doing that but it's hard work keeping up with it all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It hasn't even been out that long, so what kind of data amount are we talking about? Century Links 1Gbps has told multiple friends, and friends of friends that they absolutely enforce the 250GB/month limit. That's 33.33 minutes @ 1Gbps before you've hit the cap. That's untenable. XBox games are hitting 100GB each. And now the OS is pushing and pulling maybe 10% of this cap? Umm, yeah, good luck with that.
I'm sure phoning home only uses a small amount of data. But downloading the update and then sharing the update with others is where I think she got in trouble. Sharing is now turned off and the data is starting to normalize. I know I won't get any money back. But I wonder how many other people ended up paying more for Windows 10 by downloading it then had they been able to purchase it on a DVD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look. Seriously. I don't want to be a brat, but what is the possible overlap between people caring to use Tor (for whatever reason) and people using Windows 10 as the host OS ? You're at the absolute cutting edge of spyware-in-the-home, defective by design, obscured infrastructure that was designed from the ground up to be user hostile in every conceivable dimension. And you're going to run Tor on that. There's a phr…
> I don't want to be a brat, but what is the possible overlap between people caring to use Tor (for whatever reason) and people using Windows 10 as the host OS ? Journalists. There are many journalists who need to cover sensitive topics, who are not particularly technically literate. They need to be able to buy a system off the shelf, do some minimal and easy amount of installation of privacy protection, and be reaso…
Stupid question, but my Mom lives in a really rural area. Pays quite a bit for internet and is charged by the MB. Can we ask Microsoft to pay for their bandwidth usage? Since upgrading to Windows 10 she's been hit with $200 in overages.
I finally saw the bill. From the moment she started downloading Windows 10 to the moment I told her to shut the internet off, she used 20 gigs. That's ridiculous. And there is only one computer in the house. No other devices use internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of client-side crypto in a browser? Can't you be served backdoored JavaScript that no longer does proper encryption, and you'd be none the wiser?
The service provider isn't able to decode the info because the key is part of the URL that isn't sent to them. This decreases liability (and if nobody visits them, they can't be forced to decrypt it).
The service provider can still decode the info by MitM'ing.
If you are using Google Fiber, for example, your service provider can do whatever they want anyway – they control your browser, they are a CA and they are your ISP.
If not: As we’ve seen with CINNIC, MitM'ing is trivial because CAs give out root certificates far too often, far too easily
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look. Seriously. I don't want to be a brat, but what is the possible overlap between people caring to use Tor (for whatever reason) and people using Windows 10 as the host OS ? You're at the absolute cutting edge of spyware-in-the-home, defective by design, obscured infrastructure that was designed from the ground up to be user hostile in every conceivable dimension. And you're going to run Tor on that. There's a phr…
Indeed, Microsoft phoning home is on the lower end of your concerns here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If well-informed people have voted that way with their wallets, or otherwise, then I agree and of course that's their choice. However, my big concerns with a lot of modern technologies are firstly that non-geek users don't understand what they are really signing up for and secondly that even if people do understand what they're signing up for it doesn't matter if effectively the only choices available to them all hav…
I have an email address or two or more. Facebook, Google, Linkedin, Apple, Microsoft, etc. all have nodes in their graph irrespective of my use of their products or services. They have all read some fraction of my emails. There's location data on me going back potentially 18 years since I got my first cell phone. There's potentially IP logs going back to 1993 when I first went on the internet. I'm possibly in direct…
Should you feel the need to use evil apps like Facebook or Google+, make sure the 3 or 4 account names are random (but pass their filters), and that you make sure LOTS of people use those same accounts. Just understand that social media is a drug, and you are a drug addict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The service provider isn't able to decode the info because the key is part of the URL that isn't sent to them. This decreases liability (and if nobody visits them, they can't be forced to decrypt it).
This protects you from nothing. It actually makes it LESS secure. Because you now have to enable JavaScript. The service provider can still decode the info by MitM'ing. If you are using Google Fiber, for example, your service provider can do whatever they want anyway – they control your browser, they are a CA and they are your ISP. If not: As we’ve seen with CINNIC, MitM'ing is trivial because CAs give out root certi…
>The service provider can still decode the info by MitM'ing.
Yes, but as I explicitly mentioned, only if you visit the website. If NSA goes to the website and demands the data, they can't do anything with it until I visit, whereas if it was decrypted, they could. This is a non-trivial difference.
>If you are using Google Fiber, for example, your service provider can do whatever they want anyway – they control your browser, they are a CA and they are your ISP.
Google is not going to risk their entire reputation by abusing their CA. Notice how CNNIC was removed from trusted stores and basically lost their business. Mitm by compromising a CA is far from trivial. Also, certificate pinning can mitigate the CA risk almost completely.