71–80 of 152 posts
Also, many firewalls do a 1-time DNS lookup of a given FQDN to resolve a single IP address when a FQDN based rule is created. This doesn't work well if you have an FQDN that can resolve to many different IP's, which is typical for cloud services.
If you're blocking Instagram, shouldn't you be blocking the Oculus Rift site (and any subdomains) too?
Not really, Instagram is a social network, Oculus is a device? It depends on the purpose of the list, of course, but for me they're very different.
Across my various jobs, I've had to write reports for departments, and open up permissions to internal people, to give read access for things they'd have no natural reason to care about.
If data is being collected at all, weird people will be looking at it. If not today, maybe tomorrow. But, no matter when, it's there for the looking whenever some internal lookie-loo decides it might be interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably a reaction to the news that Facebook is now officially tracking non-users to create shadow profiles and serve adverts to them off Facebook itself. I think it's the serve-adverts-off-Facebook-itself part that's the actual news; all of the moderately chilling tracking and profile construction was of course happening already. http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11795248/facebook-ad-netwo...
And yet, Google started going down a similar path since December 2009 when they introduced personalized searches for non-logged-in users and nobody tries to block them.
Will there be a point where the government will step in or is all of this tracking within fair use of non-logged in Facebook users visiting a website?
I doubt it. Judging by history, it's more likely they'll demand access to all that data.
Snowden has made it clear that that government grants itself direct access, whatever the legal situation really is.
It's also become clear that the government lets itself get away with it. And that there is no resistance from the voters who voted the politicians in and are paying not only for the politicians' salaries but also for their own total surveillance.
Do you how to apply this just for my user on OS X? My partner is heavy FB user and I don't want to block her...
Aside from being easier to automate, getting IP's via the ASN lookup is also better for blocking HTTPS requests when you are MITM, since the HTTPS request will only contain the IP and not the FQDN. Also, many firewalls do a 1-time DNS lookup of a given FQDN to resolve a single IP address when a FQDN based rule is created. This doesn't work well if you have an FQDN that can resolve to many different IP's, which is typ…
It's inefficient to specify a large number of hosts in the facebook.com domain instead of blocking the whole domain. For this, you can run dnsmasq and use the "--address" option or "address" command in dnsmasq.conf: $ man dnsmasq [...] -A, --address=/ /[domain/] Specify an IP address to return for any host in the given domains. Queries in the domains are never forwarded and always replied to with the specified IP add…
Do you how to apply this just for my user on OS X? My partner is heavy FB user and I don't want to block her...
uBlock Origin can handle hosts files, so you can just add it on the bottom of the Third Party Filters tab. It will auto-update it too. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jmdugan/blocklists/master/...
With uBO, a "facebook.com" entry in a hosts file will also cause all subdomains of "facebook.com" to also be blocked, so there is no need to list all subdomains as is done here if the goal is to block "facebook.com" with uBO.
If one wants to block Facebook via uBO, I personally advise to do it through dynamic filtering[1]. This way one can always point-and-click to create exceptions on a per-site basis.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-to...
Who really cares?