81–90 of 519 posts
Well, this is what happens when countless startups go to a couple of web hosters in the name of outsourcing unsexy stuff like racking and stacking servers.
The title is a bit clickbaity. It makes complete sense why Amazon will not be happy with domain fronting. Side note, Not sure what the point of [Redacted] is as it's trivial to get name from > General Manager, Amazon CloudFront
I'm thinking of a legislative, not technological solution to this, which seems to be pretty straightforward: make it unlawful for US companies to refuse service simply for Domain fronting. That way, none of the big companies could lawfully refuse service to Signal; neither could they be faulted by these other regimes for "letting Signal use their domain".
No, the solution is to solve the technical problem of leaking metadata during the TLS handshake. Should it also be unlawful to refuse service to someone who pretends to be you when they resell your widgets to the mob because they fear retaliation if the mob isn't happy with the goods?
Their AWS wasn't threatened, only their ability to use CloudFront. We will immediately suspend your use of CloudFront if you use third party domains without their permission to masquerade as that third party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were self-hosted, it would be even easier for Iran to block them.
If they hosted on VMs they would simply hop from one place to the other. The problem is that all of this stuff is "difficult" and no one would be writing stories about how great signal is if it could switch between thousands of companies that provide VMs to masses. We do not have these thousands of companies because AWS/GCS/Azure are the go to. Well, guess what? That means that objectively there are three kings of th…
It seems centralized solutions (Telegram, Signal) are under fire recently. I wonder what would happen if federated protocols (Matrix, XMPP, etc.) were more popular and, thus, also in spotlight.
They say it doesn't solve the problem - "Would adding federation to Signal help with users behind country-wide blocks? Seems like a distributed service would be harder to censor than a centralized one." - "It's trivial to block several distributed hosts simultaneously. An aspiring censor would simply find the most common federated endpoints for a given service and block all of them. Only the users of that software wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were self-hosted, it would be even easier for Iran to block them.
If they hosted on VMs they would simply hop from one place to the other. The problem is that all of this stuff is "difficult" and no one would be writing stories about how great signal is if it could switch between thousands of companies that provide VMs to masses. We do not have these thousands of companies because AWS/GCS/Azure are the go to. Well, guess what? That means that objectively there are three kings of th…