201–210 of 456 posts
> DNS over HTTPS means ISPs can’t spy on their users The ISP can still do a reverse look up of the IP address to see where the traffic is going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's plans usually have carefully laid out technical justifications, and are mostly kinda boringly/obviously good, like QUIC/HTTP3. That you're usually skeptical of any plan coming from Google suggests that your skepticism is miscalibrated.
Google's technical justifications are usually pathetically self-serving. My favorite example: Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? There are obvious improvements to privacy if we switch to server-managed sessions chosen by user-provided identities, and get rid of cookies, but it would frustrate Google's tracking of us, so it can't happen.
Browser vendors generally try not to break millions of webpages overnight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if VPN over Tor (or Tor over VPN) increases anonymity then why is it the popular advice on the Net is not to do it?
I mean routing traffic to Tor entry guards through VPN services. The Tor Project does indeed not recommend that. They argue that using a VPN service is risky, because it can log everything. Where access to entry guards is blocked, they recommend using bridges (of one sort or another) run by Tor volunteers. I don't agree with that argument. Because ISPs can already do that. And for most people, their ISP is far more l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's plans usually have carefully laid out technical justifications, and are mostly kinda boringly/obviously good, like QUIC/HTTP3. That you're usually skeptical of any plan coming from Google suggests that your skepticism is miscalibrated.
Here's a twitter thread worth reading, from the former VP of the Firefox group: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 It's easy to make proposals that incrementally increase user security while simultaneously increasing one's own ability to consolidate and exploit user data. Technical appeal needs to be evaluated with a simultaneous critical eye to social impact (QUIC is a perfect example -- it outco…
Do you have a citation for your claims? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean routing traffic to Tor entry guards through VPN services. The Tor Project does indeed not recommend that. They argue that using a VPN service is risky, because it can log everything. Where access to entry guards is blocked, they recommend using bridges (of one sort or another) run by Tor volunteers. I don't agree with that argument. Because ISPs can already do that. And for most people, their ISP is far more l…
It seems you take your privacy very seriously. But isn't it futile? I mean, the common layman response to privacy issues is something on the lines of "I'm not a criminal terrorist so what do I care". They have a point, the individual doesn't really bear direct consequences of losing privacy (unless he is a terrorist, criminal etc). The privacy issue is a social one, only when masses of individuals are spied upon, the…
Even if there were laws and regulations that better protected privacy, you couldn't count on that. You can't trust government agencies, because they stretch the limits, and outright lie about what they do.
I also do it because it's fun.
> the company has no plans to switch Chrome users to its own DNS servers. Meanwhile, the Chromecast inexplicably ignores DHCP/NDP-provided DNS servers and uses 8.8.8.8 for all queries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume that all US TLAs have (or could have) access to all data that my ISP logs (or could log). That's just how it is. Given government ~monopoly on force. And that's why I use VPN services. But the same is true for VPN services, regarding US and/or other TLAs. So I use nested VPN chains, to make it harder to get complete data. And when it really matters, I add Tor to the mix. Even if it's heavily infiltrated by U…
So if VPN over Tor (or Tor over VPN) increases anonymity then why is it the popular advice on the Net is not to do it?
And anything that likes a persisted connection is likely to get a lot of connection resets. Like websockets (slack) or irc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why someone who knows how to do any of that, would think it is a good idea or go along with implementing that. The shitbirds who actually want to do this type of thing are not smart enough to execute it.
Personally I have absolutely zero qualms with implementing any system to collect mass analytics. I just don’t give a shit, at these scales users are cattle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why you'd think direct to the root DNS servers would be worse than using your ISPs servers. Using the root servers means you get DNSSEC which would prevent the greatest threats, hijacking and injection.
There is virtually no DNSSEC deployed on any major sites on the Internet and, because DNSSEC is a terrible protocol, it's unlikely there ever will be. I'm a broken record on this; you can just search "author:tptacek DNSSEC" in the bar below to get lots of different reasons why. The most important thing for this thread though is that DNSSEC provides zero privacy and, in ordinary deployments (where you talk to a namese…