Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

thinkbroadband.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#41

Post by davidgerard »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #15
belorn wrote: post #3

ISP interference makes for a interesting question regarding liability. Their interference are now potentially causing massive amount of economic damages to companies which relies on jquery library. Webshops, economic infrastructure, hospitals, transportation systems are just a few that relies on having fully functional websites up and running. But for liability, a few questions pops up. Who is the offended party, and…

Alternatively, does code.jquery.com offer any kind of uptime guarantee? Big companies would rather rely on their own hosting / CDN than that of jquery, I'm sure.

code.jquery.com has in fact gone down in the past, and this did in fact bite my workplace in the backside.

We went to locally-hosted copies of jquery stuff. We kept using Google for JS they hosted, since their uptime way beats ours.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#43

Post by laumars »

csmithuk wrote: post #25
laumars wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point here. Some parents are not tech-savy and thus depend on the controls given to them by their ISP (etc) to help manage the level of access their kids have to the internet. Suggesting they simply turn off the parental controls doesn't actually fix the problem, it just shifts the problem (ie the problem is shifted from sites not functioning properly to kids having access to everything). While I d…

Perhaps the parents should spend some time with their children and show them what is appropriate and what is not? I have three children, all of whom use the Internet regularly and bar some passive monitoring, I've done nothing. They have healthy browsing habits. Blacklists, censorship, firewalls and control are missing the point... Plus you're going to get goatse'd at some point in your life...

> Perhaps the parents should spend some time with their children and show them what is appropriate and what is not?

Kids will already know this, the question is whether they still wish to push their luck if they think they can get away with it. If they're anything like me, then they will :)

So I wouldn't trust my kids with an unfiltered internet any more than I'd give them satellite / cable TV in their rooms before a sensible age as I cannot simply assume that they wouldn't watch adult movies / etc, after I've gone to bed.

Sometimes it's better to remove the temptation than to give your kids access to the entirety of the adulthood and hope they're sensible / innocent enough not to abuse that trust. Much like I wouldn't keep junk food in the house if I'm trying to lose weight.

> I have three children, all of whom use the Internet regularly and bar some passive monitoring, I've done nothing. They have healthy browsing habits.

How can you be so sure what your kids do when you're not looking?

> Plus you're going to get goatse'd at some point in your life...

In that case lets also show them "2 Girls 1 Cup" on their 8th birthday; because it's bound to happen one day :p

> Blacklists, censorship, firewalls and control are missing the point...

Actually I do partly agree with this (and the passive monitoring comment I mentioned earlier). As argumentative as I might come across, I do agree that the best form of moderation is to keep the internet restricted to a family PC in a communal area. Not everyone does this though.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#44

Post by csmithuk »

davb wrote: post #33
voltagex_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interested Australian user here. That's about half of the cost of our cheaper monthly ADSL2 plans - what's the catch? How far away from the exchange are you?

Sky don't have the best reputation when it comes to issue resolution. I was a former Sky broadband customer and found their customer care and technical teams to be woefully lacking. Additionally, they have no real SLA to speak of, and all of their service plans (as far as I understand) have a standard 1:50 contention ratio. Ouch. And when I was a customer (a couple of years ago), they refused to divulge the the ADSL…

I'm actually using my line for home working 100% of the time. However I have a backup (3G card in my laptop and friendly neighbours with different ISPs including different mode Cable and WiFi). I think that is a better investment than an expensive line to start with simply because regardless of who you are with, the end of the line is with OpenReach who are abysmal. The difference between £100/month and £7.50/month is moot then.

I treat my home connection like a coffee shop's WiFi.

The real meat and two veg of my setup is a hosted desktop I RDP into and a number of hosted Linux machines.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#45

Post by pornel »

al2o3cr wrote: post #29
nly wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? Because webmasters would rather compromise the security and integrity of their site, and the privacy of their users, than pay for the initial burst of bandwidth and latency for first time visitors. jQuery 2.1.0 production, minified and gzipped is still over 30KiB, compared to this thinkbroadband page which is only 6 KiB (and yes this page uses about half a dozen externa…

Sure, that sounds brilliant: allow anybody who can compute a hash collision to poison other sites' JS libraries. facepalm

That's not hash collision, that's hash preimage attack.

If you can perform hash preimage attack, then faking a JS library is aiming really low.

• You could forge any SSL certificate.

• You could forge any PGP/GPG message (public key crypto is not applied to whole messages, only hashes of them, same with certs).

• You could maliciously modify Git repositories, even those with GPG signed releases like the Linux kernel.

• You could inject malware into any package repository, MITM software updates for all OSes, etc.

Basically security of the entire Internet and all secure software distribution depends on the fact that preimage attack against crypto hashes is impossible (i.e. time and/or energy required to perform a brute-force attack is literally astronomical).

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#46

Post by dictum »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #38
nly wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would anyone use code.jquery.com, really? Because webmasters would rather compromise the security and integrity of their site, and the privacy of their users, than pay for the initial burst of bandwidth and latency for first time visitors. jQuery 2.1.0 production, minified and gzipped is still over 30KiB, compared to this thinkbroadband page which is only 6 KiB (and yes this page uses about half a dozen externa…

I want to know what privacy concerns you have regarding static CDNs that you don't implicitly give up by accessing the Internet.

Not sending Referer headers to Google.

(Yes, it becomes a problem when you use private browsing, since the cache is cleared when you end the session.)

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#47

Post by codeonfire »

dictum wrote: post #46
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know what privacy concerns you have regarding static CDNs that you don't implicitly give up by accessing the Internet.

Not sending Referer headers to Google. (Yes, it becomes a problem when you use private browsing, since the cache is cleared when you end the session.)

This is what it's all about. These cdn sites exist not out of good will, but because they give tracking information.

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#48

Post by tokenizerrr »

davidgerard wrote: post #41
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, does code.jquery.com offer any kind of uptime guarantee? Big companies would rather rely on their own hosting / CDN than that of jquery, I'm sure.

code.jquery.com has in fact gone down in the past, and this did in fact bite my workplace in the backside. We went to locally-hosted copies of jquery stuff. We kept using Google for JS they hosted, since their uptime way beats ours.

https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide#jquer...

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#49

Post by davidgerard »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #48
davidgerard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

code.jquery.com has in fact gone down in the past, and this did in fact bite my workplace in the backside. We went to locally-hosted copies of jquery stuff. We kept using Google for JS they hosted, since their uptime way beats ours.

https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide#jquer...

Ahhh! See, we didn't realise that at that moment. Thank you :-)

Re: Sky parental control system blocks code.jquery.com

#50

Post by repsilat »

davidgerard wrote: post #41
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, does code.jquery.com offer any kind of uptime guarantee? Big companies would rather rely on their own hosting / CDN than that of jquery, I'm sure.

code.jquery.com has in fact gone down in the past, and this did in fact bite my workplace in the backside. We went to locally-hosted copies of jquery stuff. We kept using Google for JS they hosted, since their uptime way beats ours.

> since their uptime way beats ours

You link to Google's JS so your users can still get it when your own site is down?

If you hosted it yourself your users would see a working site whenever you were up. Now they will see a working site whenever both you and Google are up. This has not improved effective uptime for anyone. (On the other hand, Google might serve the JS faster, especially if your users cache it. They may also keep their copies more up to date.)

Post reply on HN