I guess their is a "slippery slope" argument to be made here, but in the current incarnation, this is innocuous.
Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
201–210 of 498 posts
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the spirit of efficacy, browser injection may have a better response rate than email. Taking this to its next logical step, surely showing up in-person at your door is even more effective. Is that the idea here? Or does this efficacy come at some cost (namely, the sentiment behind this thread)?
I don't know what's worse: the straw man attempt at arguing efficacy while focusing on the weaker of two suggested options, or the (presumably) unscalable slippery slope of dispatching personnel to a customer's front door. In either case, the argument does not address the fact that customers recognize unsolicited packet injection as unacceptable ISP behavior. Without support metrics, we can argue all day about the ef…
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious if there's a way to hash your code, so... I guess this can be overwritten as well. But like a check sum to make sure your client code is the same as you made it. HTTPs is good, got it.
Subresource integrity checking. Most CDNs provide tags with these hashes.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#204J. Livingood (a Comcast VP) responded to the OP: > [JL] We are not trying to sell you a new one. If you own your modem we're informing you that it is either end of life (EOL) or that you are about to get a speed upgrade that the modem will be unable to deliver. Incidentally, Livingood is a co-author of IETF RFC 6108, which he has conveniently linked. From the RFC's general requirements numero uno: > R3.1.1. Must Only…
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all the junk mail I get from my cable company about "upgrading" my service to include some crap I don't want, I would think they could find a way to slip in a "hey, your modem's busted" notice.
But you probably wouldn't read it, because lots of people don't read their email (at least partially because of the junk).
More work, but way less scummy.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although I disagree with Comcast's method and categorization, it would be interesting to learn what modem the OP was using. We start telling customers that a modem needs to be upgraded when one of two things happen: either they are about to or just had a speed upgrade that their modem cannot support or the modem has gone end-of-life (EOL) from the vendor. In the former case, if the device is leased, you are send a…
All that may be true. There is no ethical excuse to ever inject code into a webpage. Your own argument about it being critical is false or sophistry. If there were wildfires coming to burn someone's house down..that might qualify as critical. Not this, and deep down you know it. You should be embarrassed to attach your name to such an obviously poor decision.
...unless it's for adblocking...
Although I do that with a MITM proxy locally (and thus filters everything on my LAN), it would certainly lead to a very interesting situation if an ISP decided to do it...
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As composed as Livingood's response was, a modem at EOL and/or incapable of supporting an incremental speed upgrade doesn't strike me as critical. Exactly. And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" is such a hair-splittingly asinine response considering the rather serious breach of trust posed by the notification system.
> Exactly. And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" is such a hair-splittingly asinine response considering the rather serious breach of trust posed by the notification system. Well, what I meant (within the response length constraints of Twitter) was that we're not saying you can only buy it from us. Just that the customer needs to buy…
This reminds me of the part in Romeo & Juliet where Sampson says "I do not bite my thumb at thee, but I do bite my thumb."
As other commenters have mentioned, these are such small distinctions to legitimize something as fundamentally troubling as javascript injections.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#208J. Livingood (a Comcast VP) responded to the OP: > [JL] We are not trying to sell you a new one. If you own your modem we're informing you that it is either end of life (EOL) or that you are about to get a speed upgrade that the modem will be unable to deliver. Incidentally, Livingood is a co-author of IETF RFC 6108, which he has conveniently linked. From the RFC's general requirements numero uno: > R3.1.1. Must Only…
>As composed as Livingood's response was, a modem at EOL and/or incapable of supporting an incremental speed upgrade doesn't strike me as critical. Exactly. And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" is such a hair-splittingly asinine response considering the rather serious breach of trust posed by the notification system.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all the junk mail I get from my cable company about "upgrading" my service to include some crap I don't want, I would think they could find a way to slip in a "hey, your modem's busted" notice.
So they print Important Plan Information on the envelope.
You know it's actually an important piece of mail when the envelope isn't imploring you to open it.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#210J. Livingood (a Comcast VP) responded to the OP: > [JL] We are not trying to sell you a new one. If you own your modem we're informing you that it is either end of life (EOL) or that you are about to get a speed upgrade that the modem will be unable to deliver. Incidentally, Livingood is a co-author of IETF RFC 6108, which he has conveniently linked. From the RFC's general requirements numero uno: > R3.1.1. Must Only…
> Although I disagree with Comcast's method and categorization, it would be interesting to learn what modem the OP was using. We start telling customers that a modem needs to be upgraded when one of two things happen: either they are about to or just had a speed upgrade that their modem cannot support or the modem has gone end-of-life (EOL) from the vendor. In the former case, if the device is leased, you are send a…