81–90 of 448 posts
Every time I hear about some shiny new feature being added to a browser, I think... 1) Will I ever actually use this 2) How is this gonna screw me over WebSockets, WebBluetooth, WebAssembly, Web-You-Can-Access-my-Accelerometer-and-Battery, haven't ever wanted to use those. Ever. For anything. For any reason. (Edit 3: Oh yeah, I forgot! WebRTC!) Edit: Fantastic. You can't disable it in Firefox. So what, does Firefox n…
My kids complained today that Google Classroom isn't working. After a quick investigation, I noticed that Snort on my firewall blocked the relevant Google server due to incoming TCP port scans. Sigh.
> it seems many sites are port scanning visitors for dubious reasons.
Claims that in the intro, but then admits ebay is scanning for VPNs, which probably means it's doing fraud detection, which is definitely not a dubious reason, and is probably actually beneficial to the customer.
Every time I hear about some shiny new feature being added to a browser, I think... 1) Will I ever actually use this 2) How is this gonna screw me over WebSockets, WebBluetooth, WebAssembly, Web-You-Can-Access-my-Accelerometer-and-Battery, haven't ever wanted to use those. Ever. For anything. For any reason. (Edit 3: Oh yeah, I forgot! WebRTC!) Edit: Fantastic. You can't disable it in Firefox. So what, does Firefox n…
umatrix is the layer7 firewall you're looking for, it can block websocket connections, cross-domain ones in particular are quite easy.
The greater issue is that browsers are allowing code executing from the public Internet scope (scope meaning security domain) network access to the localhost scope or the Intranet scope (RFC1918 addresses.) If anything, this should require very explicit permission granting from the user. I’d prefer it be something more like an undocumented toggle accessible solely to developer types.
There are legitimate reasons for port scanning, but I'm not sure most websites out there are using it for noble purposes. I guess browsers could allow it based on explicit permission from the user, just like it's already done for microphone and camera.
I’d be all for a user notification that says “fnord.com wants to access 192.168.0.10 on tcp/443, which seems to be a web server on your home/work network. Are you sure you want to allow this?” I’d want to see this for each new access request, such that port scanning would not be a use case that was supported.
Sure, have an about:config toggle to shut this off, with appropriate warnings.
The greater issue is that browsers are allowing code executing from the public Internet scope (scope meaning security domain) network access to the localhost scope or the Intranet scope (RFC1918 addresses.) If anything, this should require very explicit permission granting from the user. I’d prefer it be something more like an undocumented toggle accessible solely to developer types.
There are legitimate reasons for port scanning, but I'm not sure most websites out there are using it for noble purposes. I guess browsers could allow it based on explicit permission from the user, just like it's already done for microphone and camera.
Such as?
Every time I hear about some shiny new feature being added to a browser, I think... 1) Will I ever actually use this 2) How is this gonna screw me over WebSockets, WebBluetooth, WebAssembly, Web-You-Can-Access-my-Accelerometer-and-Battery, haven't ever wanted to use those. Ever. For anything. For any reason. (Edit 3: Oh yeah, I forgot! WebRTC!) Edit: Fantastic. You can't disable it in Firefox. So what, does Firefox n…
Every time I hear about some shiny new feature being added to a browser, I think... 1) Will I ever actually use this 2) How is this gonna screw me over WebSockets, WebBluetooth, WebAssembly, Web-You-Can-Access-my-Accelerometer-and-Battery, haven't ever wanted to use those. Ever. For anything. For any reason. (Edit 3: Oh yeah, I forgot! WebRTC!) Edit: Fantastic. You can't disable it in Firefox. So what, does Firefox n…
I'm sorry, what's the alternative for (soft-)real-time applications on frontend if not WebSocket? You probably do want to use it.