Yup because negative consequences weren’t a thing before the guy was shot

since hes now going to be a rallying cry for action against “the left”.

If you haven’t heard any before, you might want to check with your ENT physician.

In the famous of words of John Wick… “Consequences.”

Consequences indeed

When I hear Nazi I think of concentration camps and killing Jews. Kirk was a big supporter of Israel.

Well, Israel didn’t exist when the NSDAP did, so if you apply the literal meaning of each, a Nazi couldn’t support Israel. But fascism was also something that only applied to the party in power in Italy from 1922 to 1945. The terms have somewhat evolved since then; fascism generally meaning authoritarian, ultranationalistic and antiliberal. The same applies to nazism, but usually with some racist ideology with hatred for other religions.

Nah, it’s the same playbook every time. You have dangerous right wing rhetoric justifying violence (as seen in this thread, even by Kirk himself) that leads to political violence and the right is just “this is deserved” (see J6 or the attack on democratic lawmakers), but when it hits themselves, suddenly political violence is the worst and collective pearl-clutching starts. These people have created a dangerous atmosphere that they can’t control and it’s backfiring, there was never an attempt from them to defuse it.

People like Kevin Roberts who threaten revolutions with thinly veiled violence etc… btw my personal theory is that Kirk was shot by a right wing lunatic who was disappointed in Kirk’s 180 on the Epstein files which went from something like “this is the biggest conspiracy in history, never trust the government” to “I trust my friends in the government” over a weekend. They have created an atmosphere of “you need to fight those in power by any means necessary” and now they find themselves in an awkward spot.

Anyhow, everybody in the thread you replied to just did what Kirk ask them to. Not show empathy, not let the victims emotionally hijack the narrative. He made the world a worse place, I don’t know if it’s gonna be better without him but I have no reason to believe otherwise.

People are hating on Powershell way too much. I don’t like its syntax really but it has a messy better approach to handling data in the terminal. We have nu and elvish nowadays but MS was really early with the concept and I think they learned from the shortcomings of POSIX compatible shells.

The 4k you find on streaming services can’t really be compared to the 4k you find on Blu-ray. It’s a different league. Turns out bitrate actually matters

Maybe if we curve the TV?

First shampoo bar I tried was garbage, I tried a different brand and had much better results

Client data absolutely is encrypted in TLS. You might be thinking of a few fields sent in the clear, like SNI, but generally, it’s all encrypted.

I never said it isn’t, but it’s done using symmetric crypto, not public key (asymmetric) crypto.

Asymmetric crypto is used to encrypt a symmetric key, which is used for encrypting everything else (for the performance reasons you mentioned).

Not anymore, this was only true for RSA key exchange, which was deprecated in TLS 1.2 (“Clients MUST NOT offer and servers MUST NOT select RSA cipher suites”). All current suites use ephemeral Diffie-Hellman over elliptic curves for key agreement (also called key exchange, but I find the term somewhat misleading).

As long as that key was transferred securely and uses a good mode like CBC, an attacker ain’t messing with what’s in there.

First, CBC isn’t a good mode for multiple reasons, one being performance on the encrypting side, but the other one being the exact reason you’re taking about: it is in fact malleable and as such insecure without authentication (though you can use a CMAC, as long as you use a different key). See https://pdf-insecurity.org/encryption/cbc-malleability.html for one example where this exact property is exploited (“Any document format using CBC for encryption is potentially vulnerable to CBC gadgets if a known plaintext is a given, and no integrity protection is applied to the ciphertext.”)

As I wrote in my comment, I was a bit pedantic, because what was stated was that encryption protects the authenticity, and I explained that, while TLS protects all aspects of data security, it’s encryption doesn’t cover the authenticity.

Anyhow, the point is rather moot because I’m pretty sure they won’t get a certificate for the IP anyways.

Public key crypto, properly implemented, does prevent MITM attacks.

It does, but modern public key crypto doesn’t encrypt any client data (RSA key exchange was the only one to my knowledge). It also only verifies the certificates, and the topic was about payload data (i.e. the site you want to view), which asymmetric crypto doesn’t deal with for performance reasons.

My post was not about “does TLS prevent undetected data manipulation” (it does), but rather if it’s the encryption that is responsible for it (it’s not unless you put AES-GCM into that umbrella term).

Right, and for the challenge, you need to have access to a privileged port (which usually implies ownership), which you won’t get assigned.

Let’s Encrypt are rolling out IP-based certs, you may wanna follow its development. I’m not sure if it could be used for your forwarded VPN port, but it’d be nice anyhow

It shouldn’t be because you’re not actually the owner of the IP address. If any user could get a cert, they could impersonate any other.

I believe encryption helps prevent tampering the data between the server and user too. It should prevent for example, someone MITM the connection and injecting malicious content that tells the user to download malware

No, encryption only protects the confidentiality of data. You need message authentication codes or authenticated encryption to make sure the message hasn’t been transported tampered with. Especially stream ciphers like ChaCha (but also AES in counter mode) are susceptible to malleability attacks, which are super simple yet very dangerous.

Edit: this post is a bit pedantic because any scheme that is relevant for LE certificates covers authenticity protection. But it’s not the encryption part of those schemes that is responsible.

What a terrible day to be able to read

What surely is interesting is that Microsoft was somehow somewhat visionary with their usage of browser technology for the desktop. We see Windows Update running in the browser, there was Active Platform which included Active Desktop (very prone to crashes), they had ActiveX (shudder). In a way all ideas they abandoned but that were implemented somewhere else later and better. Not saying these ideas were good.

Getting retroactively jealous here. I was in 56 kbit/s until ADSL hit. But hey, had full duplex gigabit Ethernet Internet at University from 2007 until 2011 to make up for it. It’s never been the same since

Remember when Bill Gates made Windows 98 BSOD during a key note by plugging in a USB device? Good times

2.5MB in 14 seconds, don’t think I’ve seen such a high download speed on Windows 9X in my life

I don’t miss those times, the 9X series was so bad, MS was right to ditch it after canning ME. Bluescreens, a shitty filesystem, no concept of security, dll hell, every time someone comes along with “remember how simple / great computing was back in the day” I want to scream in their face

The second y in Syyu is almost always unneeded and just wastes time and bandwidth. Is i remember correctly, it only makes sense when for example you switch mirrors

I don’t think they’re sensationalist, they just don’t sugarcoat the industry bullshit. And believe it or not, they need to make money from this, it doesn’t pay itself. It’s like saying newspapers should be free, or else informing the people isn’t their primary concern.

“A farmer wants the money. Giving the good away for free would be great if they just wanted to feed people, but that’s not their primary concern.” Can even play that game for nurses etc

It’s really not that hard!

If they acted differently, they’d probably be liable for illegal activity that they proxy for (this is for example relevant for the DMCA safe harbor).

Anyhow, when on their abuse page, I have an option for “Registrar”, which is used for “DNS abuse”, among others.