I did. and so, yes, i guess outright dropping the packets isn't going to fly, but i still wonder if there is room to proxy it in some way, and make a single connection to the target count as multiple attempts...
From the paper:
Miners in DDoSCoin repeatedly create connections to a TLS victim server, and check for a response that satisfies a target difficulty decided by the network. If the response satisfies this condition, then parameters of the TLS hand-shake can be published by the miner to create a new valid block.
You have to somehow generate valid responses to create blocks in a short time span, which is currently not very feasable with current technology if you're bruteforcing it.
It has been my experience that people who use the word reasonable, and use it a lot like you did, are the most unreasonable people on the planet. If you've made demands that you "feel" are "reasonable"
You know what the funny thing is? If the person had actually even checked their internal staff or checked their own support forums, they would have found it was being worked on and a fix was pending. That would have been enough to resolve the ticket with me, their support person was lazy and didn't even bother checking throughout the entire ticket, then their supervisor, right at the end did the same.
So unreasonable of me to expect a company that sells a security solution to provide some information on the certainty on supporting of features! Especially when I state out my assumptions in the following e-mail blatantly so they can correct them if I'm wrong. But no, the "customer retention specialist" some how managed to miss that again? I don't buy it, it was terrible support.
This is only available to a specific subset of Windows users (eg Windows Insiders Program).
It's available to everyone that installed the Windows 10 anniversary update.
You can't expect 100% compatibility with something still in beta.
But I can expect information like "we're working on it", "we'll have something for it in release". Which, apparently Avast were according to the forums (posted before my ticket, but I didn't find it on Google back then), but their support person never even bothered to check their own internal people or the forums.
The issue is that I paid for the product from 2014 to 2019 and I cannot have someone giving me the runaround on a security solution. I stated I would have been happy if they could confirm, they never even bothered checking despite being a "customer retention specialist", I was ready to switch to another security product, but I don't see why they should be allowed to keep my money for a product that didn't mean customer expectations of offering reasonable support responses (such as doing a simple check of whether something will be supported) if I am forced to use another product because of uncertainty.
They make a good point. You should have tested the software better.
I paid a subscription from 2014 until 2019, I very much expect them to keep it updated with moving targets like operating system updates (which apparently they were, but their support weren't even arsed to check with their own people, or even their own support forums). When I get such a ridiculous response, I want to just move on to someone that will support me, especially when it comes to a security solution. This support however just sat there and told me no refunds under any other conditions. My biggest mistake is paying these things up front. In future I will look to make as tiny subscriptions as possible to limit my financial liability.
What was more ridiculous was that their own support forums I learned later actually stated before I had even posted their ticket that they were working on it -- That's all I wanted to know! Their support repeatedly never checked it despite my mentioning that, that was all it would take to appease me, instead of this uncertainty that is unacceptable for a security product.
I wonder if your Ask Slashdot for help is more of a form of clickbait in the this case. I don't think you need help, you appear to be aggressively pursuing the issue with nicely made propaganda.
I genuinely don't think anything will come of it to benefit me; but I'm happy to leave my experiences in the open for others to find and learn from.
Honestly, practically in each message, I declared what product it was, repeatedly. I even stated I would have been happy if they could confirm that it was going to be worked on in the future, which they never bothered to even check (before I posted the ticket, apparently their developers had posted to their forum saying they were working on it).
I paid a subscription up front front 2014 to 2019 (literally, hundreds of pounds), getting this kind of terrible paid support that can't even be arsed to read my tickets fully or even care about losing a customer of over 10 years is ridiculous. Then, trying to use the EULA to state they can't do refunds when it does not say that they cannot do refunds outside of the period suggested, treating the EULA as something to screw the customer over rather than just protecting themselves.
You are talking about somewhere between $50-$100, right?
More, paid from 2014 to 2019.
When a small store gave me incorrect change, and was unpleasant about the correction of that error, I walked away and never came back. Anything else would have not been worth my time. Unless you want to turn this into a hobby, I suggest you take a similar approach. Whenever anyone asks me about that store, I tell them a similar story, and advise them to go to a different store. That alone cost the store far more than when they jacked from me on my change. It was the store owner that robbed me.
I think my big mistake was not having very short term subscriptions.
I did state I was happy to know if they were going to work on it in the future and wouldn't pursue a refund anymore; which guess what, they were according to the forums. But this support person didn't even check their internal staff or forums, nor did their supervisor right at the end.
This is a known issue and is being worked on by the actual Avast! support
I learned about this after the whole ticketing non-sense sadly.
I don't know how the OP submitted the ticket, but it went to a "retention specialist" who probably thought he was trying to use it on Ubuntu (at least that's what I understand from the first email reply).
It was one of the options available to me through their support portal. I was pretty peeved to be handed off to a customer retention specialist who seemed to ignore key things I wrote in every e-mail:
- Repeatedly told them exactly what the product was - Would have been happy if they could confirm the issue was going to be worked on in the future (it was, this person never checked)
If a company won't offer the products or services you want, STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY.
I guess my mistake was assuming the company would be reasonable if I paid from 2014 to 2019 up-front and along the way had breaking issues with the systems they officially support with no-end in sight for fixes. It's a large chunk of money.
My concern here was that I asked reasonably if I could get support, instead I get passed to a customer retention specialist who doesn't even want to retain a customer of over 10 years and doesn't even try to support me. There was no "I'll go check with the developers", there could be no misunderstanding when I have repeated exactly what the issue was repeatedly, I noted that I wouldn't be requesting a refund if they could check it was going to be resolved at some point in the future.
Guess what... The Avast forums have their developers posting on there and stating that they are working on a fix, but their own support doesn't even check.
This is really a case of terrible support and then a terrible refund methodology, especially where customer retention is involved.
Being cited the EULA "cannot" allow them to refund when the EULA does not state that they will not do something. Everyone expects EULAs to be overreaching for the company to protect it self, they don't expect the company to use it to screw over their paying customers.
What's worse is that this is from a vendor that is selling security solutions, this is a serious matter.
Sadly I paid for the product back in 2014 up to 2019, under the assumption that if they had some significant issue supporting me, they could refund the remainder of a subscription if there were breaking issues if they showed me no sign of fixing in the future.
As I understand it, it's the fault of MaxMind not returning a proper "location not found" error message:
"All of these people are arriving because of a rounding error on a GPS location, which wrongly points people to their farm."
Did I misunderstand this, or?
The article and summary are pretty poor. The reality is that the Maxmind IP database tells you the accuracy information and has defaults for each country/state/province/county/city -- being the 'center'. The problem is that developers using the database aren't making use of the information declared in the database, just sticking a pin on the coordinates without any further details, leading to this situation.
Application developers are brushing off their responsibility and just saying "it wasn't our fault, the Maxmind database told us it was there!", but in reality the database told them a lot more.
To all recent history. As much as we want to draw parallels with the colonial era, nation building has not worked any of the recent times its been tried.
Are these instances you're referring to under 50 years? As noted in my previous post tending to be the problematic ones. However, I guess if you wanted more short term, you could look at Germany's short occupation (which is very well documented compared to other occupations) after the second world war, but that requires a lot more destruction to build heavy co-independence with others.
You seem to think that continued US occupation makes things better than they were before. I think that, in many cases, US occupation makes things worse over time. It prevents the development of a good democratic government. It encourages the existing government to ignore the wishes of the people, because the US will keep them in puppet power.
Even if that is the case, which I don't think think it is (I think it takes generations before a country's mentality is stabilised and they start establishing a sane campaign for indepndence on their own - not unlike colony occupation); it is still better than the previous issues of people being killed for merely having a difference of opinion.
The fundamental problem with benevolent despotism is that it prevents any better type of government from forming, ever.
What history are you referring to on this?
When the despot steps down or goes home, there isn't a functioning government, and the one that gets established and winds up ruling is typically brutal and undemocratic.
I can only think of short term occupations causing this (under 50 years).
No, because historically we have known exactly what the result is and how to deal with it.
We don't suddenly become eternally responsible for what happens over there because we touched it.
Considering that other countries go to the extent of maintaining order in other places for over a hundred years, I don't see why the USA shouldn't do the same.
What we are doing is horrible. We won't wipe out the enemy because doing so would require we recognize who the enemy is: Sunni Muslims, and we don't do things like exterminate religious groups. We also are not colonialists so we don't permanently occupy.
You're expected to clean your mess. I've told you the two ways historically that have only worked. This knowledge is not forbidden nor hidden or even secret at all. Use a new method, but what is being done now is not resolving the situation and it is the USA's responsibility.
The only ethical thing to do is leave
The ethical thing to do is to stop the suffering, the easiest way is to occupy the country in the same way that Bosnia is occupied (there have been attempts to withdraw briefly when things seemed stable, but very quickly elements were identified that it would return to chaos, so such plans have been scrapped).
The ethical thing is not leaving it in a worse state than before.
Not really we just need to stop playing "Team America World Police"
Unacceptable, the conflicts have been started and escalated, it is the USA's responsibility to resolve them. The problem in the middle-east is now worse because the US pulled out mostly. It's not like the US didn't know what they were in for, we know from history that the way you prevent continuous issues is either to occupy, like the British do with Bosnia or you wipe out, like how Sri Lanka did with their terrorists. The US pulling out their occupation and not resolving the conflict has put the entire world into a greater risk.
Other countries got this fine and to this day are still occupying various countries to maintain stability or have wiped out the enemy (which in the example provided earlier involves wiping out innocent civilians in the affected area too).
I'm not an expert in British law but I would hope the courts would see most of this as fair use.
That's an American concept. Also this law is handed down from EU legislation, there can be no exceptions. This is one of the many reasons why people want a brexit.
Slashdot Mirror
I did. and so, yes, i guess outright dropping the packets isn't going to fly, but i still wonder if there is room to proxy it in some way, and make a single connection to the target count as multiple attempts...
From the paper:
You have to somehow generate valid responses to create blocks in a short time span, which is currently not very feasable with current technology if you're bruteforcing it.
No, read the summary.
Why so mad?
This is irrelevant to my suggestion on how one could defeat the mentioned solution.
Except it's you that is accessing Facebook not the other way around.
Doesn't work if you're using AJAX to load in the body content and that javascript is contained within the ad javascript.
Anyone with the anniversary update can use it. It's not Windows Insider specific since the release.
You know what the funny thing is? If the person had actually even checked their internal staff or checked their own support forums, they would have found it was being worked on and a fix was pending. That would have been enough to resolve the ticket with me, their support person was lazy and didn't even bother checking throughout the entire ticket, then their supervisor, right at the end did the same.
So unreasonable of me to expect a company that sells a security solution to provide some information on the certainty on supporting of features! Especially when I state out my assumptions in the following e-mail blatantly so they can correct them if I'm wrong. But no, the "customer retention specialist" some how managed to miss that again? I don't buy it, it was terrible support.
It's available to everyone that installed the Windows 10 anniversary update.
But I can expect information like "we're working on it", "we'll have something for it in release". Which, apparently Avast were according to the forums (posted before my ticket, but I didn't find it on Google back then), but their support person never even bothered to check their own internal people or the forums.
The issue is that I paid for the product from 2014 to 2019 and I cannot have someone giving me the runaround on a security solution. I stated I would have been happy if they could confirm, they never even bothered checking despite being a "customer retention specialist", I was ready to switch to another security product, but I don't see why they should be allowed to keep my money for a product that didn't mean customer expectations of offering reasonable support responses (such as doing a simple check of whether something will be supported) if I am forced to use another product because of uncertainty.
I paid a subscription from 2014 until 2019, I very much expect them to keep it updated with moving targets like operating system updates (which apparently they were, but their support weren't even arsed to check with their own people, or even their own support forums). When I get such a ridiculous response, I want to just move on to someone that will support me, especially when it comes to a security solution. This support however just sat there and told me no refunds under any other conditions. My biggest mistake is paying these things up front. In future I will look to make as tiny subscriptions as possible to limit my financial liability.
What was more ridiculous was that their own support forums I learned later actually stated before I had even posted their ticket that they were working on it -- That's all I wanted to know! Their support repeatedly never checked it despite my mentioning that, that was all it would take to appease me, instead of this uncertainty that is unacceptable for a security product.
I genuinely don't think anything will come of it to benefit me; but I'm happy to leave my experiences in the open for others to find and learn from.
Honestly, practically in each message, I declared what product it was, repeatedly. I even stated I would have been happy if they could confirm that it was going to be worked on in the future, which they never bothered to even check (before I posted the ticket, apparently their developers had posted to their forum saying they were working on it).
I paid a subscription up front front 2014 to 2019 (literally, hundreds of pounds), getting this kind of terrible paid support that can't even be arsed to read my tickets fully or even care about losing a customer of over 10 years is ridiculous. Then, trying to use the EULA to state they can't do refunds when it does not say that they cannot do refunds outside of the period suggested, treating the EULA as something to screw the customer over rather than just protecting themselves.
More, paid from 2014 to 2019.
I think my big mistake was not having very short term subscriptions.
I did state I was happy to know if they were going to work on it in the future and wouldn't pursue a refund anymore; which guess what, they were according to the forums. But this support person didn't even check their internal staff or forums, nor did their supervisor right at the end.
I learned about this after the whole ticketing non-sense sadly.
It was one of the options available to me through their support portal. I was pretty peeved to be handed off to a customer retention specialist who seemed to ignore key things I wrote in every e-mail:
- Repeatedly told them exactly what the product was
- Would have been happy if they could confirm the issue was going to be worked on in the future (it was, this person never checked)
I guess my mistake was assuming the company would be reasonable if I paid from 2014 to 2019 up-front and along the way had breaking issues with the systems they officially support with no-end in sight for fixes. It's a large chunk of money.
My concern here was that I asked reasonably if I could get support, instead I get passed to a customer retention specialist who doesn't even want to retain a customer of over 10 years and doesn't even try to support me. There was no "I'll go check with the developers", there could be no misunderstanding when I have repeated exactly what the issue was repeatedly, I noted that I wouldn't be requesting a refund if they could check it was going to be resolved at some point in the future.
Guess what... The Avast forums have their developers posting on there and stating that they are working on a fix, but their own support doesn't even check.
This is really a case of terrible support and then a terrible refund methodology, especially where customer retention is involved.
Being cited the EULA "cannot" allow them to refund when the EULA does not state that they will not do something. Everyone expects EULAs to be overreaching for the company to protect it self, they don't expect the company to use it to screw over their paying customers.
What's worse is that this is from a vendor that is selling security solutions, this is a serious matter.
Sadly I paid for the product back in 2014 up to 2019, under the assumption that if they had some significant issue supporting me, they could refund the remainder of a subscription if there were breaking issues if they showed me no sign of fixing in the future.
The article and summary are pretty poor. The reality is that the Maxmind IP database tells you the accuracy information and has defaults for each country/state/province/county/city -- being the 'center'. The problem is that developers using the database aren't making use of the information declared in the database, just sticking a pin on the coordinates without any further details, leading to this situation.
Application developers are brushing off their responsibility and just saying "it wasn't our fault, the Maxmind database told us it was there!", but in reality the database told them a lot more.
Are these instances you're referring to under 50 years? As noted in my previous post tending to be the problematic ones. However, I guess if you wanted more short term, you could look at Germany's short occupation (which is very well documented compared to other occupations) after the second world war, but that requires a lot more destruction to build heavy co-independence with others.
That is what their database does, front end developers often don't use that however.
Even if that is the case, which I don't think think it is (I think it takes generations before a country's mentality is stabilised and they start establishing a sane campaign for indepndence on their own - not unlike colony occupation); it is still better than the previous issues of people being killed for merely having a difference of opinion.
What history are you referring to on this?
I can only think of short term occupations causing this (under 50 years).
No, because historically we have known exactly what the result is and how to deal with it.
Considering that other countries go to the extent of maintaining order in other places for over a hundred years, I don't see why the USA shouldn't do the same.
You're expected to clean your mess. I've told you the two ways historically that have only worked. This knowledge is not forbidden nor hidden or even secret at all. Use a new method, but what is being done now is not resolving the situation and it is the USA's responsibility.
The ethical thing to do is to stop the suffering, the easiest way is to occupy the country in the same way that Bosnia is occupied (there have been attempts to withdraw briefly when things seemed stable, but very quickly elements were identified that it would return to chaos, so such plans have been scrapped).
The ethical thing is not leaving it in a worse state than before.
Unacceptable, the conflicts have been started and escalated, it is the USA's responsibility to resolve them. The problem in the middle-east is now worse because the US pulled out mostly. It's not like the US didn't know what they were in for, we know from history that the way you prevent continuous issues is either to occupy, like the British do with Bosnia or you wipe out, like how Sri Lanka did with their terrorists. The US pulling out their occupation and not resolving the conflict has put the entire world into a greater risk.
Other countries got this fine and to this day are still occupying various countries to maintain stability or have wiped out the enemy (which in the example provided earlier involves wiping out innocent civilians in the affected area too).
That's an American concept. Also this law is handed down from EU legislation, there can be no exceptions. This is one of the many reasons why people want a brexit.
The EU, since this is to do with an EU decision.