I thought that, but I suspect that the biggest bulwark against telcos charging differently for content (which is something they all really want to do) is that most people just think of their ISP as a utility provider who shouldn't concern itself with what they are using the pipe for.
According to the article, they aren't charging differently, they're just giving an optional block for more obnoxious ads that they are looking to enable by default because those ads tend to cause customers to have larger expenses due to bandwidth consumption. I don't really see these as comparable.
if everyone cheers them on for doing it, what is to stop them turning around in 6 months time and saying you have to pay extra to access youtube on your phone?
Nothing, but nothing is stopping consumers from going to another provider either.
There is no shaping of traffic and this is optional to the user.
Don't they risk losing common carrier status?
Their ISP side does not have common carrier status, that's just the mobile calls/texts portion, so no they don't risk losing it, they never had it for the ISP portion to begin with.
A vulnerability that involves some aspect of DNS, prepare for APK spam, sadly no hosts files can block his advertisements for his software despite his claims it can block advertising.
Besides the obvious privacy concerns, wouldn't backdoors give terrorists and other bad guys a new, incredibly useful attack vector?
If done correctly, it wouldn't be a very feasible attack vendor.
What if a government employee goes rogue or is "convinced" to share information on how to gain access.
If it's just encrypting data under a second encryption key that only say Apple has. Then, the attack vector is... Getting a warrant to get Apple to decrypt the contents of a device.
One way to go about making it as difficult as possible is generating a unique private key for each device and insert the public key before redistribution into the device. Store the keys on cold storage media, that they themselves are encrypted and to decrypt a single device you have to retrieve the specific cold storage medium, the passwords for that key (split up password retrieval to require a few officers, it becomes much harder to corrupt multiple people). Add in a few physical controls, I'm not really sure what attack vector at that point which could be used for a rogue employee. This leaves breaking cryptographic algorithms and if you're using the more popular ones that are used everywhere, if that's broken, it doesn't really matter at that point what cryptographic key was used in the first place or whom it was encrypted for.
What about the devs who implement the backdoors? You're never going to keep that secret.
Who cares if people know it's signed by a second key if you don't have the private key?
all architects and builders of the Taj Mahal were killed after finishing the project to protect the secrets of their trade. Is that the next step to "protect" us?
That seems silly. Security through obscurity isn't sufficient on it's own.
P.S.=> There's NO NONSENSE in the FACT that WHEN YOU RUN MORE HARDWARE or SOFTWARE you use more RAM/CPU, MessagePassing + other forms of I/O, & consume MORE POWER - there is NO WAY AROUND IT, & just physics fact... period!
If the measurement is 9.5 watts without and the measurement is 9.5 watts with, does it really matter if there is some tiny difference beyond what's measured there? Cost wise, I'm just not seeing a problem.
Indeed, but the statistics I shared doesn't reflect my DNS server prone to downtime. Having some down time does not equate to being prone to downtime.
I am merely pointing out ROUTERSsee 15 posts of mine with 225 examples of insecure routers)
Your problem, not mine.
DNS (kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw, dns amp attacks, rogue DNS servers etc.)
Not an issue I experience on my DNS server.
SINGLE POINTS OF FAILURE with MASSIVE VULNERABILITIES
If HA is necessary, I've told you the technologies you can use to do it.
you've got ALL YOUR EGGS IN A FAULTY BASKET with LITTLE "ROI" FOR THE EXTRA MONIES OUTLAID + POWER BILLS RAISED also!
I already measured the wattage my router uses, there is no noticeable difference between running a DNS server or not on it, so this is just further non-sense.
I have a backup router I can plugin if this one fails (I don't need HA here, but could set it up if I wanted), I'm not seeing the single point of failure that hurts me here.
Let's see: 1st you tried DNS (I pointed out how often it goes down by the ton & security flaws galore in it)!
You said it's prone it going down and I asked why mine wasn't, something you still failed to answer. There was nothing that showed my DNS server was particularly prone to going down.
2nd, you tried ROUTERS (I pointed out 225 known instances, there are MANY MORE, of them being security flawed)
I didn't try, I pointed out that my DNS server runs on my router which would make it pointless for any further resilient design since it was the single point of internet connectivity on my network. There little use for DNS or even hosts on my network without Internet connectivity. You on the otherhand twist it's meaning and some how think I should be setting up a pointless resilient DNS infrastructure or maybe a resilient router infrastructure which I don't really feel I need, since HA is not part of my personal requirements.
FACT: BOTH REPRESENT A SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE THAT'S HIGHLY EXPLOITABLE!
Okay, let's put it in your logic. My router goes down because I decide to unplug it. However, I have a resilient DNS infrastructure. Oh great, I can do DNS look ups on hostnames that I can't access because my Internet is down, that's less exploitable than when they both go down. Sorry, it's not really doing much and pointless at this moment in time too.
* Hosts files do all that's needed FOR LESS!
But they don't. I can't even use a hosts file on the game consoles, the smart television, the digibox, the tablets, the mobiles and I don't particularly want to ask people to let me setup hosts files in their computers so they can immediately benefit from region bypasses and other things on my network.
I had more to post, but the lameness filter kicked in.
That works against you too then & ROUTERS + DNS are a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE (huge one, see my posts above regarding BOTH...).
APK, I already stated this in a previous post in another way. But, if it's a big concern that you need HA, just use technologies like BIRD with BGP. Problem solved, you can stop being salty now.
That's actually the key to the differentiation of Exchange. Integration with Outlook means integration with Office and the incredible morass of Office Automation that large businesses tend to build over time.
I understand and completely agree.
Zimbra is, for sure, an outstanding messaging and communication solution that when you break down the bullets on the standalone Outlook/Exchange combo fares extremely well. Ain't always that simple.:)
Yeah, I have encountered that myself more times than I can count in companies I have consulted with. The type of companies I see using solutions like Novell's Groupwise or Zimbra etc. tend to be companies that mostly operate using Cloud services (like, through a webbrowser) interestingly enough.
To say Exchange and Outlook has no competition though is a stretch. It's just that when it comes to offering products that work best with Microsoft products... Microsoft products tend to win most of the time.
No, I said it's not prone to going down and as I said, it's not. It's uptime in the last year, rounded up is 100% and that's with me physically moving hardware around in the house at some point.
I even told you that if I needed further reliability, which I don't because it's sitting on the router that provides Internet connectivity that I could easily use BIRD.
You're just being salty, APK. You're trying so hard to move the goal posts, argue semantics while throwing in red herrings, but it isn't working. It's quite obvious from my descriptions it's working pretty well and not prone to going down. There has been nothing described that even hints at an unacceptable situation that means it's "prone to going down", as you insinuate it to be something far, far worse, considering your previous irrelevant articles on the issue.
I said my DNS isn't prone to going down and I stand by that statement. I gave you some statistics to show total downtime, which is next to nothing. Less downtime than waiting for Windows to fail loading multi-terabyte hosts file (which is necessary if you want to block a domain and all it's possible subdomains) that won't load properly regardless to get sorta equivalent blocking (it doesn't block resolution, still has to point to an IP, even if it's an invalid one after all).
I suggest you NOW take a peek @ ROUTER RELIABILITY from here
I don't have really any reliability issues noted here, as you could tell from my previous post, my router has been reliable.
but all I need is 1 SINGLE FILE I ALREADY HAVE
My blacklist for my DNS server is also just one file. But unlike your 'one' file, I don't have to replicate it across the network to all computers, I literally just change it in one place and done. I don't even have to hack my devices that don't support hosts files to support it and other crazy non-sense.
Ok - you NEVER have to take down YOUR DNS server for maintenance of the DNS server itself for patching OR the OS?
If I time the amount it takes to restart the DNS server (much like how the daemon is restarted after updating it):
real 0m0.008s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s
So, I guess as far the rare updates (I think I only ever saw one last year), there might be a downtime of 0.008 seconds, which isn't really long enough to miss all the standard three DNS requests most resolvers send out.
Now, if this wasn't on the same system that provides Internet routing to the rest of my network, I'd probably invest in a Bird setup for reliability of certain network services. Which would be trivial on a couple of Raspberry Pi Zeros to provide the network uninterrupted DNS resolution (among other network services).
As far as the hardware restarts go, according to my router data, it's been rebooted four times last year (I believe two were for system patches, two were due to me physically moving the hardware in the house). I am not seeing the "DNS is prone to going down" problem here.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to you APK? Did you lose Internet for a few days or something?
According to the article, they aren't charging differently, they're just giving an optional block for more obnoxious ads that they are looking to enable by default because those ads tend to cause customers to have larger expenses due to bandwidth consumption. I don't really see these as comparable.
Too bad trying to get spectrum is pretty hard for any new competition.
Nothing, but nothing is stopping consumers from going to another provider either.
There is no shaping of traffic and this is optional to the user.
Their ISP side does not have common carrier status, that's just the mobile calls/texts portion, so no they don't risk losing it, they never had it for the ISP portion to begin with.
If you look at my recent post history, you'll see most of those replies have been to APK. He's alive and well.
What is a TP-link equivalent manufacturer, then?
A vulnerability that involves some aspect of DNS, prepare for APK spam, sadly no hosts files can block his advertisements for his software despite his claims it can block advertising.
You're just salty you can't actually come up with a reasonable counter.
If done correctly, it wouldn't be a very feasible attack vendor.
If it's just encrypting data under a second encryption key that only say Apple has. Then, the attack vector is... Getting a warrant to get Apple to decrypt the contents of a device.
One way to go about making it as difficult as possible is generating a unique private key for each device and insert the public key before redistribution into the device. Store the keys on cold storage media, that they themselves are encrypted and to decrypt a single device you have to retrieve the specific cold storage medium, the passwords for that key (split up password retrieval to require a few officers, it becomes much harder to corrupt multiple people). Add in a few physical controls, I'm not really sure what attack vector at that point which could be used for a rogue employee. This leaves breaking cryptographic algorithms and if you're using the more popular ones that are used everywhere, if that's broken, it doesn't really matter at that point what cryptographic key was used in the first place or whom it was encrypted for.
Who cares if people know it's signed by a second key if you don't have the private key?
That seems silly. Security through obscurity isn't sufficient on it's own.
Cool story.
If the measurement is 9.5 watts without and the measurement is 9.5 watts with, does it really matter if there is some tiny difference beyond what's measured there? Cost wise, I'm just not seeing a problem.
It's funny when you have to sock puppet your own support crowd, APK.
Indeed, but the statistics I shared doesn't reflect my DNS server prone to downtime. Having some down time does not equate to being prone to downtime.
Your problem, not mine.
Not an issue I experience on my DNS server.
If HA is necessary, I've told you the technologies you can use to do it.
I already measured the wattage my router uses, there is no noticeable difference between running a DNS server or not on it, so this is just further non-sense.
Nah, I secure my entire network. Failure to secure certain systems is what leads to compromises. Such as when Target was hacked through HVAC company systems.
I have a backup router I can plugin if this one fails (I don't need HA here, but could set it up if I wanted), I'm not seeing the single point of failure that hurts me here.
You said it's prone it going down and I asked why mine wasn't, something you still failed to answer. There was nothing that showed my DNS server was particularly prone to going down.
I didn't try, I pointed out that my DNS server runs on my router which would make it pointless for any further resilient design since it was the single point of internet connectivity on my network. There little use for DNS or even hosts on my network without Internet connectivity. You on the otherhand twist it's meaning and some how think I should be setting up a pointless resilient DNS infrastructure or maybe a resilient router infrastructure which I don't really feel I need, since HA is not part of my personal requirements.
Okay, let's put it in your logic. My router goes down because I decide to unplug it. However, I have a resilient DNS infrastructure. Oh great, I can do DNS look ups on hostnames that I can't access because my Internet is down, that's less exploitable than when they both go down. Sorry, it's not really doing much and pointless at this moment in time too.
But they don't. I can't even use a hosts file on the game consoles, the smart television, the digibox, the tablets, the mobiles and I don't particularly want to ask people to let me setup hosts files in their computers so they can immediately benefit from region bypasses and other things on my network.
I had more to post, but the lameness filter kicked in.
APK, I already stated this in a previous post in another way. But, if it's a big concern that you need HA, just use technologies like BIRD with BGP. Problem solved, you can stop being salty now.
Sounds like good money to me.
As opposed to the operating systems that support hosts files? Eh. Not really.
? I never denied there was downtime, I said it wasn't prone to going down.
I understand and completely agree.
Yeah, I have encountered that myself more times than I can count in companies I have consulted with. The type of companies I see using solutions like Novell's Groupwise or Zimbra etc. tend to be companies that mostly operate using Cloud services (like, through a webbrowser) interestingly enough.
To say Exchange and Outlook has no competition though is a stretch. It's just that when it comes to offering products that work best with Microsoft products... Microsoft products tend to win most of the time.
No, I said it's not prone to going down and as I said, it's not. It's uptime in the last year, rounded up is 100% and that's with me physically moving hardware around in the house at some point.
I even told you that if I needed further reliability, which I don't because it's sitting on the router that provides Internet connectivity that I could easily use BIRD.
You're just being salty, APK. You're trying so hard to move the goal posts, argue semantics while throwing in red herrings, but it isn't working. It's quite obvious from my descriptions it's working pretty well and not prone to going down. There has been nothing described that even hints at an unacceptable situation that means it's "prone to going down", as you insinuate it to be something far, far worse, considering your previous irrelevant articles on the issue.
I said my DNS isn't prone to going down and I stand by that statement. I gave you some statistics to show total downtime, which is next to nothing. Less downtime than waiting for Windows to fail loading multi-terabyte hosts file (which is necessary if you want to block a domain and all it's possible subdomains) that won't load properly regardless to get sorta equivalent blocking (it doesn't block resolution, still has to point to an IP, even if it's an invalid one after all).
I don't have really any reliability issues noted here, as you could tell from my previous post, my router has been reliable.
My blacklist for my DNS server is also just one file. But unlike your 'one' file, I don't have to replicate it across the network to all computers, I literally just change it in one place and done. I don't even have to hack my devices that don't support hosts files to support it and other crazy non-sense.
My router doesn't suffer from any of the issues you linked. Clearly not a problem for me.
If I time the amount it takes to restart the DNS server (much like how the daemon is restarted after updating it):
So, I guess as far the rare updates (I think I only ever saw one last year), there might be a downtime of 0.008 seconds, which isn't really long enough to miss all the standard three DNS requests most resolvers send out.
Now, if this wasn't on the same system that provides Internet routing to the rest of my network, I'd probably invest in a Bird setup for reliability of certain network services. Which would be trivial on a couple of Raspberry Pi Zeros to provide the network uninterrupted DNS resolution (among other network services).
As far as the hardware restarts go, according to my router data, it's been rebooted four times last year (I believe two were for system patches, two were due to me physically moving the hardware in the house). I am not seeing the "DNS is prone to going down" problem here.
Shh APK.
You just failed to answer the question and your red herrings leads to this crying of yours.
Let's get back on topic:
My DNS is not prone to going down, why is that?