|
No, France will not surrender immediately to Aliens! Just saying! Even for free Netflix!
But funny anyway.. 
We Must Band Together! - YouTube
modified 19-Jun-20 1:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's very impressive, however the whole thing still feels heavily scripted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"May have been" -- weasel words.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
"words."
-- weasel deal.
|
|
|
|
|
In other earth-shattering news, browser extensions are a malware vector. 
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: In other earth-shattering news, browser extensions are a malware vector
FTFY.
Years ago, when Chrome was just getting started, Google was freely admitting the only reason Chrome existed was to keep people engaged on the internet for as long as possible, since that meant they could derive more revenue.
Somehow people keep forgetting Google is the world's biggest advertising company.
|
|
|
|
|
It surprises me that articles like that are not illegal. I mean the whole thing reads like it's Google that is doing the spying. I expect for most non-techie readers, that will be the only thing they would take away from the article.
Of course, that's not to say Google isn't guilty of spying via other means.
|
|
|
|
|
... and of course, no mention from MSN that Edge users are equally vulnerable.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Equally as vulnerable, but just not popular enough to bother targeting. 
|
|
|
|
|
Mmmm, it doesn't say what extensions are vulnerable  A little bit worrying but I'll probably be ok...the only extensions I use are ones that mine crypto, track crypto, let me have things for free I really should be paying for, and put me into contact with hot single women in my area.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder: Now that MS has combined Edge with Chrome into a single browser: Are we going to be exposed to the bad sides of both browsers? 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have to explicitly enable Chrome extensions on Edge so at least Edge is secure by default.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you should be teaching a course in safe browsing at your local Junior High School.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
"Safe browsing"? Does something like that even exist? I gather you are a Chrome fan? 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Cp-Coder wrote: I gather you are a Chrome fan?
That's essentially 100% wrong. The only time chrome ever even opened in my browser was when something (like an install) set it as a default browser and I closed it immediately. I may, but don't hold me to this, have once used it to download FireFox - on a Linux box of some sort.
I don't even like sending email to @gmail addresses. Even though I never agreed to their terms of service they can still use my emails in the hands of the various address holders, to build a profile on me.
Cp-Coder wrote: "Safe browsing"? Does something like that even exist?
Of course! Set up a website on your internal network and limit your browsing to there. Isn't that what everyone does?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I get spyed on legitimately - via cookies. I have yet to find a browser extension that's worth the time to install.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Finished one project, completely buried in work, my customer asked me to send him the project using WeTransfer.
I'd like to receive a confirmation of reception.
Is there any method out there that offers that?
Do you use something similar?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not send it with a encrypted USB device per post requiring to be signed at destination?
Once they get it, they ask you for the password.
This way you have a double confirmation.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Or you could use an X.400 email system, where this functionality has been available for 35+ years
|
|
|
|
|
However, this model fails when the email services are provided by the user's company or organization, or when the service provider is not known. In this case, there is no national-scale database of users and an improper organization name is enough to cause it to fail. This is the dominant model today, where companies use an internal server, or even more commonly, use a provider like Gmail, which is invisible outside the organization, and even to the users. In this model, the ADMD is unknown or the same as the organization itself. So... my answer still is more likely to succeed
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
X.400 was designed with the intention that the mail transfer system, the MTAs, were managed by a recognized, public athority. It was developed by the ITU (or as it was called then, CCITT), considering the network of MTAs the way they considered the network of telephone switches: Of course you may, within your company, have an internal distribution system to each employee - a PBX for phone, maybe a company database for the email.
For voice phone, there is a well defined Network Termination point: The network provider has the full responsibility upstream from this point, the customer has the full responsibility downstream. For email, there was a similar point referred to as P3.
This splitting into a mail network provider and mail user was not very popular among Internet people - they want every single developer to be able to manage the whole thing, run its own mail network of MTAs, free to be modified as the developer wants. That's how SMPT nodes are run, by just anyone who cares to set it up. Why should anyone tell us that X.400 assumes a stricter discipline? We don't want discipline in the Internet - Internet is free!
So the guy whose X.400 address is revealed in the Wikipedia article, Harald Alvestrand, said with a smile when working with X.400 at the Uninett research institute: "Sure, we use the ITU X.400 document in our everyday work, but we've got a copy of ISO 10021 available, in case someone points out that we are not a telecom adminstration - the documents are technically identical, but the ISO version has deleted the paragraph stating that MTAs are operated by recognized telecom administrations" 
(Another thing from the same guy: He entered IETF work going from X.400 into MIME, which was still in the design discussion phase at that time. When a new problem area was brought up, Harald suggested that they adopted the solution already designed for X.400, both to save the design effort and to ease interworking between the two email systems. He was immediately and forcefully turned down: No matter what qualities the X.400 solution had, we are not going to do anything the way of the OSI stack! ... So (some parts of) MIME was deliberately designed to be different from, and incompatible with, X.400. That is how the netork wars were like, thirty years ago.)
The critisism raised in the text you quote seems to ignore X.500 completely. In the 1984 "Red Book" recommendations, the directory system we now mostly know as LDAP. (LDAP was originally an access protocol to a "real" X.500 directory.) X.500 is designed for global distribution, in a way resembling DNS. If X.400/X.500 had succeeded, there would have been not only a national but a global database of users.
It seems as if the author(s) of the Wikipedia article has never used a decent X.400/X.500 implementation. I never saw anyone type in the recipient address in the "To:" field, like you do in SMTP: You look up the address in the (globally distributed) database, by any combination of database keys identifying the recipient uniquely, mouse selecting from list of partially matching alternatives if you prefer that to typing. Just like you used to jot down in your little red book the phone numbers of people you met, a successful hit in the large X.500 directory could by a mouse click be transferred to (or referenced from) your electronic rotary, part of the mail system. In the X.400 system I used the most, I could append a tag to the rotary entry, so that I could specify the tag when preparing a mail, and the full address would be retrieved from the rotary by the mail system.
Similarly, when then authors state that "the X.500 protocol proved to be every bit as complex and unwieldy as X.400", their attitude is clearly shown. LDAP is (or I should say: was) nothing but an Internet protocol adaptation of the X.500 DAP. The complexity of the protocol semantics is identical; the essential difference is tne encoding. If you - the Internet Way - expect to create the BER encoding by hand, telnetting to the X.500 server, then you are lost. Very few Internet people spent more than five minutes to reject ASN.1 and BER encoding: If it ain't ASCII, but designed to be generated by software rather than from a keyboard, then it is "complex and unwieldy". ... There again you have the rhetorics of the network wars.
There is no realistic chance of "The revenge of X.400". Yet I find it dispiriting, again and again, see the Internet struggle with problems that were solved many years ago - but that was by the enemy. We close our eyes, we don't want to see it. We won't spend any effort on understanding it. It wasn't invented here, withing the Internet community. Some of the solutions sneak in, behind the curtain, now that noone knows that they really originated in the trenches of the enemy. Often the theft is half-baked and partial, the result looks patchy and full of wreckage from now abandoned solutions. But we'll just have to learn to live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, thanks for the explanation.
Member 7989122 wrote: The critisism raised in the text you quote...
Not my criticism...
My points are:
I have never seen anyone using x.400 in my professional years. Heck, I didn't even remembered it until you told me today (I remember something about it in my college years, but I thought it had got extincted).
Knowing how things work in Spain, I doubt that either Joan M or his customer have the infrastructure to use it on the short term.
Reading the OP, reliability is as important as being able to finish the topic and strike it from the ToDo-List.
That's why I suggested the encrypted drive and the physical post in the first place. That's something he can arrange right away.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
