Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | Tobu's comments login

The next release (in six weeks) will also disable RC4 fallback, except for a few sites which are on a whitelist for one release after that.

-----


The cross-compilation stuff is already addressed in the article. The jhybrid demo is a calculator and doesn't do storage.

-----


> a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred

Weasely enough that the warrant-seeker could pick a pet court wherever they have computers. There's a judge who made Marshall, East Texas the place to find software patents infringed with maximum damages. A similar venue would pop up.

-----


Just don't enable any filter lists. A while back you had to add them manually; now I think it's a matter of unchecking them in the first-run dialog.

ABP also makes it easy to create very specific rules: only block a particular resource when accessed from the current domain.

-----


Thanks but that's not what I'm looking for. I want them all enabled! But I only want to enable the addon for certain blacklisted sites.

-----


This doesn't work with the push to HTTPS. Either you use proxy connect, and Privoxy is no better than /etc/hosts blocking. Or you'd rely on the proxy's poorer and slower implementation of TLS. Certificate verification will suffer (no certificate pinning, no certificate blacklist, no OCSP stapling, no way to verify incomplete chains), no SPDY, no sunsetting of bad ciphers or bad protocols.

-----


Is there some reason in principle why you can't constructively MITM yourself without using piles of Javascript in the browser?

-----


There is no reason in principle, and you can even do it for kicks.[1] The only issue here is a practical one, as the parent poster described: from an end-user perspective, browsers do SSL/TLS better than ad-blocking proxies.

[1]: An example from the other side of the coin: http://www.wired.com/2010/03/packet-forensics/

-----


Not really. I have some integrists (Catholics) in my family, and they took the trouble to forward e-mails explaining that they didn't really like Charlie Hebdo, because it wasn't respectful towards any religion. In fact, they don't think much of press freedom:

«freedom of expression and freedom of the press don't extend to insulting, showing contempt, blaspheming, trampling, mocking the faith or values of co-citizens». The justification: «insult is violence».

Possibly they are afraid of being mocked. Realizing that people didn't have to take (the idea of) god seriously was transformative for me.

Their email forward about Charlie Hebdo described a cartoon of pope benedict xvi «taking position on pedophilia» (sodomizing children), here's the drawing: http://culturebox.francetvinfo.fr/tendances/evenements/dessi... . The cartoon is not actually related to Charlie Hebdo, which goes to show they don't read it. That said, here's a drawing that's really be Charlie, lampooning the catholics for a hush-hush attitude to pedophilia: http://stripsjournal.canalblog.com/archives/2010/03/31/27376... . It's accurate: those well-to-do catholics I've talked to, including priests, reacted to the scandals strictly by being preoccupied with perception of the catholic church.

-----


It's a worthwhile effort. If you just go with the first thing that goes through your head, you're probably repeating someone else's meme.

It's a shitty thing to equate islamic terrorists (Al-Qaeda, in this case) with Islam. Al Qaeda kills eight times more muslism than non-muslims: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-o...

And Daeh is killing muslims and blowing up mosques: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-grue...

The idea that this is a clash of civilisations, rather than terrorists seeking to control co-religionists, is designed to drive both sides to their respective extremists.

-----


That /robots.txt does tell the other bots to not crawl most of the site. These results are unlikely to stay.

-----


Sorry, but any self-moderated forum is going to have content you don't like and lack content you like. That subreddit has the community's self-moderation, which scales, and moderators who don't. The moderators' aren't going to spend their day making judgment calls, they write clear rules[0] and let things take their course. “Must be peer-reviewed research” is pretty clear cut and the signal to noise is better than without it. Who cares if it's too strict; you have other subreddits.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_submission_...

-----


You missed the point of my comment. I'm saying that much of the "science" is so soft that the process is still based on judgement calls. Not only do I disagree with some of those judgment calls, but I prefer transparent value judgements to hidden value judgements.

-----


Seems like INRIA is starting to do some formal checking of OpenSSL. Here's their page: http://prosecco.gforge.inria.fr/

Here's another OpenSSL flaw that was found with Coq, a formal prover: http://ccsinjection.lepidum.co.jp/blog/2014-06-05/CCS-Inject...

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: