Control8894

7 ms·

1.
by Control8894 2y ago
Of course not. They removed it because it saves them money, thus increasing their profit margins.
2.
by Control8894 2y ago
Should is not does, and also LOL @ anycast for some SMB's internal networking. Yeah, good luck with that bud. > when it's broken it's broken cuz you broke it No duh, but that doesn't make it any less broken.
3.
by Control8894 2y ago
This is a very poor straw man. In IPv6 world you wouldn't get 2001::/112, you'd get 2001:1234:5678:90ab::/48. So your building might actually be at best something like 2001:1234:5678:90ab:1::.
4.
by Control8894 2y ago
It doesn't matter if the wifi is encrypted or not. All that matters is that you share the network with an attacker. You can ARP poison just fine, encrypted or open, wifi or wired.
5.
by Control8894 2y ago
Erm... no.
6.
by Control8894 2y ago
Don't worry, you're only allowed to see responses to stuff if you're logged in. Hope they don't ban you from having an account for daring to @ musk.
7.
by Control8894 2y ago
Well, they are really wireless. Wireless costs more because suddenly you need to deal with antennas and RF and whatever. Adding a wire back on top of that doesn't magically make it cost less again.
8.
by Control8894 2y ago
Nothing has taken its place, and you didn't even get anything cheaper. The only one who won was Apple.
9.
by Control8894 2y ago
> These are all big companies out to make a buck. != not bad
10.
by Control8894 2y ago
Yes, IPv6-first is definitely the way to do it. Just be careful not to run into Github's issue ( https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/5y8b8lsqbbyq ) or Google's issue ( https://i.imgur.com/4gGE
11.
by Control8894 2y ago
> The basic idea is that whenever you find yourself memorising an IPv4 address, there's a failure somewhere. Possibly at policy and governance level. Sorry, but that's a load of manure. It's not just about memorizing. Peop
12.
by Control8894 2y ago
> for example, an attacker within range of an Wi-Fi access point hosting a network without encryption The monkey in the middle doesn't get to "relay" anything either, but he can sure see it going over his head.
13.
by Control8894 2y ago
Perhaps, but the other realistic option is a self-signed cert. Since browsers refuse to implement any kind of TOFU or otherwise 'trust history', a self-signed cert is pretty much exactly equivalent to no TLS at all.
14.
by Control8894 2y ago
> One day, an intermediary system is hijacked which carries your traffic, and your weather information can be rewritten in transit. Your credibility for providing outstanding data is compromised when you start serving up weather informat
15.
by Control8894 2y ago
I disagree. So does Wikipedia ("where the attacker secretly relays and possibly alters the communications between two parties who believe that they are directly communicating with each other, as the attacker has inserted themselves bet
16.
by Control8894 2y ago
It's a fake background. It's also clearly from Google Meet so... yeah. If he was worried about retribution (from Google, anyway) then they probably wouldn't have been using a Google service.
17.
by Control8894 2y ago
Is it? Or is the problem the similarity of the concepts?
18.
by Control8894 2y ago
> What does "unauthenticated" even mean here? That you're not logged in. > You aren't logged in, not logged in isn't a state of "unauthenticated" What? Yes it is. > you haven't given any cred
19.
by Control8894 2y ago
Sometimes they might have been able to allocate it more compactly - but how do you predict exactly what your needs will be in 20 years? Other times they might not have been able to allocate it more compactly - are you really going to go mak
20.
by Control8894 2y ago
I didn't have IPv6 available from the sole (land-based) ISP who offered service at my last house, Altice USA (Suddenlink/Optimum). I moved away about 13 months ago. (Worse yet their modem/router did RAs or whatever but there
21.
by Control8894 2y ago
I think there's an extra, important, oft-missed part implicit in your scenarios: 1) make everything the same, the good and the bad, just extend the address space, and replace all the networking stacks in all the gear everywhere. ... bu
22.
by Control8894 2y ago
My employer also disables it (choice made above me). And I get it. It really is duplicating lots of work for absolutely no benefit (to the organizations doing the work). It's a shame that you're getting downvoted. I'm sure a