antisocialist
Joined 4 years ago
Karma
-13
Submissions
53
Member since
Nov 21
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
Not if you disable your IPv6 stack.
Or you can be smart and "easily" address such probing attacks in your FW rules... https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50252
Comment · 1 year ago
That's interesting - it turned out markets, as distorted by Obamacare and so on as they are, weren't off by a lot.
He couldn't find services he needed and decided to build it himself. But after many years of trying he couldn't build a sustaining biz that provided such service.
Comment · 1 year ago
It may be valid against closed source apps, but I don't see how it can be more secure than build-and-self-host OSS apps for private messaging.
Comment · 2 years ago
They say don't roll your own encryption protocol (if something similar or same already exists and it's maintained), but these guys just can't resist.
Using a secure decentralized messenger to share a download (or upload) location on a Hidden S3 Service or one of those decentralized S3 services can't possibly be worse than this.
To commenter in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40289777: BitMessage doesn't solve anything, it uses broadcast and Bitcoin peer nodes that first get the message know where it came from. And BitMessage is not an illegal content hazard of any kind (what a ridiculous statement!).
You don't need a phone number or a phone for https://haven.xx.network and there are others.
If nothing is recommended, fine, but it's simplistic to not recommend or even consider the 3-4 apps that don't have those limitations. If you didn't have time to investigate or couldn't find anything else, say so.