Encryption: Lets ban it, what can go wrong?
-
I thought it was pretty obvious that God was trying to encrypt his stash of dirty pictures and videos of Eve.
Filed Under: God has an extreme rib fetish.
-
I thought it was pretty obvious that God was trying to encrypt his stash of dirty pictures and videos of Eve.
ah. there we go. that's the @algorythmics i expected!
-
David Cameron is a bit of an arse-clown. Dunno how they are going to enforce it, it kinda like the blocks on the torrent sites, trivial to get around and doesn't actually achieve anything other than they said "well we tried.
-
what happened to the @algorythmics we know and loved?
Apparently squeezing out the extra poop also got rid of the extra pervy.
-
poop pervy....
rule 34
-
David Cameron is
a bit ofan arse-clown.I remember how fast he wheeled out the “money is no object” in response to floods along the upper Thames (shockingly close to his constituency and the homes of his chums) last winter and then back-pedalled when the Treasury pointed out that the public finances could stand such a thing. As he'd previously spent years telling everyone else. And all after other parts of the country had been flooded for quite some time.
Fortunately, my part of the country wasn't all that wet at the time. Gave us more time to watch the politicians squirm though, so it wasn't all good…
-
Dunno how they are going to enforce it, it kinda like the blocks on the torrent sites, trivial to get around and doesn't actually achieve anything other than they said "well we tried.
All you need to do is intercept STARTTLS and drop it. At least one ISP already tries, except leaving port 443 open as a courtesy for now.
Then, with no SSL, you can identify who is still trying to send encrypted messages as they have some thing to hide away,
-
some thing to hide
That sounds like a great idea. I look forward to being SWATed for trying to do my online banking...
-
All you need to do is intercept STARTTLS and drop it.
Easier said than done given how TCP works.
-
-
by "like" I mean "disapprove" :<sdfg>|
-
How is that not illegal? Not the throttling, that's "fine". But intercepting a packet and rewriting it is a MITM attack. And sending RSTs to disrupt communications is disrupting communications. That has to be running up against a number of anti-terrorism and information security laws somehow.
-
That has to be running up against a number of anti-terrorism and information security laws somehow.
oh it's okay. we're the ones doing it so it must be legal.
i mean we arent' the bad guys here!
-
oh it's okay. we're the ones doing it so it must be legal.
i mean we arent' the bad guys here!
When the President does it, that means it's not illegal.
-
i know what i sayd was supposed to be hyperbole.....
unfortunately i no longer believe that your comment (which i have heard many other times) is hyperbole..... it's just the very very very sad truth....
-
unfortunately i no longer believe that your comment (which i have heard many other times) is hyperbole
It's something Richard Nixon said.
-
-
sounds like something Nixon's head would say.
Yes, but it was still on his body at the time.
-
Yes, but it was still on his body at the time.
i was aware. i was giving someone an excuse tp post furutama art. ;-)
-
Truth is stranger than fiction
-
-
I don't know what that is,
pick on someone else if you want me to give you a spellar badge.
too easy with me. like shooting a whale in a test tube.
:-P
-
oh it's okay. we're the ones doing it so it must be legal.
i mean we arent' the bad guys here!
I'm pretty sure it'll be in the contract they send you that they will take measures to prevent unauthorized use of their connection. Shitty, but probably not illegal. My isp kills my connection on my phone if I turn on the wireless hotspot feature and then connect a PC/laptop/tablet. It's just the way those fuckers roll.
-
i know what i sayd was supposed to be hyperbole.....
unfortunately i no longer believe that your comment (which i have heard many other times) is hyperbole..... it's just the very very very sad truth....
I thought it was common knowledge.
-
When the President does it, that means it's not illegal.
Did Nixon get a tan and ran for office again?
-
too easy with me. like shooting a whale in a test tube.
That's actually pretty difficult, because [spoiler]first you have get the whale into the test tube.[/spoiler]
-
[spoiler]first you have get the whale into the test tube.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]you could just grow it in the test tube...[/spoiler]
-
That's amazing, I've got the
number ofsame combination on myMastercardluggage!SBTFY
-
[spoiler]you could just grow it in the test tube...[/spoiler]
<before some asshat points out that it parody, yes fucker, I know>
-
..... that cannot be nice......... can it?
nope. nope nope. not clicking poast that intro... nope. do not want to know the answer.
-
-
-
But intercepting a packet and rewriting it is a MITM attack. And sending RSTs to disrupt communications is disrupting communications. That has to be running up against a number of anti-terrorism and information security laws somehow.
It's weird just how capriciously those laws are applied, eh?
I'm pretty sure it'll be in the contract they send you that they will take measures to prevent unauthorized use of their connection.
Do they define 'unauthorized use' in that contract as well?
-
I would assume so, and I would assume they would use terminology like "any technology that could be used to circumvent these restrictions" (i.e. encryption). It's all a guess, but they would be stupid to do it without putting it in the contract
-
any technology that could be used to circumvent these restrictions
- a web browser
- ethernet cables
- internet service provider
- free wi-fi
- mobile data plan
- netcat
- bank websites
- Google.com
-
I had an idea of SSL over HTTP. Basically, it doesn't matter where you put the TLS in the stack. You could serve TLS packets over unsecured HTTP and it would be just as secure as doing it through TCP in the first place, assuming your browser was able to verify the CA.
-
And that my friend is why the Conservative Defence Minister on last night's Question Time is an unadulterated idiot. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Soubry
The remainder of her behaviour on the programme was proof that she is also a horrible person who should never be allowed back into a position of power.
Hopefully they'll get her back on the telly a few more times before the election to remind her electorate how incompetent, rude and self-important she is before the election.
-
I keep trying to come up with a scenario in which you can ban all encypted traffic, but still allow straightforward communication, and I'm having a really difficult time with it. You can't even allow people to exchange images or audio clips. And even letting them have 7-bit ASCII communication allows them cyphers or one-time-pad-encoded text messages.
To say nothing of the fact that if we stop every data packet so a human can moderate it before allowing it to be sent, we lose many of the advantages of the internet in it's current. Then again, if I was able to say with certainty and conviction that banning encrytion is both achievable and desirable, then I would strongly consider a career in politics.
-
.... that cannot be nice......... can it?
I remember finding Bonsai Kitten and being all upset.... when I was 12.
-
-
-
-
-
Why do I have the feeling that another Photoshop may appear shortly...
-
Why do I have the feeling that another Photoshop may appear shortly...
at least this one is likely to be more SFW
-
That's a horrible thing to do to a corgi. The indignity!
-
That's a horrible thing to do to a corgi. The indignity!
I couldn't agree more. Stegosaurus is just the poor lizard's triceratops.
-
-
-
intercepting a packet and rewriting it is a MITM attack.
You understand, then, why I refuse to enable "SSL inspection" on the school Zscaler connection.
Filed under: just install this universal spoofing root CA cert in all your browsers, trust us, we're the good guys