• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jun 29, 2023

help-circle
rss

Ultimately, in terms of security, you’re likely to find that both are similarly good.

What makes Firefox desirable over Chrome is that it’s not beng developed by massive corporation that gets the majority of its profits selling user data and delivering targeted adverts.

The other thing that may act as a deciding factor is the “MacOS doesn’t have viruses” effect. Wherein that because firefox has such a small userbase in comparison to chromium, it’s far more profitable to find exploits in chromium.


Sure, but an average user is not going to know to check for the URL protocol. It’s still incredibly effective for phishing


You’ve got half of it. The hacker’s server is acting as a middleman for the real login page. Everything appears legitimate except the URL will be wrong and if you use a password manager, it won’t auto-fill

They access the legit login page and forward it to you, but they’re in the middle capturing everything you send.

When you enter your login details, they will record them and then forward them to the real login window in near real time, effectively logging in as you. They then have a legitimate session token which they can use to access your account without needing to re-authenticate.


An attack using this tool does require that the user actually logs in, but because they’re just acting as a proxy for the real login page, the only way you’d spot the difference is if the URL doesn’t match (or that your password manager doesn’t auto-fill)

However, it’s pretty easy to see that someone would be fooled by that as you’d expect to need to confirm your identity when adding a gift card to your steam account.


Typically, with scams like this, the attacker is using a tool like Evilginx.

The way this works is that Evilginx runs on a server that the hacker controls and will request the login page from whatever service they are targeting(Discord, Steam, Google, etc) and then serve it to you as a proxy. It looks entirely legitimate unless you make sure to very closely check the URL.

Once you login, it will take a copy of your Username, your password, and your session token(the thing that lets Discord know it’s you so you don’t need to login again after every refresh). and suddenly the attackers now have access to your account to do whatever they want with it.

Discord should absolutely prevent modifying links in this way specifically for this reason, but good practice as a user is to hover over every link and make sure it’s pointing where it’s supposed to. Don’t click on anything that looks suspicious.


You make a good point, but it’s probably not zero


Good. Ad blocking is security and anyone that tells you different both doesn’t care about your computer security, and also wants to sell you something.

That 2/3 to 3/4 of computer programmers, computer security experts and advertisers seems low. I feel like that should be closer to 90%


That’s exactly what they did.

Nintendo’s argument was that the software itself primarily facilities piracy and that to use it, you either had to circumvent protections on your own hardware to extract the keys or pirate someone else’s keys.

They’re still wrong for abusing DMCA to remove the software, but it would take an expensive and lengthy court battle to get them to back off


This is not really the same thing.

The Apple lawsuit was about running unsigned code on the iPhone, which courts deemed that Apple couldn’t use copyright as a tool to enforce its walled garden.

Nintendo isn’t arguing about people modifying their switch to run homebrew. They’re arguing that to use Yuzu you need to provide it with a copy of the decryption keys and system firmware which must be either extracted from a Switch or distributed illegally.

This is a much stronger case in Nintendo’s favor, than the Apple jailbreak one. Although, I suspect the Yuzu dev has a better case as it’s already legal to back up discs and ROMs as long as you dont distribute them and they’re not responsible for other people’s actions if they choose to break copyright



I suspect that the UK will just say “either you add the backdoor or you don’t operate here”

Which from a cynical perspective is just an easy check for hackers to see if a particular target is vulnerable by seeing if they’re allowed to operate in the UK


I mean, this was disclosed to AMD a few months back and there actually is a patch available currently for Epyc CPUs.

It’d be nice if they waited until all the patches were out, but I’d rather this than a full zero-day exploit of this scale in the wild.