Miscellaneous Tech News
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google Chrome 82 won’t be supporting ftp
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/08/16/google-chrome-82-wont-support-ftp-anymore/Few people will notice that one.
I don't know anyone who deals with FTP via the web browser anymore...
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google Chrome 82 won’t be supporting ftp
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/08/16/google-chrome-82-wont-support-ftp-anymore/Few people will notice that one.
I don't know anyone who deals with FTP via the web browser anymore...
Exactly. Not for a long time. FTP is so antiquated. Between anonymous being replaced with HTTP and non-anonymous being replaced with SFTP... where do you come across FTP these days.
-
Oh look! They're at it again!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/23/lenovo_solution_centre_cve_2019_6177/Make-me-admin hole found in Lenovo Windows laptop crapware.
Not only has a vulnerability been found in Lenovo Solution Centre (LSC), but the laptop maker fiddled with end-of-life dates to make it seem less important – and is now telling the world it EOL'd the vulnerable monitoring software before its final version was released. -
@nadnerB said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Oh look! They're at it again!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/23/lenovo_solution_centre_cve_2019_6177/Make-me-admin hole found in Lenovo Windows laptop crapware.
Not only has a vulnerability been found in Lenovo Solution Centre (LSC), but the laptop maker fiddled with end-of-life dates to make it seem less important – and is now telling the world it EOL'd the vulnerable monitoring software before its final version was released.Where "again" = "still".
-
Google Tells Employees to Avoid Debating About Politics at Work
While sharing information and ideas with colleagues helps build community, disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest news story does not,' says the new community guidelines from Google.
As Google's influence over the internet and society grows, the company is telling employees to avoid debating politics at work. On Friday, the tech giant unveiled the company's revised community guidelines, which aim to create an inclusive environment at the workplace. To accomplish this, Google is calling on all employees to refrain from debating non-work topics in the office. "While sharing information and ideas with colleagues helps build community, disrupting the workday to have a raging debate over politics or the latest news story does not," the policy says. The guidelines add: "Avoid conversations that are disruptive to the workplace or otherwise violate Google's workplace policies." -
Hackers are actively trying to steal passwords from two widely used VPNs
Got Fortigate or Pulse Secure? Now would be a good time to make sure they're patched.
Hackers are actively unleashing attacks that attempt to steal encryption keys, passwords, and other sensitive data from servers that have failed to apply critical fixes for two widely used virtual private network (VPN) products, researchers said. The vulnerabilities can be exploited by sending unpatched servers Web requests that contain a special sequence of characters, researchers at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas said earlier this month. The pre-authorization file-reading vulnerabilities resided in the Fortigate SSL VPN, installed on about 480,000 servers, and the competing Pulse Secure SSL VPN, installed on about 50,000 machines, researchers from Devcore Security Consulting reported. The Devcore researchers discovered other critical vulnerabilities in both products. These make it possible for attackers to, among other things, remotely execute malicious code and change passwords. Patches for the Fortigate VPN became available in May and in April for Pulse Secure. But installing the patches can often cause service disruptions that prevent businesses from carrying out essential tasks. -
Just came across this
-
Facebook Launches Bug Bounty Program for Libra Blockchain
The Libra Association rolls out Libra Bug Bounty Program, offering up to $10,000 for uncovering critical blockchain security issues underlying the unreleased cryptocurrency.
As Facebook's ambitious plans for Libra face intense regulatory scrutiny both in the US and around the globe, the nonprofit Libra Association that governs the Libra blockchain is pushing forward on the technology side. After more than two months in beta testing with 50 security researchers and blockchain experts, the Libra Bug Bounty Program is now open to the public, the Libra Association announced today. The association is inviting security researchers around the world to uncover bugs and vulnerabilities in the open-source Libra Core code, which remains in an early stage version called testnet. The conceit of Libra relies upon compromising the traditional decentralization benefits of blockchain technology in order to accelerate transaction speeds, with the goal of transacting Libra nearly instantaneously between digital wallets and within Facebook-owned Messenger and WhatsApp. This trade-off—a permissioned blockchain where only Libra Association members operate a limited number of nodes—heightens already paramount security concerns about a platform and products designed to serve as financial infrastructure for millions, pegged to a basket of real-world currencies. -
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Facebook Launches Bug Bounty Program for Libra Blockchain
The Libra Association rolls out Libra Bug Bounty Program, offering up to $10,000 for uncovering critical blockchain security issues underlying the unreleased cryptocurrency.
As Facebook's ambitious plans for Libra face intense regulatory scrutiny both in the US and around the globe, the nonprofit Libra Association that governs the Libra blockchain is pushing forward on the technology side. After more than two months in beta testing with 50 security researchers and blockchain experts, the Libra Bug Bounty Program is now open to the public, the Libra Association announced today. The association is inviting security researchers around the world to uncover bugs and vulnerabilities in the open-source Libra Core code, which remains in an early stage version called testnet. The conceit of Libra relies upon compromising the traditional decentralization benefits of blockchain technology in order to accelerate transaction speeds, with the goal of transacting Libra nearly instantaneously between digital wallets and within Facebook-owned Messenger and WhatsApp. This trade-off—a permissioned blockchain where only Libra Association members operate a limited number of nodes—heightens already paramount security concerns about a platform and products designed to serve as financial infrastructure for millions, pegged to a basket of real-world currencies.Seriously? 10K... no one will give a shit about that. The hacker could make so much more just using the hack or selling it to a less than reputable firm. Way to little compared to the bounties we are seeing these days. Didn't MS just up their bounty max to $1 million?
-
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.) -
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
-
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
One way would be - cheaper products so people have more money - then people spend that money on the site they are trying to support.
Of course - yeah I know this will never work, because vendors will never make cheaper products.
TV and radio and newspaper and magazines didn't have this grandular level of tracking and they seemed to do well - at least until the internet came along and people discovered the ability to track people...
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
TV and radio and newspaper and magazines didn't have this grandular level of tracking and they seemed to do well - at least until the internet came along and people discovered the ability to track people...
Prior to Internet, the few restaurants I worked in would track people by comment cards with addresses and such. In addition to keeping track of regional location of the visitors. Granted, they were bribed with % off coupons to come back.
-
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
If the content isn't viable, there is no right to make money. Just because someone wants to say something, doesn't mean that they have special rights to make others pay for it. Anyone can publish and pay for it themselves.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
One way would be - cheaper products so people have more money - then people spend that money on the site they are trying to support.
Of course - yeah I know this will never work, because vendors will never make cheaper products.
I don't think Social Media sites could exist without tracking and ads. That is where the money is.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
One way would be - cheaper products so people have more money - then people spend that money on the site they are trying to support.
Of course - yeah I know this will never work, because vendors will never make cheaper products.
TV and radio and newspaper and magazines didn't have this grandular level of tracking and they seemed to do well - at least until the internet came along and people discovered the ability to track people...
Lots of sites just can't make money. It's just how it is. If a site isn't important enough for anyone to sponsor, maybe it shouldn't exist.
-
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
One way would be - cheaper products so people have more money - then people spend that money on the site they are trying to support.
Of course - yeah I know this will never work, because vendors will never make cheaper products.
I don't think Social Media sites could exist without tracking and ads. That is where the money is.
Then obviously they either need to rely on customers who are okay with that, or stop existing. easy as that.
-
Google is defining "vibrant" as "good for Google", rather than "good for the customers".
-
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
Sounds like the herd will get thinned out. I'll never weep for a website that suddenly loses its ad revenue, especially not google.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@pmoncho said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@mlnews said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Google defends tracking cookies—some experts aren’t buying it
Google: Banning tracking cookies "jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web."
Google's Chrome team is feeling pressure from competitors over ad tracking. Apple has long offered industry-leading protection against tracking cookies, while Mozilla recently announced that Firefox will begin blocking tracking cookies by default. Microsoft has been experimenting with tracking protection features in Edge, too. But Google has a problem: it makes most of its money selling ads. Adopting the same aggressive cookie blocking techniques as its rivals could prevent Google's customers from targeting ads—potentially hurting Google's bottom line. So in a blog post last week, Google outlined an alternative privacy vision—one that restricts some forms of user tracking without blocking the use of tracking cookies any time soon. "Blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant Web," Google's Justin Schuh writes. (Those publishers, of course, include Ars publisher Conde Nast. We use cookies to serve targeted ads because they generate more revenue to support our journalism.)Maybe Google has a point. If not ads how else do millions of websites make money to continue publishing content?
One way would be - cheaper products so people have more money - then people spend that money on the site they are trying to support.
Of course - yeah I know this will never work, because vendors will never make cheaper products.
I don't think Social Media sites could exist without tracking and ads. That is where the money is.
Then obviously they
eitherneed torely on customers who are okay with that, orstop existing. easy as that.There, that's better.
