And sometimes it’s not the end of the story. There is another massive “visitor” spike at 2 AM. Turns out, that’s another 800 Fediverse servers because @nolan posted a link to this article. And he has a larger followership than me, meaning more Fediverse servers who need to fetch metadata. 😀

Show thread

This is what my stats for an article look like immediately after I post it. Hi 346 Fediverse servers, I love you too. 😂

And I was worried about activating policy…

What happened here: a web form sent my message using my address as the sender. Failed and checks of course. And then: “looks forwarded, should be fine.” 🤡

I’ve looked through the available info and everything adds up. Yes, it seems that activists managed to archive at least 30TB of data. It’s now safe to use the past tense when speaking about Parler. Even ignoring the technical difficulties, there is no coming back from that.

Hi , this “browser” is the current Thunderbird release, a mail and RSS client. Its capabilities are no different from Firefox 78. How about you detect Gecko rather than detecting Firefox?

Better yet, do feature detection instead of UA sniffing:

Wonderful how team fully recognizes that the use_shell option is a massive security footgun. So they warn users. In a separate document, not linked from the option’s documentation. Never mind not explaining which characters are ok, so users are bound to get it wrong.

I decided to run from a container locally as well, so that I am guaranteed to have it set up in exactly the same way as on the server. I even aliased hugo into "docker run" and it works pretty much the same (delay isn’t noticeable).

As I’m upgrading to Ubuntu 20.10, I’m left wondering how bugs like this one make it into the final release. Probably because everybody upgrading to the beta thought: “Oh, they’ll certainly update that before the release”?

“And so the Honey extension also has [obfuscated JavaScript] VIM code that will run in the context of the extension’s background page. It seems that the purpose of this code is extracting user identifiers from various advertising cookies.”

Show thread

“This time, there is no point decoding the base64-encoded data: the result will be binary garbage. As it turns out, the data here has been encrypted using AES, with the start of the string serving as the key.”

Show thread

“Are you saying document.querySelector()? No, guess again. Is anybody saying jQuery? Yes, of course it is using jQuery for extension code as well! And that means that every selector could be potentially booby-trapped.”

Show thread

“Why did they even bother with this complicated approach? Beats me. I can only imagine that they had trouble with shops using CSP in a way that prohibited execution of arbitrary scripts. So they decided to run the scripts outside the browser where CSP couldn’t stop them.”

Show thread

“So is this some outdated functionality that is no longer in use and that nobody bothered removing yet? Very likely. Yet it could jump to life any time to collect more detailed information about your browsing habits.”

Show thread

“So that’s where this Honey privacy statement is clearly wrong: while the data collected doesn’t contain your email address, Honey makes sure to associate it with your account among other things. And the account is tied to your email address.”

Show thread

That’s a weird one – the below is an exact copy of Firefox’ about:neterror page, but it’s apparently being served by (?) as a 404 page. It’s even using browser’s own scripts and styles which is rather dangerous since these could change. I fail to see the point…

Saw this gem in my logs, some bot masquerading as Googlebot but being really stupid about the referrer header, even leaving the anchor in the URL. The IP range indeed belongs to Google – Google Cloud Platform in fact. I guess I found my email scraper…

Update: today ’s published a new statement. It’s a good first step, though for my taste it’s a bit thin on reflection of her own role in this mess. What’s still missing however is some statement on the privacy issues. Will these be fixed as well eventually?

Show thread

The bad news: threatens to sue the researchers unless they let her approve the publication first. They kindly decline, as they should. And she shares that communication publicly as well, somehow assuming that it puts her in a better light?

Show thread

Somehow, the email communication still happened, the right person received the report and confirmed it. So a bit later today started sharing the image below – without retracting any of her claims, somehow assuming that this reinforces her points.

Show thread
Show older
Infosec Exchange

A Mastodon instance for info/cyber security-minded people.