Depends what you mean by “fine”. Tor will still guarantee anonymity through the three-hop model, and no they cannot see the contents of your traffic. But it really depends on your risk tolerance. The real problem in this scenario is traffic analysis.
I’m not sure how the video stream packets look in that scenario but they may still be able to infer through protocol or density that some video is streaming and block that. Again, without knowing what is in the stream.
But you have to be cautious about other attackers in the network targeting your device. Those risks can circumvent all sorts of safety you might think you have.
I don’t think the existence of something bad and needing to deal with that are mutually exclusive. Of course one should tackle the root of a problem. But you still need to bail water while the boat has a hole in it.
Very similar. A coworker of mine in maybe 2005 or so was a huge fan. I didn’t dislike him, but I did think his music taste sucked. So I thought Coheed and Cambria sucked. Then I saw them live several years later at a festival, and was blown away. I admit I was dead wrong. Listened to every album since and they are incredible composers and performers.
It doesn’t. The code your site provides is downloaded by your client’s browser. It uses a key on their side that is never sent back to your server. Same as if you did it with an extension or application. This is well trodden ground, and used across the internet such that hosts have zero knowledge of their users’ data aside from in its encrypted state.
Actually, let me give a little ground here. There is a subtle but real benefit to an extension or signed application. With just JavaScript, a server could on a new page load deliver an altered code that would introduce a compromise. If that is the threat you want to mitigate for, you’re onto something. If you’re talking high stakes, and you make it clear this is the threat for which you’re protecting users, then I could be convinced.
I mean no offense by this at all, but I wouldn’t because it would indicate a poor understanding of cryptography to me as a user. Either that or being intentionally misleading. In either case, probably unsafe for the user. There does not need to be an extension to encrypt content such that the server never has access to it. It can be encrypted and sent to the host with a key the server never possesses.
Same. Well, not mercurial, but CV in latex. Works great. It really gives a ton of control over typesetting, so it is easy to make sure each page is filled completely.
Depends what you mean by “fine”. Tor will still guarantee anonymity through the three-hop model, and no they cannot see the contents of your traffic. But it really depends on your risk tolerance. The real problem in this scenario is traffic analysis.
I’m not sure how the video stream packets look in that scenario but they may still be able to infer through protocol or density that some video is streaming and block that. Again, without knowing what is in the stream.
But you have to be cautious about other attackers in the network targeting your device. Those risks can circumvent all sorts of safety you might think you have.
I don’t think the existence of something bad and needing to deal with that are mutually exclusive. Of course one should tackle the root of a problem. But you still need to bail water while the boat has a hole in it.
But it does exist.
Unicode arrows and emdash… I wonder what wrote this.
It is at least positive how forthright they are about its use in their process.
A bit of a tautology.
I’m not clear where the “weapon” part comes in.
Had to be a few brutal, stinky days at sea.
Strong recommendation in the comments to play this at 2x.
New evidence rarely changes sentiment in a cult.
Very similar. A coworker of mine in maybe 2005 or so was a huge fan. I didn’t dislike him, but I did think his music taste sucked. So I thought Coheed and Cambria sucked. Then I saw them live several years later at a festival, and was blown away. I admit I was dead wrong. Listened to every album since and they are incredible composers and performers.
sourcehut hosts it free and makes publishing dead simple. You just push a tarball, and Bob’s your mother’s brother.
Maybe check out WAICT.
Oh yeah. I had just edited to identify that. And if this is the threat for which you’re protecting, this does make sense.
It doesn’t. The code your site provides is downloaded by your client’s browser. It uses a key on their side that is never sent back to your server. Same as if you did it with an extension or application. This is well trodden ground, and used across the internet such that hosts have zero knowledge of their users’ data aside from in its encrypted state.
Actually, let me give a little ground here. There is a subtle but real benefit to an extension or signed application. With just JavaScript, a server could on a new page load deliver an altered code that would introduce a compromise. If that is the threat you want to mitigate for, you’re onto something. If you’re talking high stakes, and you make it clear this is the threat for which you’re protecting users, then I could be convinced.
I mean no offense by this at all, but I wouldn’t because it would indicate a poor understanding of cryptography to me as a user. Either that or being intentionally misleading. In either case, probably unsafe for the user. There does not need to be an extension to encrypt content such that the server never has access to it. It can be encrypted and sent to the host with a key the server never possesses.
Numbers, prior to elections, do in fact lie. We’ve been burnt by this in the past. Maintain focus.
Smile
Same. Well, not mercurial, but CV in latex. Works great. It really gives a ton of control over typesetting, so it is easy to make sure each page is filled completely.