all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 1 week ago (12 children)

can we PLEASE stop linking stuff from shit-ass sites that use quasi-malware services like Ad-Shield (the service behind the notorious html-load(dot)com, error-report(dot)com etc.)?

These sites intentionally break and block access when a DNS based ad blocker is used. Not because the site can't load - it actually loads perfectly fine behind the blockout - but because these fuckers intentionally unload CSS to break the site if ads won't load... via the same exact methods web malware loads malicious scripts.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    I have some heavy DNS filtering and the site still loads fine in Vanadium on GrapheneOS. Many sites refuse to load in the way you describe and it is annoying, but I didn't know this site was doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    Interesting.

    I run my own AGH gateway at home with pretty heavy filtering, plus my iDevices have a NextDNS profile installed - and now most big tech sites do this crap...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    Sounds to me like you accidentally have a cdn on the list? And can confirm, works for me (but i have usercss for TH anyway; their desktop-layout sucks).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    For further information:

    html-load(dot)com, error-report(dot)com are domains owned by Ad-Shield and similar "as recovery" services that:

    • inject a script into the site from its own host
    • script checks if ad blocs load content or not
    • if no ad content is loaded, they phone home to html-load(dot)com or a similar address (making it appear to the average user that they're some "core internet service")
    • id html-load or their other domains aren't reachable (they send a keyed request so it's not as easy as having your own server respond with an empty {} script), the site will unload CSS and deliver a blocking view
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Isn't there a uB or *monkey script that nips those in the bud? 🤞🏼

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Wait wait - is it also advertised as a 1TB card that's configured to show 1TB of space when you plug it in, but then it's really just a 4GB card?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    an interim fix using epoxy over the card.

    Lmao encase that shit. Bro, we just need more physical security, trust me.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    clearly a feature for when the sd card fails. think of how easy it will be to replace.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago*

    discovered what Li calls backdoor accounts on another maker’s drive, as well as hardcoded keys in other supposedly secure USB storage products.

    What i always say; hardware-based encryption is not secure. It's always in the triangle between speed, security and cost, the vendors go for speed and cost.

    And then there's stuff like this:

    but the drive sent the correct password back over USB in plain text for the software to compare, making it easy to capture

    Cookie-cutting on the developer side.

  • source
  • 6 comments in c/cybersecurity@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    Lmao "FU100" is an appropriate model name

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    different flaw in Lenovo’s TSD303 external SSD. Its data actually was encrypted, but the drive sent the correct password back over USB in plain text for the software to compare,

    Are we doing client side verification again already? I thought we had just remembered not to do it recently.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    So... how good are the rest then?

    We've spent a whack on different secure USB drives

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They're all likely awful. My advice is to leave that part to well tested and trusted encryption softwares.

    Ex: VeraCrypt, LUKS2, Cryptomator, Gocryptfs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Our problem is that we're using these as boot drives and transferring files to appliances (ie network switches, etc) so we can't use a lot of the software based encryption.

    I'll just hope that the iStorage and Apricorn drives use more than smoke & mirrors to protect the contents

  • source
  • parent