Re: Facebook insecure by design

2011-10-23 Thread steve pirk [egrep]
That was a most excellent example Jay. I see what the issue is now. This could be related to work Google did to plus shortly after launch. Buzz and now Google+ are https only. Google cooked up a URL processer that took clicks to external content like article links, and massaged the referrer be rea

Re: Facebook insecure by design

2011-10-23 Thread steve pirk [egrep]
I follow Lauren on plus, and also on buzz, and we have discussed privacy stuff a lot. The way I look at it, unless you want to host everything yourself, you have to choose "someone" to be your Unix like home directory in the cloud. Of all the internet entities out there, Google has had the best t

Re: Facebook insecure by design

2011-10-23 Thread Jay Ashworth
- Original Message - > From: "Jeroen Massar" > On 2011-10-23 19:43 , steve pirk [egrep] wrote: > > Just about everything on Google pages is https these days, even > > search if you enable it. > > (or just use https://encrypted.google.com which is available for quite > some time already)

Re: Facebook insecure by design

2011-10-23 Thread Jeroen Massar
[hmmm this subject is not really ops now is it...] On 2011-10-23 19:43 , steve pirk [egrep] wrote: > Just about everything on Google pages is https these days, even search if > you enable it. (or just use https://encrypted.google.com which is available for quite some time already) > If anybody o

Re: Facebook insecure by design

2011-10-23 Thread steve pirk [egrep]
Just about everything on Google pages is https these days, even search if you enable it. If anybody on this thread uses gmail com a you really ought to take a look at google plus. Compare the way user privacy is the primary objective, versus the share everything by default of facebook. I cannot t

Re: Juniper DOS/Blackhole question

2011-10-23 Thread Jack Bates
On 10/23/2011 2:18 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: EBGP multihop is kludge to kill this check, but also kludge to kill convergence of your BGP session, due to disabling This is what I was worried about. fall over on linkdown. Proper way to disable this check is JunOS 'accept-remote-nexthop' or IOS 'disa

Re: Juniper DOS/Blackhole question

2011-10-23 Thread Saku Ytti
On (2011-10-22 20:38 -0500), Jack Bates wrote: > the route. This seems strange to me. Any idea why a route would be > rejected unless multihop was enabled? RFC4271 states: -- - By default (if none of the above conditions apply), the BGP speaker SHOULD use the IP address of the interface tha

Re: Comcast security please contact me off list

2011-10-23 Thread Bob Snyder
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:56 AM, N Rauhauser wrote: >  I do some protective service work, one client is the head of a Washington > D.C. NGO that faced a credible death threat last month. Tonight I received > information that the source of this threat traced one of the NGO's > volunteers to her ho