3 ms·
Wait wait WHAT? This standard seems like a terrible mistake. Isn't this exactly what malware creators want? To condition users to click the browser pop up th
by paultopia 9y ago
Wait wait WHAT?
This standard seems like a terrible mistake. Isn't this exactly what malware creators want? To condition users to click the browser pop up that says "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED WITH MALWARE, CALL THIS NUMBER/INSTALL THIS HORRIBLE THING TO FIX IT?"
Why on Earth would anyone issue a standard that says that ISPs should deliver that kind of notification, thus training consumers to believe them?
- Centime 9y agoThey're the ones who issued the standard. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jis 9y agoJust to be clear. This is not an IETF Standard that has gone through the standards process. It is an "individual submission" published as an informational document. The IETF does not endorse documents classified as "informational."
- ajross 9y agoIETF RFCs are not "standards" in the sense that you are thinking. The RFC process is deliberately designed to be open to submission from anyone, and there is no particular vetting or consensus forming that happens. When used by practicing engineers as a low-overhead way to document interoperability requirements for working software, it's been fantastically successful. But it also lends itself to this kind of pseudo-fraud "standardization" by less ethical players. Bottom line: an "RFC" means nothing per se. What matters is whether the community wants to support it. So RFC7540 is an important standard everyone agrees to support. RFC6108 is garbage.