3 ms·
> - If you go around memorising addresses then you are doing IT wrong in general. So many things depend on DNS (not just A records) that punching in IPs by defa
by 4bpp 8y ago
> - If you go around memorising addresses then you are doing IT wrong in general. So many things depend on DNS (not just A records) that punching in IPs by default is a bad habit. Browsers will keep on enforcing SSL/TLS more and more until the point where typing in an IP address into the URL bar will be as painful as using the web GUI for say an elderly HP switch is right now.
Most of the things I do with memorised addresses have nothing to do with the browser or HTTP. (Mind you, though, the moment a browser won't let me access a bare IP, I'm switching away from that browser.)
> - In general latency is not affected by header lengths these days. In some cases, networks are prioritising IPv6 for the opposite affect. In other cases ISPs have dropped their entire IPv6 support without noticing for quite some time. sigh
I wondered if this may be the case; I may need to rerun some tests.
> - The addressing scheme in use should have nothing to do with your privacy. Yes NAT does accidentally hide you a little bit. However I can fingerprint your browser instead, for example. I'll trade easy SIP n RTP over NAT any day.
A website I navigate to may, but how will the carrier fingerprint my browser?
All in all, it seems like we are talking about very different threat models to privacy/security. You are worried about the likes of Google and Facebook profiling you, whereas I am worried about the likes of $intellectualpropertymonopolist sending me a $20k bill for identifying me in a torrent, or experiencing a nasty surprise at $nationalborder (or at home, [1]!) for something I said on an internet forum.
(This does not seem like an abstract or overblown threat to me; I've seen 2 out of the 3 things above happen to friends and even one schoolmate more than 2 times.)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/teenager-arrested-burning-poppy-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/teenager-arrested...
- gerdesj 8y agoMost of the things I do with memorised addresses have nothing to do with the browser or HTTP. (Mind you, though, the moment a browser won't let me access a bare IP, I'm switching away from that browser.) Me too. Wireshark, nmap and co are in regular use in my job. All browsers are playing nanny, more and more apart from the likes of Links (which I also use quite often). A lack of https is already flagged and I suspect that things will get worse in this regard. Links2 has saved my bacon many times in the past so you may enjoy it 8) You are worried about the likes of Google and Facebook profiling you No mate. I'm CREST accredited: I'm not worried about G and F profiling me - I know they do. However I also know that my choice of addressing scheme does not affect my privacy whatsoever. A carrier can use metadata to derive loads of facts about your usage even if you are connecting to the oher end over say https. NAT will save you from some silly firewall screw ups but not much else. A VPN can help but is no silver bullet either. If I really put my mind to it I could probably make myself near enough anonymous with enough use of proxies, VPNs and TOR but I'm not too sure about that! I too am from the UK and have seen silly overreactions such as your [1] link. However, this is the world we have nowadays and in our case we have a horrific level of CCTV pointed at us as well as some pretty impressive levels of IP traffic mining. We also have the rather unpleasant RIP Act and a few others to belie our supposed liberal way of life in the UK. You do have to be careful what you say nowadays, within reason.
- 4bpp 8y agoWell, my assumption was always that in a scenario such as: ISP makes me share my public-facing IP with 15 randos -> I get on a torrent for Sony Corporate Secrets [full pack] [2018].zip -> Sony's legal department connects a honeypot and harvests all IPs it sees on it and sends out subpoenae to identify everyone who is in a friendly jurisdiction, the circumstance that I'm NATted by my provider will actually do nontrivial work in reducing the probability that I am ultimately identified in a legally actionable way (especially if it were to take Sony a while to process its data). Is this not accurate?
- pseudalopex 8y agoYour ISP would usually have port mapping logs.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoGDPR in theory means that we should be able to tell exactly what data ISPs have about us. But surely you can visit a McDonald's car park, run tor-browser and download whatever that Sony thing was without being traced.