3 ms·
I like the paper. It it is interesting to see other people that are interested in this. When I try to explain why IPv6 is a privacy failure and consumers shoul
by fulldecent2 7y ago
I like the paper. It it is interesting to see other people that are interested in this.
When I try to explain why IPv6 is a privacy failure and consumers should turn it off I get modded to oblivion. https://privacylog.blogspot.com/2019/09/ipv6-hurts-your-privacy-removes.html https://privacylog.blogspot.com/2019/09/ipv6-hurts-your-priv...
But when other people are aware of passive attacks and see the economic incentives I think there might still be hope.
- stouset 7y agoThis has nothing to do with IPv6. Unless I am missing something, it is literally just a result of NAT, which using IPv4 does not guarantee, and which using IPv6 does not need to prevent.
- fulldecent2 7y agoRegarding the blog, yes it has nothing to do with the specification of IPv6. It has to do with the way that everybody (nearly everybody?) uses IPv6. This distinction is already complicated enough that we should just tell everybody that "IPv6 is bad" because it is true enough.