4 ms·
for uninitiated (me), why is it bad?
by mi_lk 3y ago
for uninitiated (me), why is it bad?
- xenophonf 3y agoIt's an IP address reserved for private networks: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
- Racing0461 3y agoSince 2 out of the 7 IPs are 192.168 (private ips), 2/7 visitors to microsoft.com will load the private ones assumign equal weight and not get the page to load.
- ajb 3y agoWell in my case (and a lot of other people), 192.168.1.1 is the local address of my home router. So if I go to microsoft.com I have a 1 in 7 chance of getting my home router instead (if I ignore the certificate warning). Other random breakage will happen depending on what that local address is assigned to for you. In theory this could be leveraged for hacking, but I think that would require setup in advance.
- Zuiii 3y agoyep. If a hacker can somehow control 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1 they get access to your microsoft.com cookies at least. I'm sure there are more microsoft specific ways to leverage this too (e.g. data/updates hosted on microsoft.com that misuse HTTPS as a poor man's authentication. The curl | sh crowd are especially susceptible to this problem.)
- marshray 3y agoThey would still need the private key to a https cert that your browser considers valid.
- Iwan-Zotow 3y agoSo if you go to microsoft.com with probability 1/7 you'll hit 1.1 on your private network of 192.168 - likely router, and with probability 1/7 you'll hit 1.0 maybe printer