4 ms·
What are the implications? Can't stand Forbes and their over the top ads, tldr would be appreciated.
by muyuu 13y ago
What are the implications?
Can't stand Forbes and their over the top ads, tldr would be appreciated.
- straight_talk_2 13y agoWhy don't you get an ad blocker - e.g. Ad Muncher is a great one.
- muyuu 13y agoI prefer to allow sites to monetise their visits within reason. If they go insane like Forbes then I just avoid them.
- aw3c2 13y agoYou can do that easily with any decent adblocker. You could disable it for all sites but Forbes if you like. Right now, you are just leeching other people's time.
- muyuu 13y agoThanks for the modbombing :-) I'm not leeching other people's time more than any other comment. If you're not interested proceed with the next post.
- Dylan16807 13y agoComments with insights to the article, that don't ask people for favors, are not leeches. Your comment was a leech.
- muyuu 13y agoRefer to GP for instructions. You just wasted my time with your pointless comment. Well you didn't, I could have chosen to ignore it.
- Helianthus 13y agoIn general I find it wiser to realize that we only give other people our time; they never take it. It is very hard to take someone's time without their permission. Now give me back the time I spent responding to you.
- rimantas 13y agoI prefer to save advertisers money by blocking ads which I am not clikcing anyway. Truth to be told, I did not bother to install ad blocker, but would feel no guilt if I did, for the reason above.
- RKearney 13y agoWhy should we be forced to download third party applications/plugins in order to read a news post without any unnecessary interruptions?
- maaaats 13y agoNo one is forcing you, just don't visit the site, then..
- straight_talk_2 13y agoBecause the site is a private property and not obliged in any way to offer reading without interruptions.
- Figs 13y agoHere's the primary bit the article says about implications: "The two-part flaw, based on an old security standard and badly configured code, could allow hackers to remotely infect a SIM with a virus that sends premium text messages (draining a mobile phone bill), surreptitiously re-direct and record calls, and —with the right combination of bugs —carry out payment system fraud."
- muyuu 13y agoAny SIM? Remotely how? through a call or a message? Just trying to figure out the scope of this problem. Journos seem to care more about sensation than facts.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoFigs summarised, if you want the details can't you read up on it (eg via the article posted)?
- muyuu 13y agoI actually went ahead and read it, and it's extremely obscure. I'm asking just in case someone has a better source. This is basically all the detail about the actual flaw in the article: "In his study, Nohl says just under a quarter of all the SIM cards he tested could be hacked, but given that encryption standards vary widely between countries, he estimates an eighth of the world’s SIM cards could be vulnerable, or about half a billion mobile devices." "his team tested close to 1,000 SIM cards for vulnerabilities, exploited by simply sending a hidden SMS. The two-part flaw, based on an old security standard and badly configured code, could allow hackers to remotely infect a SIM with a virus that sends premium text messages (draining a mobile phone bill), surreptitiously re-direct and record calls, and — with the right combination of bugs — carry out payment system fraud." Seems like it would only affect a very specific subset of mobile phones.