Indeed. But I too have been caught by that, thinking that what was posted on a BBS, was for the BBS, only to find it comes up in a Google search.
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Mon Feb 14 2022 11:39 am
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Mon Feb 14 2022 08:18 pm
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Moondog to MRO on Sun Feb 13 2022 11:31 am
There are videos on Youtube that show how to Un-Google an Android p it's funny to see how less useful they become. Even apps in the ap collect telemetry, so you have to install less mainstream open sour and put up with less polished function or ease of use.
Wifi triangulation still cannot be shut off, so keep that in mind. Pine64 linux phone contains dip switches under back case half to ph ut off wifi and cameras and mics and gps
I've seen some of Rob Braxman's videos. I'm OK with reduced functiona current phone is over 10 years old, it still has a keyboard, so I don' much. A web browser, phone, SMS and a telnet and/or SSH client will d fine. Play some music and I'm set.
Believe it or not I was happy with my personal phone being a flip phone w a pre-paid one year plan. If work required me to have a smart phone, the company would issue me one and i would noit install any non-business apps it.
Anyways, 3G is being dropped in my area and has been decreasing all aroun area. I was forced to upgrade. Tracfone had a special going on, and I g Samsung A11 for free after the discount.
Work sort of requires me to have one. More specifically, they expect me to apps that don't work on mine. I generally can get away with it, but have ha to borrow my wifes to get an program set up or two. Why I would have to giv
Chinese company my phone number and name, so that someone who lives in the same city (and in some cases, works in the same office) can message me is beyond me. These people just don't think of how silly this is. I get peopl complaining that I'm "uncontactable" despite having a phone, SMS, e-mail, MS teams, Zoom. But because I don't run this stupid other app which is probabl tool for Chinese spying and surveillance, it causes problems.
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Boraxman to SYS64738 on Tue Feb 15 2022 08:12 pm
Indeed. But I too have been caught by that, thinking that what was posted on a BBS, was for the BBS, only to find it comes up in a Google search.
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum messages posted on a BBS can be read and searched on the web.
Nightfox
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Feb 15 2022 06:20 pm
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
And miss out on all the insightful gems on FTN networks?
- Andre
Work sort of requires me to have one. More specifically, they expect me apps that don't work on mine. I generally can get away with it, but have to borrow my wifes to get an program set up or two. Why I would have to
Chinese company my phone number and name, so that someone who lives in t same city (and in some cases, works in the same office) can message me is beyond me. These people just don't think of how silly this is. I get pe complaining that I'm "uncontactable" despite having a phone, SMS, e-mail, teams, Zoom. But because I don't run this stupid other app which is prob tool for Chinese spying and surveillance, it causes problems.
I agree. Companies I have done work for also have a layer of management on the phone that allows for them to push apps tothe phone, and even wipe it remotely. I wouldn't want to get all comfy using my company cell for personal use, then lose everything due to a staff reduction.
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Nightfox to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 08:33 am
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Boraxman to SYS64738 on Tue Feb 15 2022 08:12 pm
Indeed. But I too have been caught by that, thinking that what was posted on a BBS, was for the BBS, only to find it comes up in a Goog search.
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum messa posted on a BBS can be read and searched on the web.
Nightfox
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Agreed. Guest access when you had to dial in made sense, but now, it opens yourself up for abuse.
What perplexes me, is that there are people I know (admittedly few), who share these concerns, greatly, but still buy these items. One I know
will talk about Big Tech censorship, how Google skews its searches and manipulates us, but you can "Hey Google" in his house and Google
responds!
I think in part people arguing that privacy isn't important is a cope. They feel powerless, unwilling to fight or make the harder consumer choices to maintain freedom, so they just reorganise their values to
suit the situation pushed upon then.
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Moondog to Boraxman on Tue Feb 15 2022 11:44 am
Work sort of requires me to have one. More specifically, they expect apps that don't work on mine. I generally can get away with it, but h to borrow my wifes to get an program set up or two. Why I would have
Chinese company my phone number and name, so that someone who lives i same city (and in some cases, works in the same office) can message me beyond me. These people just don't think of how silly this is. I get complaining that I'm "uncontactable" despite having a phone, SMS, e-ma teams, Zoom. But because I don't run this stupid other app which is p tool for Chinese spying and surveillance, it causes problems.
I agree. Companies I have done work for also have a layer of management the phone that allows for them to push apps tothe phone, and even wipe it remotely. I wouldn't want to get all comfy using my company cell for personal use, then lose everything due to a staff reduction.
I don't care if it is a work phone, I'd want them to give me one. They want to install this on my own personal phone.
What perplexes me, is that there are people I know (admittedly few), wh share these concerns, greatly, but still buy these items. One I know will talk about Big Tech censorship, how Google skews its searches and manipulates us, but you can "Hey Google" in his house and Google responds!
I think in part people arguing that privacy isn't important is a cope. They feel powerless, unwilling to fight or make the harder consumer choices to maintain freedom, so they just reorganise their values to suit the situation pushed upon then.
No doubt. That is probably where the "I have nothing to hide" refrain comes from.
Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-
I agree. Companies I have done work for also have a layer of
management on the phone that allows for them to push apps tothe phone,
and even wipe it remotely. I wouldn't want to get all comfy using my company cell for personal use, then lose everything due to a staff reduction.
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts the BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do
you know that have their messages web accessible?
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Feb 15 2022 06:20 pm
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts the BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that have their messages web accessible?
--- DIGITAL MAN wrote ---
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Phigan to MRO on Sat Feb 26 2022 09:25 pm
I used to have a web interface. I should bring it back. I had it because I worked for EDS at the time and they had a proper firewall.that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that putsthe
BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that havetheir
messages web accessible?
Most Synchronet BBSes (e.g. web.synchro.net).
--
Mewcenary wrote to Phigan <=-
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts the
BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do
you know that have their messages web accessible?
Synchronet itself does this.
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Feb 15 2022 06:20 pm
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts the B messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that have their messages web accessible?
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Feb 15 2022 06:20 pm
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts the BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that have their messages web accessible?
Got nothing to hide? Then get naked!
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Phigan to MRO on Sat Feb 26 2022 09:25 pm
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Feb 15 2022 06:20 pm
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts th messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that have their messages web accessible?
Echicken's one comes to mind, the first of all.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts
the B messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that
have their messages web accessible?
Echicken's one comes to mind, the first of all.
And a nice layout that echicken's web forum interface has also. The best that I know of.
not forwarding the web port, and I'm sure there's also a setting in Synchronet to have it not run its web server.
Got nothing to hide? Then get naked!
Be glad this is a text-only medium! lol
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Feb 15 2022 06:20 pm
Yep.. Manye BBSes today have web interfaces where the public forum
that's why guest access to that shit should be turned off.
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts th messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that have their messages web accessible?
Echicken's one comes to mind, the first of all.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
And a nice layout that echicken's web forum interface has also. The best that I know of.
Many Synchronet BBSes have their messages available via the web. Many Synchronet sysops choose to enable this by forwarding the web port to their BBS machine. But a sysop could easily disable that functionality by not forwarding the web port, and I'm sure there's also a setting in Synchronet to have it not run its web server.
I used to run vBulletin on Apache with the plug-in that linked it with my BBS via Synchronet's news server, but I decided to stop doing that. I think echicken's webv4 started to approach the kind of functionality included in things like vBulletin, so I didn't really think it was worth it to continue paying for vBulletin's ongoing fees.
On 02-26-22 21:25, Phigan wrote to MRO <=-
Where is an example of this? So far, I only know of MajorBBS that puts
the BBS messages in a web forum as well. What BBSes do you know that
have their messages web accessible?
On 02-27-22 15:57, Nightfox wrote to Arelor <=-
Many Synchronet BBSes have their messages available via the web. Many Synchronet sysops choose to enable this by forwarding the web port to their BBS machine. But a sysop could easily disable that functionality
by not forwarding the web port, and I'm sure there's also a setting in Synchronet to have it not run its web server.
Many Synchronet BBSes have their messages available via the web.
Many Synchronet sysops choose to enable this by forwarding the web
port to their BBS machine. But a sysop could easily disable that
functionality by not forwarding the web port, and I'm sure there's
also a setting in Synchronet to have it not run its web server.
I love (not) how people assume we're all running behind a NAT. What port forwarding? ;)
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet?
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet? Or perhaps there's an alternative to NAT that I'm not aware of..?
I thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a router, and I thought NAT a standard feature of a router
for some level of protection.
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Vk3jed to Nightfox on Mon Feb 28 2022 03:42 pm
Many Synchronet BBSes have their messages available via the web.
Many Synchronet sysops choose to enable this by forwarding the web
port to their BBS machine. But a sysop could easily disable that
functionality by not forwarding the web port, and I'm sure there's
also a setting in Synchronet to have it not run its web server.
I love (not) how people assume we're all running behind a NAT. What por forwarding? ;)
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet? Or perhaps there' an alternative to NAT that I'm not aware of..?
I thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a router and I thought NAT a standard feature of a router for some level of protectio
Nightfox
Re: the nothing to hide a
By: cr1mson to Arelor on Sun Feb 27 2022 01:39 pm
And a nice layout that echicken's web forum interface has also. The bes that I know of.
I used to run vBulletin on Apache with the plug-in that linked it with my BB via Synchronet's news server, but I decided to stop doing that. I think echicken's webv4 started to approach the kind of functionality included in things like vBulletin, so I didn't really think it was worth it to continue paying for vBulletin's ongoing fees.
Nightfox
On 02-27-22 15:57, Nightfox wrote to Arelor <=-
Many Synchronet BBSes have their messages available via the web. Many Synchronet sysops choose to enable this by forwarding the web port to their BBS machine. But a sysop could easily disable that functionality by not forwarding the web port, and I'm sure there's also a setting in Synchronet to have it not run its web server.
I love (not) how people assume we're all running behind a NAT. What port forwarding? ;)
I actually remember that from way-back. I too used your script with Synchonet and vBulletin. It was nice to import SBBS users into the forum and transfer messages between the two. That was quite nice back then. But ya, things have changed since then and echicken's approach fulfills certainly my needs as well as others. I still use the legacy telnet to write messages but it's nice to have a web-base forum with messages too that don't use telnet and particularly like the web side of things.
On 02-27-22 22:25, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
You have all your ports exposed publicly to the internet? Or perhaps there's an alternative to NAT that I'm not aware of..? I thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a router, and I
thought NAT a standard feature of a router for some level of
protection.
On 02-28-22 05:03, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some type of hardware firewall up. ---
On 02-28-22 05:03, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some type of hardware firewall up. ---
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
... People are always available for work in the past tense.
well, we're assuming people here are somewhat powerusers, and they
have multiple computers and devices. also it helps to have some
type of hardware firewall up. ---
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
thought pretty much everyone with internet at home would be using a
router, and I thought NAT a standard feature of a router for some
level of protection.
NAT != security. You've fallen for the big myth that NAT is somehow more secure. All it does is screw up some protocols (FTP anyone?), and puts arbitrary limits on incoming traffic (2 BBSs on the same port, NO WAY!).
;) iptables on Linux does an excellent job
The only thing IPTABLES is good at is that it's stable and free. It's archai and damn near useless for anything other than port blocking and logging traffic.
I am more of a pf fan than an iptables fan, but Iptables is actually fine for redirecting, man-in-the-middleing and doing other tricks other than blocking and logging.
I am more of a pf fan than an iptables fan, but Iptables is actually fine redirecting, man-in-the-middleing and doing other tricks other than blocki and logging.
Yes, but that's not IPTABLES doing any of that. All it's doing is managing packet routing and state (I know I'm oversimplifying it, but let's be realistic about what people actually do with it most of the time).
- Andre
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over again.
On 03-04-22 05:36, Andre wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That still doesn't necessarily mean NAT. Firewalls have been around _much_ longer than NAT.
Probably does. Most home users only have a single IP.
Firewalls only preceeded NAT by few years, and stateful firewalls came
a couple years after NAT.
On 03-04-22 05:41, Andre wrote to Vk3jed <=-
You're both conflating NAT and PAT, and neither of them screw up protocols. Stateful firewalls screw up protocols if they're
misconfigured and not tracking the full conversation.
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over again.
Maybe try reading the message. :)
Vk3jed wrote to Nightfox <=-
On 02-27-22 22:25, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
NAT != security. You've fallen for the big myth that NAT is somehow
more secure. All it does is screw up some protocols (FTP anyone?), and puts arbitrary limits on incoming traffic (2 BBSs on the same port, NO WAY!).
Re: Re: the nothing to hide a
By: Vk3jed to MRO on Sun Mar 06 2022 08:43 pm
On 03-04-22 05:11, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
so what are we arguing about? you neek saying NAT over and over
again.
Maybe try reading the message. :)
you: nat nat nat. it's not nat. nat nat nat
On 03-04-22 06:56, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's in no way a secure model, but I liked my first setup, where I had
a single IP address and a Linux box with 2 network cards. I ran all of
my services on the box directly with iptables running, and NATed the
rest of my lan over the second card.
Easy, less hassle with NAT, and everything worked.
Quoting Boraxman to Ogg <=-I totally agree. We don't expect privacy so it isn't an issue for many
Jazzy J wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <622DDCFC.2296.dove-internet@jayscafe.net>
@REPLY: <62084A5E.5205.dove-int@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Quoting Boraxman to Ogg <=-
I totally agree. We don't expect privacy so it isn't an issue for many people.
I'm a quad, and I have Amazon Services throughout the house. For
myself, the abdication of my privacy isn't a convenience, it is how I
can be as independent as I can.
Security v. Freedom is a lofty argument. The more something is secure,
the less freedom we have. Many people forget this and want 100% of
both. Well, there is nothing that is ever 100% secure nor is there anything that is ever 100% free -- I think of how much a "free" dog
costs in medical bills after the fact.
The best someone can do is strive to strike a balance between the two.
However, for most people, they don't understand the concept of IoT and never update their TVs, refrigerators, toasters, you name it. Whatever they have in their LANs that pull an IP is vulnerable and a security
risk.
People also don't value their information. They don't understand that
the myriad of trash they are getting in their email or twit feed, etc.
is largely their own making.
Before we can increase electronic security, we need the public to be educated on what electronic security touches. I think the average
person would be confounded and overwhelmed with some of the specifics.
Jazzy J
Most Synchronet BBSes (e.g. web.synchro.net).
| Sysop: | Kurt Hamm |
|---|---|
| Location: | Columbia, SC |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 135:23:33 |
| Calls: | 2,804 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 64 |
| Messages: | 854,509 |
