Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment What are you getting? Support. (Score 2) 183

What am I getting for 3x the price?

You are getting a phone that won't be immediately abandoned, like most other Android phones. You are paying for the support contract.

What does one get out of a support contract? Security updates. Sure, you can save money on a cheaper phone. Just make sure that you factor in the cost of a potential device compromise due to lacking security updates.

Comment Re:That's not what I'm seeing here, image posted (Score 1) 38

I am viewing that setting through the process you described. It's well-known that Uber pushed out the change to remove the "while using" option at the beginning of December. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

I'd say that you should consider yourself lucky to be the outlier. How you got there, I have no idea...

Comment Re:Anyone have any more info? (Score 1) 147

It's remotely exploitable with no user interaction if the web admin stuff is exposed to the internet. If the remote web admin is not enabled, then it's exploitable as the result of a user on the network viewing a malicious or compromised website.

Changing the IP address or subnet of your router will only stop the laziest/inept of attackers.

Comment 24 Hours? (Score 1) 97

What's the point of mentioning deceptive measures of time like this? It's not like this person started from scratch, decided to jailbreak an iPhone 7, and then 24 hours later was done.

The individual likely had an iOS jailbreak, which likely chained together a number of vulnerabilities and took some undisclosed amount of time to develop, and then tweaked / confirmed it on the new hardware. The 24-hour specification means nothing.

Comment Covert communications, eh? Where to even start... (Score 1) 91

This article has enough completely-wrong aspects that exempts it from the concept of "not even wrong" I suppose.

1) The watch does not engage in covert traffic. It's the pairing app for the watch that a user installs on a phone that does the communication.

2) What on earth does the redundant phrase "covert communications behind the users' back" even mean? Have you looked at network traffic when *any* application has been launched? If you think that any app talking on the internet without explicitly asking the user first counts as "covert communications", then I think you can label just about all of the software out there (esp. in the mobile space) as engaging in "covert communications."

3) The phrase "random IP address" used by the speaker is slang meant to convey that he didn't know what it is. In this case, it's a system referred to by its IP rather than its DNS name. So rather than looking up who owns the IP address, he says it's "random" and shrugs.

4) To give up and say that it's "very difficult to determine" what is being sent over the network because it's over an encrypted channel is ridiculous. For all we know, it's just talking to the software vendor via HTTPS. In which case it would be trivial to inspect by using MITM.

I'm not saying that there's nothing sketchy going on here. But to provide zero evidence of what's actually happening and just speculate and spread FUD is irresponsible.

Comment VideoCrypt (Score 1) 49

As always, it wasn't the crypto which was broken -- just the lousy method it was applied.

Where on earth did the information to back up this difficult-to-parse statement come from? The video was encoded with VideoCrypt. VideoCrypt, which was released in 1989, has a number of ways that it can be attacked. Including brute force, which was used here in the form of the Antisky app (from 1994).

Slashdot Top Deals

You might have mail.

Working...