What if you don't have a Facebook profile?
What if you don't have a Facebook profile?
In Win7, at least if you had Ultimate or Professional, you could run "Group Policy" plugins on your machine and have it respect them. I don't know about Win10, but I have heard that only Professional versions are able to disable MS enslaving your computer to deliver you advertisements. Don't know if that is true or not, but certainly reinforces my belief that only "Professional" or "Enterprise" versions of windows should be relied on to do any "important or professional work". Windows Desktop for consumers is going the way of becoming a console (like XBOX, PS4.. etc)...
Does Win10 have the option to either 'come with' or run the group policy msc panel? If policies are applied, does Win10 honor them ? Or maybe it only honors them in the Pro/Enterprise versions?
Again, speaking from Win7, they have a section under the Administrative Templates of Group Policy, entitle "Windows update".
There you have options to:
- Do not display "Install updates an shut down" option in Windows dialog box.
- Do not adjust default option to "Install Updates and Shut Down" in the Shut Down Windows dialog.
- Configure Automatic Updates (notify before download, or before install among others).
- Turn off the upgrade to latest version of Windows through Windows Update.
- No auto-restart with logged on users for schedule automatic updates installations.
- Reprompt for restart?
- Delay Restart for schedule installations?
But I've never had a prob w/win-update since I started controlling my systems w/group policy.
I am a home user, BTW, but I try to make sure my machines are business capable/protected...at least so I can turn off MS-intrusions.
Condolences to the original content-author..
If the file is encrypted "data", you can restore it to yesterday. If it is binary executable, restoring it to a few months ago shouldn't be that painful. Then you checksum the executables, add in updates, and you're good to go.
For the virus to be effective it has to be executed at some point. So you restore those to last known safe date. The data, which isn't executed isn't going to be re-sourcing the virus any time soon.
Backups aren't an indivisible thing unless you are using MS's image backups -- which is why I only keep programs on my MS machines and keep the data on a separate linux machine. Sure, it's a pain to reinstall Win, but its certainly doable while saving your data.
It appears the DEA w/their making prescription-drug users (i.e. legal users) their next target was fallout from them being forbidden to carry out lucrative property seizure and forfeiture operations against cannabis businesses and users that were otherwise legal under state law. The law stopping campaign against the state's cannabis industry went into effect a couple of years ago (2011-12?) but they ignored the law until stopped by a federal court case where they tried to enforce a forfeiture order against against a 3rd-party property owner who didn't evict a renting cannabis business.
Their favorite tactic has become using and manipulating 3rd parties to harass cannabis users since doing so directly was not nearly so profitable. Go after a disabled person using cannabis as medicine -- no profit. Go after property owner and health care organizations (like Kaiser): much more profitable and more difficult to track as spending "enforcement dollars" against cannabis businesses and users that are complying with their state laws.
So they indirectly target users for harassment by targeting their doctors with threats and increased regulation and oversight. At medical organizations like Kaiser, this means the doctors themselves become targets for increased oversight and scrutiny, making them want to stop treating medical cannabis users. My doctor says most of their colleges have stopped prescribing pain medication, at all to disengage from DEA harassment.
They also are dictating what medications they are allowed to prescribe in conjunction w/pain meds -- including disallowing medications that allow lowering of painmed levels as well as meds that treat side-effects of stopping pain meds. This makes it more difficult for long-term pain users who use pain meds on an "as-needed" or on/off/on basis, keeping their dosage steady or dropping for years, as they don't fit the stereotype of pain med users needing 'more and more' over time.
As the DEA began enforcing their harassment guidelines, many pain patients lost treatment with a sizeable uptick of deaths involving illegal opiates as some patients lost coverage. And the war on US citizens continues with more dead lost to this cancerous organization.
The idea of the NSA secretly giving spy evidence to the DEA and FBI to use in prosecuting domestic crimes was something anticipated, but still unconstitutional and illegal --- yet this corrupt rogue "lawmen" using their threat powers to force compliance with their unlawful actions.
The DEA is currently harassing all legal users of prescription pain medications in California with regular urine testing and threats to doctors of suspension if they don't comply with these non-legal requirements.
They are totally out of control and need to be stopped. Organizations like the DEA who grew out of prohibition enforcement need to be retired -- not allowed to find new frontiers to make illegal and prosecute.
> hosts file or client-side tracking blocker extension works for HTTPS
> just as well as for cleartext HTTP.
You can't use a hosts file to selectively block content. I've already stated, that to cache or to block, you need to know the object-type and size. You don't get that w/HTTPS.
> There are anecdotal reports that HTTP/2 over TLS can have less latency
> than cleartext HTTP/1.1. So if you add HTTP/2 to your MITM, you may be
> able to mitigate some of the TLS overhead.
Interesting, but it would be highly dependent on type of traffic. HTTP/2 was supposed to help response time by combining multiple requests, including allowing for combining requests from divers sources, so it would be unsurprising if it worked under some traffic loads. This is especially true compared to uncached cleartext.
However, I doubt HTTP2 proponents would be interested in doing benchmarks where 33% of the cleartext HTTP requests had 0 latency due to being locally cached.
Maybe it goes w/o saying, but combining the requests is the opposite of what would be necessary to block or locally cache 33% of the content.
> That's true only if your ISP is using an intercepting proxy.
Right -- they are a large corporation. You don't think they couldn't be ordered to do so and say nothing under the Patriot act? Do you disbelieve that root-ca's in the US or other monitoring countries couldn't be forced to give out subordinated CA's to install @ ISP monitoring sites?
> Blocking "by site" is still possible with HTTPS...blocking at a finer level than "by
> site" or "intermediate caching" still requires MITM.
I've always blocked by site and media type and for any unclarities, I looked at the http code. That's no longer possible unless a user sets up MITM proxying that
lowers security for all https sites (finance, et al.). While I can install exceptions to
whitelist sites that shouldn't have content cached, they are still decrypted.
One has to know content type and size to effectively cache anything. Right now, going back for the past 3500 requests, I see stats of:
(mem = in-squid-memory)
mem: 8% (313/3514), 16% (11M/70M)
dsk: 23% (842/3514), 10% (7.2M/70M)
tot: 32% (1155/3514), 26% (19M/70M)
& for double that:
mem: 5% (367/7025), 9% (12M/126M)
dsk: 21% (1523/7025), 14% (18M/126M)
tot: 26% (1890/7025), 23% (29M/126M)
without MITM caching, those numbers drop to near 0 for HTTPS sites. Those cached objects serve for multiple browsers, OS's, machines and users. Losing ability to cache 25-30% hurts interactive use and raises latency. Simply by going w/HTTPS instead of HTTP creates increased server load and increased network latencies. Sites that provide many static images can be affected more heavily. But my local network cache provides 128G of space (55% used) and can store large iso images that can be reserved months later. W/my monthly traffic, 25% space savings can easily run in the 500G range which is, by itself,
well over many ISP imposed limits before extra charges kick in.
> Intercepting proxies cache HTTPS only if the user has chosen to trust the proxy.
Which is why converting most traffic to HTTPS instead of HTTP hurts caching proxies the most and allow easier tracking by sites like google. From the time I connect to some sites, till I leave, google, et al, have encrypted connections
going. They can easily track sites and where I'm at on the site, w/o doing any special MITM interceptions using fed-provided CA's from US-based CA-authorities.
My interest has been in promoting faster browsing experience (something I've had success in, given feedback from those using the MITM proxies), as well as increasing privacy by blocking sites based on what sites they are being called or referenced from. You can't do that if the site you are connecting to is HTTPS based.
I see no benefit for HTTPS for "normal usage" -- only harm for the user and benefits for the sites -- especially large, data collection sites like google.
There is no improvement as google knows all the traffic as it tied into almost every site and HTTPS doesn't help a bit. And they in turn can hand the info over to any gov agency that asks for it -- and be forced not to tell you about it.
HTTPS is a wet-security blanket.
public key pinning? No -- you can intercept the traffic at the ISP level -- I'm sure larger ISP's can get a root-cert. When you connect to an encrypted site, you really connect to your ISP's pass-through traffic decoder, which then passes another encrypted circuit on to wherever you were going.
HTTPS safety is an "illusion" to get you to use it so you can't easily be selective about what you block or cache by site.
Caching rate on HTTP sites -- 10-30 or higher %, on HTTPS -- 0%, and there's the overhead of encrypting.
That's what I meant by https "everywhere" harming security for those sites that have a legitimate need for it. By implementing a MITM proxy, it makes all https streams less secure. I don't like that trade-off (not that I don't already have such
implemented for myself).
At the same time, google is pushing for "certificate transparency"
(https://www.certificate-transparency.org/what-is-ct ), that might not let home-user issued certs be used for such purposes --- not sure. The more internal-proxies that implement MITM HTTPS for their internal needs/wants, the more pressure
those not wanting those streams to be easily visible or cacheable will work to disable that "hole"... (IMNSHO)...
I can see it now... the DEA controlling religion as a mind-altering substance.
Yeah... I've seen this before... from those claiming brain research, versus real stories from those who do.
https on "social" sites (non bank/finance/medical...etc ones traditionally needing encryption), mostly benefits the site -- not so much most user. It usually harms users more than not as it prevents content caching and local-filtering. On a https site, I can cache near zero in my squid proxy (used by more than one account & user). That allows much tighter tracking of individuals as they go from site to site.
On news and discussion sites, I can easily get over 25% of the requests satisfied locally -- and housemates notice the difference -- especially on things like heavily thumbnail'd sites like youtube.
Think twice about https everywhere, as it ends up with the standard being that gateway owners (companies or individuals) need to install ways to overcome that.
That harms "sensitive-sites" that really should use https, (finance, medical, etc).
I was wondering how FB's actions are not anti-competitive, but it's because they don't pretty much own the market like MS did at that time. Due to the ultra-conservatives having disposed of the old FTC and replaced them with people who's only qualification was to support the, then, current administration, it makes it less likely that they would even know what to do if they wanted to.
And that's why we have a court system.
@ http://legal-dictionary.thefre..., they say this (among many other things):
"The [entrapment] defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it."
If someone has never seen a child porn site, but stumbles upon one, and is curious about why someone would find such things sexual, and stumbles upon such a site due to their being over 300% more sites (due to police running them), they might satisfy their curiosity, whereas if they had to search for such a site, they wouldn't have ever visited -- as that would be too much work.
It really depends on how such sites are found and how much a 300% increase in site availability would affect those who only have idle curiosity about such matters.
I can't help but think about how the feds, at one point, told the states that they couldn't allow legal, intrastate cannabis, as it would affect prices outside of the state and would thus be affecting interstate commerce. It was seen as a simple matter of supply & demand, with higher supply resulting in lower prices.
That was considered to be a "given". Here, if the cop-operated sites were a significant percentage of all such sites, I can't help but feel they would attract people that would otherwise have not been planning or willing to put in the work to find such a site and would have not, otherwise, visited such a site.
But I can see you firmly disagree and like I said -- that's why we have
judges (and juries).
Um, isn't that the norm? They are doing it for the children!
"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll