Discuss mailing list

[Wil <wil AT lesspheres.fr>]

> In my opinion, as long as the DNS server offering is marked, then there really isn't any issue here.

Totally agree ;) 

Wil.

Moment léger au hasard : 

On nous a coupé les bras et les jambes, puis on nous a laissés libres de marcher. Mais je hais cette époque où l’homme devient, sous un totalitarisme universel, bétail doux, poli et tranquille.
Antoine de SAINT-EXUPÉRY

Le 17 avr. 2018 à 18:19, vv AT cgs.pw a écrit :

Thanks Wil,

I think I got it. Of course I had no idea about
coinhive.com and what it did since there is an
almost negligible chance that any particular
person has gone there and found out about it.

I just went there to see, and it does look like
a reasonable idea and certainly shouldn't be
dismissed out of hand. Calling it malware without
further investigation doesn't seem right.

As to whether the site also serves malware I have
no idea, and frankly don't pay much attention to
that sort of thing. I'll not be using blacklists
any time soon. Fortunately, OpenNIC is all about
choice. In my opinion, as long as the DNS server
offering is marked, then there really isn't any
issue here.

Cheers,
      Ole

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:48:44 +0200
Wil <wil AT lesspheres.fr> wrote:

Hi,

Sorry @Ole, had a rough day yesterday.

I was actually try to answer @Jonah's interrogation about
coinhive.com <http://coinhive.com/> delivering malware
and being in the ads block lists.

I don’t want to pollute this thread in anyway.
But I just would like denote that, in my point of view,
mining Monero (via conhive.com) is not just malware. It
might also be an alternative to ads in general.

We maybe should discuss and/or try this (with or without
conhive.com). But again, mining cryptocurrency via web
browsers doesn’t necessarily mean delivering a malware.

Sorry again for the confusion.

Wil.

Moment léger au hasard :
L'alcool tue mais combien sont nés grâce à lui ?

Le 17 avr. 2018 à 01:55, <vv AT cgs.pw> <vv AT cgs.pw> a écrit :

Hi Wil,
It's not that I really disagree with you, but
I don't understand what you're saying, especially
in the context of this thread. The typos don't
help the clarity either. :) Perhaps you could
rephrase for clarity.

~ Ole



On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 23:30:30 +0200
Wil <wil AT lesspheres.fr> wrote:

I’ll try to be short on this..

But i think coinhive is not just malware or
cryptojacking..

Sure, it was and still will be miused as it seems quite
easy to do so. There 30% fees should not be forgotten.
Just my point of view, but the plateform also try to
avoid non user approbation to mine Monero.

Maybe, just maybe, it could be a solution to also avoid
Google Adsense and other ads plateforms on some website
with enough trafic.

But i might also be completly wrong about this.

Anyway, i had not try it ( yet ? ), and don’t have any
real return, but i also don’t want to fall in the easy
caricature where minig egal malware.

Not in a world where users metadata for selling ads is
the gold of tech companies (which do not have to be big,
by the way).

Wil.

Le 16 avr. 2018 à 17:40, Jonah Aragon
<jonah AT triplebit.net> a écrit :

Why exactly are you wishing to access a site that
literally serves malware to unsuspecting users? Not sure
what the purpose of that would be.

Jonah

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM Wil <wil AT lesspheres.fr>
wrote: I noticed the ads lists include conhive.com.

$ dig +short coinhive.com @167.99.153.82
167.99.153.82

Don’t want to enter in a long argue/discussion here,
but I think it’s too bad…

Wil.

Moment léger au hasard :
« Une banque est un endroit où ils nous prêtent un
parapluie quand il fait beau et qui nous le reprennent
quand il pleut. » Robert Frost   

Le 16 avr. 2018 à 04:34, Jacob Bachmeyer
<jcb62281 AT gmail.com> a écrit :

Jonah Aragon wrote:
This is a good point, and I was thinking about this
myself. I’m not actually sure how those
anti-adblocking sites detect adblocking in the first
place. I haven’t run into this issue yet, but if
anybody does feel free to send me an email with a link
and I’ll see if there’s anything I can do about
it.    

They all ultimately rely on _javascript_.  Block
_javascript_ with NoScript or similar and not only are
you protected from most (all?) browser exploits, but
most ads also disappear.

Server-side anti-ad-block *might* be possible, but
browser extensions can defeat it easily by requesting
the ad resource and simply not displaying the ad.   

Other than that I don’t think there’s any
disadvantages, and it’s  probably better than browser
extensions from a privacy perspective since nothing
gets resolved or downloaded in the first place.    

Browser extensions, assuming they implement full
blocking, prevent even a DNS query.  DNS blocking only
prevents the connection to the ad server.   

This is incredibly easy to implement. I doubt we’ll
block them by default at the Tier 1 level because it
goes against some of our core values of
anti-censorship in a way, but it’d be easy for others
to setup Tier 2s in a similar manner.    

I entirely agree with this.  Also, the problem with
letting "a little bit of censorship for a worthy cause"
is policing the censors to guard against scope creep
and lazy filter list maintenance.  I remember back in
school where the site that distributed the Windows port
of cdrtools was blocked under the category "Illegal
Drugs".  There was nothing of the sort on that site
anywhere.


-- Jacob


--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org    

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org