Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
The Implications Behind Proposed Internet Privacy Rules
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Shantaram
50%
50%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Ninja
4/19/2017 | 9:11:54 AM
Re: 192.168.0.1
Very intуresting and detailed post. Thanks for sharing
dritchie
50%
50%
dritchie,
User Rank: Strategist
4/18/2017 | 3:31:53 PM
Re: Some bold claims here
Not only that, but the original poster works for a company that seems to try to help companies deliver unwanted commercial email (i.e. SPAM), so limiting the ability of providers to sell him information hurts his bottom line.
dritchie
50%
50%
dritchie,
User Rank: Strategist
4/18/2017 | 3:28:40 PM
Re: Some bold claims here
Not only that, but the poster works for a company that seems to try to help companies deliver unwanted commercial email (i.e. SPAM).
guy_montag
100%
0%
guy_montag,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/18/2017 | 11:10:24 AM
Some bold claims here
The author makes some bold claims here but doesnt make a very good case for them. Whats the FTC's track record in actually protecting privacy? How do common carrier privacy protections "stiffle antispam and malware detection" any more than TLS does? How would the FTC be less susceptible to regulatory capture than the FCC? Regultory capture is imo, the strongest case against FCC action but this article doesnt even mention it.

The only arguments here seems to be "the ftc does a great job, take my word for it" and also that adverstisers "already know everything" so who cares? That undercuts the whole part about the glories of self-regulating ISP's and the past work of the FTC. Never mind the fact that those that do deep packet inspection are ripe targets for attack even if they dont voluntarily sell the data to third parties.

The article also ignores the major impetetus for the Title II classification, namely, net neutrality. Pretending common carrier reclassification was just about privacy is silly at best, disengenuous at worst.

All in all, this article doesnt pass the laugh test. Isps are local monopolies, comcast is not google, and vpn's wont protect you. 


7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment:   It's a PEN test of our cloud security.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-9720
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
Tornado before 3.2.2 sends arbitrary responses that contain a fixed CSRF token and may be sent with HTTP compression, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct a BREACH attack and determine this token via a series of crafted requests.
CVE-2015-1525
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
audio/AudioPolicyManagerBase.cpp in Android before 5.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (audio_policy application outage) via a crafted application that provides a NULL device address.
CVE-2015-1530
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
media/libmedia/IAudioPolicyService.cpp in Android before 5.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary code with media_server privileges or cause a denial of service (integer overflow) via a crafted application that provides an invalid array size.
CVE-2015-2688
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
buf_pullup in Tor before 0.2.4.26 and 0.2.5.x before 0.2.5.11 does not properly handle unexpected arrival times of buffers with invalid layouts, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via crafted packets.
CVE-2015-2689
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
Tor before 0.2.4.26 and 0.2.5.x before 0.2.5.11 does not properly handle pending-connection resolve states during periods of high DNS load, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (assertion failure and daemon exit) via crafted packets.