Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SquallStrife last won the day on October 10 2018

SquallStrife had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

519 Overlord

About SquallStrife

  • Rank
    Really knows where his towel is
  • Birthday 27/04/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. SquallStrife

    VPN - Is fingerprinting a concern?

    If you're happy with the performance then I reckon go for it. See if your VPN provider uses CG-NAT, or provides a real public IP to clients. If they use CG-NAT, then it will appear to the outside world that every customer is accessing resources from the one (or a handful) of IPs. If they don't use CG-NAT, then it'll still only appear that somebody in the VPN's datacentre is accessing resources. If the public IPs are recycled, you get your obfuscation that way. If you have concerns about your metadata tying you to a public IP, then make sure it gets refreshed every now and then. That will all depend on your VPN provider's configuration. If you want to get real technical, there are other forensic details inside application traffic that can betray a user (or at least establish that a collection of points belong to the same user), and using a VPN will do nothing to prevent these attacks but make the data harder to find.
  2. SquallStrife

    VPN - Is fingerprinting a concern?

    Fair enough, but won't using the "One VPN for entire network" solution eat in to your ability to switch them around like that?
  3. SquallStrife

    VPN - Is fingerprinting a concern?

    Sorta. It's conceivable that when you disconnect from the VPN service, the IP you had gets recycled the same way a dynamic IP on your ISP's network would. Only the VPN provider could possibly know which customer had which of their IPs at a given point in time. The only reasons I wouldn't use a VPN 24/7 for the entire network are speed, latency, and cost. If you're especially paranoid, you could recycle the VPN connection every 12-24 hours or something to change your public IP, unless the VPN provider assigns you a static one. (Or the VPN provider uses CG-NAT)
  4. i) the vision of Sir Henry Parkes of Australia as an English speaking, predominantly European Christian Commonwealth, as originally described in 1901 when Australia as a nation was founded; Sounds an awful lot like he intends to either coerce/force people to have a certain set of beliefs, or leave. How is that NOT forcing belief? I'm non-religious (you might say atheist), and Leonid is Jewish. We are not welcome in Anning's vision of Australia. A world where Jews aren't welcome, LITERALLY NAZI GERMANY. iii) traditional family values, including recognising marriage as only the union of a man and a woman and the sanctity of human life at all ages, including both the unborn and the elderly; Enforcing with the power of law that same-sex couples have less/no rights, and a specific dogmatic view on unborn foetuses. That isn't freedom of belief. Edit: And if that's not enough, there's also Anning's repeated use of the phrase "final solution" in his infamous speech to parliament.
  5. SquallStrife

    VPN - Is fingerprinting a concern?

    It sounds like there are a lot of gaps in your knowledge here. "Reversing the arrows" when accessing a website through a proxy is, in most instances, not possible. There are fields in the HTTP spec for a proxy to indicate what IP it is requesting on behalf of, but there is absolutely no reason that the proxy server must populate them: $HTTP_proxy_headers = array( 'HTTP_VIA', 'VIA', 'Proxy-Connection', 'HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR', 'HTTP_FORWARDED_FOR', 'HTTP_X_FORWARDED', 'HTTP_FORWARDED', 'HTTP_CLIENT_IP', 'HTTP_FORWARDED_FOR_IP', 'X-PROXY-ID', 'MT-PROXY-ID', 'X-TINYPROXY', 'X_FORWARDED_FOR', 'FORWARDED_FOR', 'X_FORWARDED', 'FORWARDED', 'CLIENT-IP', 'CLIENT_IP', 'PROXY-AGENT', 'HTTP_X_CLUSTER_CLIENT_IP', 'FORWARDED_FOR_IP', 'HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION'); WIthout this information in the header, the remote host cannot know that the page was requested through a proxy. Technically they could operate an IP blacklist of known proxies, but even then, they cannot know from where the request originated. On the topic of VPNs, there's no concept of your application connecting "through" the VPN service. It connects through an available IP interface, of which the VPN virtual interface is one. That interface is connected, for all intents and purposes, PHYSICALLY to the VPN provider's network, as if there was a long-arse Cat5 cable from your PC to them. Not just "basically", but in a very real, practical sense, connections to services ORIGINATE at the VPN provider's datacentre. Only the VPN provider knows what L2TP/PTPP/IPsec/etc connections their clients have to their concentrators, that information is on another very separate layer to the encrypted IP traffic. There are other ways someone could come to know your real public IP, but they're more bedded in sloppy handling of information than design weaknesses. E.g. Off-VPN you might visit a site that sets a cookie containing a session ID, then log on to your VPN and visit that same site, the host now knows that the same person used two IP's consecutively, one has a PTR record revealing an Aussie ISP name, the other is leased by "XYZ Networks" in Country A. Know what I mean?
  6. Sounds good. Oh, except.... Freedom of belief, as long as your beliefs are Fraser Anning's beliefs. So he's a hypocritical Nazi. Right up your alley then, DMB. Thank god he won zero seats in either house.
  7. SquallStrife


    As an abstract concept, sure I think people have "a soul". I think it "persists" after death in the form of a legacy, photographs, memories, etc. Nothing beyond that.
  8. Why am I not surprised that DMB would vote for actual white supremacists, only a language and location away from being literal Nazis.
  9. SquallStrife


    I don't know how you can be surprised by this. You consider the source of your beliefs to be infallible, and un-falsifiable, and those beliefs hinge on absolutes, so there's no point discussing anything with you of any significance. I think most people that respond to your threads have already accepted that you aren't *really* interested in changing your mind, and engage mainly as a form of amusement. You aren't taken seriously. You make it impossible to take you seriously.
  10. How do you know that it "cannot be known"? Are you a doctor?
  11. What is your point? No decision in all of medicine is "for sure", it's just the best decision based on all available information. The decision that will result in the best outcome, hopefully the least possible loss of life. The law enforcement officers' decision is not made on something they know "for sure". They're only sure beyond reasonable doubt that the murderer will keep murdering, he might have been just about to stop just as they pulled the trigger. It doesn't make sense to you, and that's fine, YOU AREN'T A DOCTOR. It doesn't have to make sense to you. It makes sense to the people making the decisions though. What doesn't make sense is you projecting your dogmatic principles on to people whose situations you admit you don't understand.
  12. Clearly. Good thing there are doctors to whom it does make sense. If you don't understand it, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the subject.
  13. Why is innocence relevant? Why is it not always preferable to have an outcome where one life is lost instead of two?
  14. In both cases, a judgement call is made, in both cases a life is taken because the likelihood is high that inaction would result in unnecessary loss of life. Can you really not see that?
  15. Right. So... What is a bigger factor in making it OK to take his life? The fact that allowing him to continue is causing further loss of life, OR, the fact that what he's doing is "wrong"? And irrespective, you admit that preventing further loss of life is a priority? Should law enforcement NOT take the shooter's life because he MIGHT stop shooting people? Should doctors allow both mother and child to die (in that hypothetical situation), because something miraculous MIGHT prevent that from happening? Allowing someone to die "just in case" they spontaneously get cured seems pretty cruel and unnecessary, especially when the only reason for not intervening is adhering to a dogmatic absolute. OR, alternatively, should law enforcement take the life of the shooter, because it's LIKELY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that he will continue to murder bystanders? And if so, shouldn't doctors terminate a pregnancy because it's LIKELY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that, through inaction, BOTH mother and child would die?