News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by NelsonMinar on Sunday December 10, 2017 @11:28AM (#15892095)
I think it's amazing Comcast documented their MITM attack as an RFC. Are those still literally Requests for Comments? Are the comments collected anywhere?
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by rhinoceraptor on Sunday December 10, 2017 @03:41PM (#15893387)
Just because they have an RFC doesn't make it a standard, or socially acceptable. Anyone can submit an independent RFC.
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by convolvatron on Sunday December 10, 2017 @01:19PM (#15892658)
unfortunately the word 'RFC' has been corrupted from meaning exactly that, a publishing forum for ideas, into a pretty asinine form of technical marketing whereby you can publish an informational outside any normal consensus process and assume the sheen of standardization. that started happening 2 decades ago.
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by rdiddly on Sunday December 10, 2017 @01:19PM (#15892661)
RFC 6108 is from 2011, last revised 2015, and marked as informational, which I think means there's no review & comment... But I'm not sure about that.
[dead]
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by markbnj on Sunday December 10, 2017 @12:36PM (#15892442)
Huh? Not even close to wildly OT. The RFC was mentioned above.
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by pbhjpbhj on Sunday December 10, 2017 @03:12PM (#15893259)
"What is a RFC?", "What happens to the comments?", OK a specific RFC is the topic but it's like asking "What is the internet?". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments is much more appropriate resource for that level of question IMO.
Re:Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages by markbnj on Sunday December 10, 2017 @03:16PM (#15893279)
Right, ok so we're in a discussion about what "wildly" means :). Imo the rfc was mentioned, so a simple link to the wiki article would have been a polite reply.