varsock

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] varsock 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I saw V2 extensions will be disabled but in my lack of webdev experience I fail to point to what is prohibitive in V3 that uBlock Origin cannot migrate to.

Anyone have a better understanding and can clue us in?

[–] varsock 1 points 1 year ago

using the settings you described ( minus the VPN ) I was not able to cloak myself over the past several days

[–] varsock 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, some guy was streaming live on YouTube talking about a subject that he does not otherwise have, and he showed that before talking about the subject, there were no ads for dog toys, and after talking about dogs, there were ads about dog toys. The video isn't really that great because he goes and clicks on an ad about a dog toy and proceeds to get more of them, so he kind of tainted his results.

I wish I didn't waste my time watching this video

[–] varsock 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

7 visits with brave, 7 times identified as the same. I'm using the default options of a fresh brave install

how did you have such success?

[–] varsock 1 points 1 year ago

thanks for the masterclass in CF tunnels.

I am ready to accept everything you've said but there is the SSH case that keeps tripping me up. For reference, here is the CF docs on Connecting SSH through CF Tunnels.

Can you help me clear up the misunderstanding here? From the docs it appears you can create a SSH key pair on a client and then copy the public key to the server. It does not appear that the docs state you need to share those keys with CF, so I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that my session will be encrypted with my private key (on client) and public key (on server).

Again, what you said appears to make sense, perhaps SSH is the only edge case that is implemented differently?

[–] varsock 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

hmm, I'm not sure I agree - or perhaps I didn't explain myself well previously and caused confusion between us.

Yes I agree with you in your description of how cloudflare encrypts -> decrypts -> encrypts; they are allowing you to ride over their network. If you remove cloudflare from the picture entirely, then you just have the internet facing server.

What I'm saying is, if the client and endpoint (server) talk in an encrypted protocol, then cloudflare cannot MiTM the data, only the IP headers. This is similar if you were to connect to any ol' website over an ISP's network. If your session is not HTTPS, then your application data can be read. You can have encrypted sessions inside of CF tunnel-network-tunnel.

If your services support encryption, great. But you can also expose a wireguard endpoint so you have the following

wg client --(tunnel to CF)--> CF network --(tunnel to your server)--> wireguard server

the real advantage to CF tunnel is hiding your IP from the public internet, not poking any holes in your firewall for ingress traffic, and cloudflare can apply firewall rules to those clients trying to reach your server by DNS hostname.

[–] varsock 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

thanks.

The last gleam of hope I had was last year when John Oliver did an episode on data brokers. He in turn went and purchased data that would match congressmen in the D.C. area, along with their "interests." He jokingly threatened to release it (bc congressmen tend to act on an issue if it affects them personally). I thought that would be huge, everybody would see how rampant and invasive data collection would be. I was thrilled for a breakthrough.

but so far no movement, hasn't been released. I wonder if people wrote to John Oliver and his team if we will get an answer haha

[–] varsock 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I feel so powerless, so hopeless.

Bills aren't being passed by lawmakers because like many of us who care about privacy, they have not heard about the abilities of data brokers and have no visibility into how rampant and disgusting and invasive their behavior is.

Friends and family I talk to don't care. "Oh well, what are they going to do, find me personally?"

I feel if people were able to look themselves up in these databases, they would fear it as well

[–] varsock 1 points 1 year ago

interesting, I'll have to read about this some more then. thanks for pointing me in the right direction

[–] varsock 12 points 1 year ago

reminds me of the John Oliver episode on Data Brokers where he started buying up data on senators in an effort to get better regulations about tracking data and aggregation bc that seems to be the only way they want to pass bills. Their interests > interests of the people they should be representing

[–] varsock 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I apologize, I misread the chain of comments. Your explanation is perfectly adequate for someone who has a basic grasp on networking and VPN and tunnels and encryption.

I would just like to add that if your endpoints communicate via an encrypted transport (HTTPS, SSH, etc) then doesn't matter if cloudflare tries to inspect your packets. There would be 2 layers of encryption while traversing the public web, then 1 layer when traversing CF's network.

And to some, packet inspection is not a downside since they can offer more protection - but that is totally up to your attack vector tollerence

[–] varsock 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

WARP (a client) just connects you to CF's network.

If your server is running cloudflared (an outbound-only tunnel) then you can enroll your WARP client to reach your server, while your server is never accessible on the public web. That's the principal behind Zero Trust.

While techinically yes, WARP can be considered as a VPN, it is just a secure tunnel to an endpoint. In which case you can argue any point-to-point tunnel is a VPN.

view more: ‹ prev next ›