Posts by dominicr 14 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Nov 2013
If Gmail used DMARC 'p=reject' then this wouldn't happen or at least its impact would be minimal since any mailsever that respects DMARC would block these fake emails on arrival - including all the major services (even Gmail itself). Gmail's DMARC policy remains 'p=none' - so really they have only themselves to blame, and it will continue to happen. Yahoo by contrast use p=reject - so do facebook, paypal, linkedin, twitter, pinterest...
Agreed, I have a couple of original-model YCams, they upload image streams (jpgs, not mpg) to my local Linux machine by ftp. These can be watched same-day using Avisynth; each night ffmpeg creates mpg for the previous day's images after which the original (space-hungry) jpgs are deleted. Free and cloudless.
Not ture - an enforced DMARC policy (p=reject or p=quarantine) combined with DKIM is very effective. Email relaying does not break it. The only serious real-world problem for DMARC is mailing lists - IMO the fault lies with them not with DMARC. ARC is a work-in-progress solution for this. I'm amazed that more people aren't concerned that emails from their domains are being faked all round the world all the time, because they don't bother with an enforced DMARC policy.
> There's one drawback with the infinitely-incremental backup approach: it's non-trivial to throw away old data, because all but the first backup have to refer to that first data dump in order to work.
The approach taken by rdiff-backup (open source) is reverse diffs so that the most recent backup is always stored in full (and in the clear) and older backups are recovered by reconstruction from incremental (compressed) diff files.
This makes it easy to remove older backups (--remove-older-than). It also means that corruption of your backup data (e.g. one incremental backup file gets wiped) is more likely to damage older backups and less likely to affect the most (or more) recent; the opposite is true for conventional forward-diff backup approaches. Most of us would prefer to lose the backup from last year rather than the backup from last week.
In some countries Motorola/Lenovo seem to have released Android 5.1 for Moto E 2nd Gen and not in others. In UK my Moto E 2nd Gen is stuck on 5.0, and I have a sim-free phone (unlocked at purchase, bought from Tesco). My network is 3 but updates appear to come from and be controlled by Motorola. So why are they not letting us have 5.1...?
I have bought from Ebuyer for over 10 years but they lost me as a customer two months ago when they charged me a restocking fee for returning an item that was misdescribed on their website even though I returned it within 7 days. They said I was a business customer and so not covered by Distance Selling Regs. Possibly true but it's not the way to treat a long-term customer.
Instead I use Dabs whose service has always been good and are usually cheaper too.
Talking not about the data but about the software that produces it, surely HMG should be trying to encourage and use open source? They should 'crowd source' solutions instead of getting locked in with one always-very-expensive proprietary provider.
I'm not suggesting that they should try to get software for free. Pay a solution provider but oblige them to work open source and it will be in their interests to seek input from the wider open source community. So instead of something that is unique, bespoke and only understood by a handful of people within one company you get a solution that can be seen and understood and improved by anyone.
Of course software system suppliers will hate this because they wouldn't have any lock-in.
You can protect a computer with the free CryptoPrevent utility. Once it is infected though you need an uninfected backup. If you haven't made a conscious backup, you might be able to recover files using ShadowExplorer (also free) - kudos Microsoft for their clever volume shadowing auto-backup feature.
Or of course you can try paying the crooks. I'm surprised to see that the BBC report, presumably taking its info from the police, suggests that people who pay *don't* get their decryption key and just lose their money as well as their documents. From what I've read, paying the ransom does work, it would be pretty stupid of the crooks it if didn't. I suspect some deliberate misinformation from the authorities.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
