I could hack your computer and spy on you.
Even it it's not permitted by laws, what stops me from doing it?
Von: Samuel B. via swinog
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. April 2024 12:43
An: swinog@lists.swinog.ch
Betreff: [swinog] Re: Swisscom DNS issue:
Public DNS Providers could possibly abuse their position and see what users of
it are doing on the internet. It‘s different though, because a public dns
provider cannot see who the user is exactly, they could take a good guess at
it, but it‘s not always certain. ISPs (atleast swiss providers)
Hi Samuel
> That still does not answer why you as an ISP try to convince your
> customers to not use Public DNS Servers, or „not seeing a reason“ in
> them doing so.
Let's see... why would those companies operate those public DNS Servers
'for free'? Nothing's free, right? Probably they get some
That‘s the legal aspect of things. That is of course totally normal. Every ISP
has to follow that. Blocking other sites at your own will, just like swisscom
is doing here, is not.
Having users that simply do not wish to be blocked by your blocking service for
„gambling”, or those that simply
Hi Samuel
> Matter of fact! That‘s what it looks like IMP is also (atleast attempting to
> be) doing. (blocklist.imp.ch)
I don't know this host.
https://refused.breitband.ch/ here you go, not a secret. Legal background
explained.
> This is the exact same behaviour as Swisscom in this case.
I find your last statement very ironic.
There are valid reasons for using a different server than the ISP provided
ones. Whether it‘s latency, as mentioned before deciding who gets to have
access to the „valuable personal information“ or simply distrusting the ISP, as
any ISP could
Hi
> So you are saying that relying on the provider dns and having to use
> it instead of other public (non-modifying) DNS Servers will not feed
> the internet provider with this „valuable personal data“?
There are privacy laws in place.
I would not consider this good practice.
I don't think
So you are saying that relying on the provider dns and having to use it instead
of other public (non-modifying) DNS Servers will not feed the internet provider
with this „valuable personal data“? Also are you saying that the user shouldn‘t
use any public, non-modified DNS Servers, just for that
it would only be fair if swisscom declare their offer not to be "internet" but
some "protected network connectivity including part of the internet". At least
then the end user can decide.
I don't think their concept is compatible with net neutrality otherwise.
And you can not opt-in or opt-out
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:04:14AM +0200, Stefan via swinog wrote:
> But you know that it is already daily business that Swiss ISP's are blocking
> websites?
One of the example you give was voted by the Swiss people (Casino blocking).
ISP have no say in that matter. Some countries go way
But you know that it is already daily business that Swiss ISP's are
blocking websites?
Just an example:
https://www.esbk.admin.ch/esbk/de/home/illegalesspiel/zugangssperren.html
https://abuse.ch/
I had already requests from customers to grant them access to phishing
sites, only that they can
I disagree. Its not swisscoms role to censorship the internet. Even if the idea
might be honorable, to keep the bad guys out, the machinery put in place is
resulting in something which will be abused for political agendas. Given
swisscom is state owned, the risk is even higher. Its a risk to
> Part of the problem is that the user doesn’t get an error message at all, and
> then mails us „hey, your website is down“.
Also throwing in my 2 rappen:
User notices: Provider DNS is misbehaving, blames Provider, and uses
DNS of Google / Cloudflare feeding them valuable personal data.
But
As a former malware researcher: no, this is not an ideal solution. Yes, we
don't have anything better (well, there is the Google Safe Browsing list
which most of the major browsers use). And, yes, it is a widely used
method and it's effective.
Attila
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 9:34 AM Daniel
Yes, I understand the technical issues. And yes it's ugly. But do you have a
better solution?
Swisscom should stop tampering with DNS, as it does not work, and is no
solution to the problem.
I disagree, Swisscom still misses a lot of phishing and malware
websites. I would like them to be
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:59:07 +0200
Gert Doering via swinog wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 08:55:49AM +0200, Serge Droz via swinog wrote:
> > Yes, I understand the technical issues. And yes it's ugly.
> > But do you have a better solution?
>
> Since this is not a "solution", just a new
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:51:41 +0200
Serge Droz via swinog wrote:
> It's actually a pretty smart and light way of protection the majority
> of users from malware. And yes, there will always be false positives.
Do you plan to compensate financial losses through that behaviour, i.e.
you block a
> Am 23.04.2024 um 08:55 schrieb Serge Droz via swinog :
>
> Yes, I understand the technical issues. And yes it's ugly. But do you have a
> better solution?
Swisscom should stop tampering with DNS, as it does not work, and is no
solution to the problem.
Part of the problem is that the user
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 08:55:49AM +0200, Serge Droz via swinog wrote:
> Yes, I understand the technical issues. And yes it's ugly.
It's not "ugly", it's outright failing to achieve anything, except
signal "things are not working". Why have a report form at all if it
can not be loaded due
Yes, I understand the technical issues. And yes it's ugly. But do you
have a better solution?
On 23.04.24 08:53, Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 23.04.2024 um 08:51 schrieb Serge Droz via swinog :
It's actually a pretty smart and light way of protection the majority of users
from malware. And
> Am 23.04.2024 um 08:51 schrieb Serge Droz via swinog :
>
> It's actually a pretty smart and light way of protection the majority of
> users from malware. And yes, there will always be false positives.
>
> And yes, it's sad we have to do this, but that's mostly because our industry,
>
It's actually a pretty smart and light way of protection the majority of
users from malware. And yes, there will always be false positives.
And yes, it's sad we have to do this, but that's mostly because our
industry, despite promising the contrary for years, doesn't seem to be
able to offer
On https://www.swisscom.ch/de/privatkunden/hilfe/internet/url-checker.html you
can check if a URL is blocked by Swisscom or not. Seems it‘s blocked because of
«Malware Distribution»…
___
swinog mailing list -- swinog@lists.swinog.ch
To unsubscribe send
> Am 23.04.2024 um 08:42 schrieb Daniel Stirnimann
> :
>
> Try http://195.186.208.193/
Thanks, Daniel, that worked! Reporting it now.
___
swinog mailing list -- swinog@lists.swinog.ch
To unsubscribe send an email to swinog-le...@lists.swinog.ch
Try http://195.186.208.193/
Daniel
On 23.04.2024 08:40, Marc Balmer wrote:
Swisscom returns this IP address for blocked domain names most likely because
it assumes this website is compromised (phishing, malware).
If you visit this IP address in a web browser you are redirected to
> Swisscom returns this IP address for blocked domain names most likely because
> it assumes this website is compromised (phishing, malware).
>
> If you visit this IP address in a web browser you are redirected to
> https://www.swisscom.ch/abuse-info
>
> This website has a form to report
> Swisscom returns this IP address for blocked domain names most likely because
> it assumes this website is compromised (phishing, malware).
>
> If you visit this IP address in a web browser you are redirected to
> https://www.swisscom.ch/abuse-info
That explains. From a technical point of
27 matches
Mail list logo
