• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    Pretty rough and clever. Probably used in espionage for some time now. Sounds like static addresses and network namespaces solves for most of the problem though.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yeah. Easy to check and get around this. Check your routes before transmitting data, also set up your VPN to push /2s if this relies on /1s, nuke extra routes, etc.

      Novel idea though that most people wouldn’t think to look for, but at the end of the day any system will follow its routing table.

      • Technus@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        also set up your VPN to push /2s if this relies on /1s,

        I don’t think this is a smart way to mitigate this because it could easily result in an arms race. Push /2s, the attacker will switch to /3s; push /4s, the attacker will switch to /5s, etc. Every +1 is going to require doubling the number of routing table entries.

        That can’t continue forever, obviously, but it’s going to result in a negative experience for the user if the VPN client has to push hundreds or thousands of routes to mitigate this attack.

  • Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The fancy transition for every single paragraph as you scroll is unnecessary and distracting.

  • tblFlip@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    breaking news: researchers discover that network protocols work as intended. mindlessly connecting to an untrusted network is still a bad idea.

    to quote the article: “Do not use untrusted networks if you need absolute confidentiality of your traffic” or use HTTPS and a SOCKS5 proxy