I don’t think it would be lethal except in the rarest of circumstances.

I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of at least two deaths from exploding smartphone batteries. Here’s a source for one of them. I’m fairly sure I remember hearing of another where the victim had the phone in their breast pocket, but I’m not finding sources for that one now.

And those were just from faulty devices, not from specifically sabotaged/rigged devices.

Not really saying otherwise. What I am saying is that for your electronic devices to have “explosives” in them would require that a supplychain attack of a similar sort.

It’s almost definitely not the case that any electronics manufacturers are systematically putting explosives in every smartphone or whatever that they manufacture and supplychain attacks are much more likely to be a targeted thing rather than “all Samsung phones” or whatever. If they weren’t targeted, it’s pretty certain that the presence of explosives in devices would be noticed even just by regular end-users with a bit of a tinkering proclivity within weeks. So if your devices are more than a couple of months old have been in reasonably normal use for most of that time and you haven’t been specifically targeted by any particular government or anyone who might have the ability to tamper with the supplychain, you’re almost certainly safe specifically from explosive-laced consumer electronics devices.

Also, it seems unlikely that a state police agency (like the “sheriffs” you’re talking about) could leverage enough power to compel an electronics company to allow such a thing without the FBI or DHS involved. I’d imagine state police folks would more likely resort to more low-tech approaches like the Tulsa race massacre air firebombing.

Again, I’m not saying it’s impossible that your phone contains explosives. And as I said in another comment, it might be possible to remotely get a device to cause its battery to catch fire. Maybe.

Also, I am in the U.S., but what made you think that was the case?

Wow. Jeez. I’m sorry this is so close to you.

can they do that to phones, without the phones being rigged?

I’m not any kind of expert. But as others in this post have said, theoretically… possibly technically yes. If the firmware can be modified remotely to cause the phone to allow, for instance, overcharging the battery, then it’s possible the phone could be made to explode without physical access to the phone.

How likely it is that you or your family specifically would be targeted, I couldn’t say. It seems unlikely…? And we don’t have specific knowledge that Isreal has tried any such attacks that didn’t involve direct physical access to the devices which later exploded. (And also no indication they’ve targeted any Samsung devices.)

Again, I’m no expert, but if you wanted to take precautions, I’m thinking the precautions to take would be to put any mobile devices that contain rechargeable batteries and have wireless connectivity far away from your house and your family and stick to devices with no batteries (and preferably ones you’ve had for a “long time”) for a while.

I’m sorry you’re in a situation where you’re having to weigh these risks. Again, it seems unlikely that you and your family could be in danger regarding ostensibly-stock Samsung phones that you’ve had for a while.

Also, no condemnation is strong enough for this indiscriminate attack by Isreal on the people of Lebanon. Netanyahu must really be heartless to have authorized this. I hope this results in real pressure on Isreal to stop its indiscriminate terrorist acts.

Good luck and stay safe.

Edit: Hmm. Not sure why I’m getting downvoted so much. Maybe the downvoters think I’m making it sound more likely than is realistic that there’s a threat to Peepo specifically?

You should understand that what happened in Lebanon involved the government of Isreal physically modifying the pagers (and walkies) in question by adding explosives to them, turning them into remote-triggerable bombs.

(The term “supplychain attack” has been used a lot to describe this attack. Isreal intercepted the order of pagers between when the order was placed and when the pagers were delivered. And either physically altered the pagers ordered or replaced them with altered/tampered-with pagers.)

I kindof hate the slogan “they go low, we go high” (from Hillary’s campaign.)

But this is an example of the “good” side of that slogan. The political left(-of-what-passes-for-center-in-the-U.S.-now-a-days) isn’t given to publicly calling for assassinations of the opposition party. It’s not even given (and, yes, there are exceptions) to calling privately for assassinations of the opposition. And that’s a good thing.

It means the left(-of-U.S.-center) hasn’t turned into the fascist-dictatorship-trying-to-happen that the right has. It’s not the left(-of-U.S.-center) calling for civil war and pandering to creeps who chant “blood and soil” while carrying tiki torches around the capital.

The day left(-of-U.S.-center) news sources delight in assassinations even of opposition as dangerously unhinged and power hungry as Trump because that sentiment started with snide remarks like yours is the day we have to worry that maybe the Democrats are sliding into their own brand of fascism.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for radical support of LGBT rights, womens’ autonomy in matters of personal health, universal free healthcare, and most other “liberal” causes. (I also identify as well left and libertarian-ward of the Democratic party and would love to see “to each according to need” be our modus operandi. I’m also for direct action.) I don’t fault the Democrats for being “too radical” by a long shot. (More likely, the Democrats will continue to be far too willing to let the Republicans control the narrative and cheat their way to political power. And that’s the bad side of “they go low, we go high”) And I don’t believe it’s very likely that the Democrats will slide into widespread advocacy for political violence like the Republicans have much more so already.

But taking delight in assassination attempts and wishing they’d been successful – even those directed at Cheeto-flavored Hitler himself – isn’t helpful.

All that said, I get it. I’m pissed at the U.S.'s descent toward fascism, too. But wishing him assassinated isn’t going to change anything for the better.

In this thread: Cryptobros downvoting every realistic take on cryptocurrency for being “bearish” and “FUD”.

Do they play a part in commercial DDOS protection?

Absolutely! As well as mitigating other types of threats. “Web Application Firewalls” (don’t be fooled, they’re not like regular firewalls really) are a type of transparent web proxy that watch requests for anything that “looks like” a SQL injection or XSS payload and block those requests if necessary. Transparent web proxies may also do things like caching or even “honeypot” functionality that may shunt likely bot traffic to a fake version of the website to prevent scraping of real site content.

Ooo. This is a good one.

A computer can have more than one network interface, right? (Like, you can be plugged into ethernet at home but also connected to the WIFI of the coffee shop across the street.)

A VPN gives you a whole new network device (“virtual ethernet card” if you will) that works as if that card was connected to some LAN somewhere else. Typically, you’d forward “all” of your computer’s/smartphone’s/etc traffic through the VPN so that your computer “thinks it’s on that remote LAN” rather than on your home WIFI or whatever.

Proxies… well the term can mean a few different things in different contexts, really. But generally you’re not forwarding “all” traffic through them, just HTTP traffic (and usually only a subset of all HTTP traffic) or just traffic that is specifically told to be forwarded through them.

An opaque web proxy is one that you can point your browser (or other HTTP interface) to. It won’t handle protocols other than HTTP. And when you want to use an opaque web proxy, your HTTP client has to know how to do that. (Whereas with VPN’s, it’s your operating system, not your individual applications, that need to know how to forward through it.)

A transparent web proxy can be something you (and your apps and OS) don’t know you’re even using. When you point your browser or app to a Lemmy instance, it’s almost certain that the domain is pointed not at an application server that actually runs the Lemmy code, but rather at a transparent web proxy that does stuff on the instance-owner’s end like preventing spamming or whatever. This type of proxy is sometimes called a “reverse web proxy” and can also only work with HTTP.

A SOCKS proxy, like an opaque web proxy, requires applications to know how to use it. (Ok, technically that’s not 100% true. It’s possible in some cases to have a transparent proxy of some sort forward through a SOCKS proxy in a way that the application doesn’t know SOCKS is involved. There are also some cool OS-level hacks that can force an app to go through a SOCKS proxy without the app knowing anything about SOCKS. But if you’re doing those things, you’re a hacker.) And with a SOCKS proxy, your computer doesn’t “think” it’s connected to a whole different LAN. Individual applications know that they’re forwarding through SOCKS. SOCKS supports more protocols than just HTTP. Probably all TCP-based protocols, but I don’t think it has any support for UDP. So you won’t be torrenting through SOCKS.

That’s all I can think to say at the moment. There are special-purpose proxies for things like security auditing (like Burp Suite, for instance.) But I’m guessing that’s not the sort of thing you’re asking about.

This isn’t actually a serious question, right?

The other three quarters are just scared that Elom will sue them if they cut advertising.

(Not really. I suspect many of the other 75% just aren’t willing to admit they’re planning to loosen ties with Twitter (I will not call it “X”) just yet.)

Sweet! Now let’s all go commence scowling at Redis until they do the same.

I’m just speaking from their history. Like when they embraced Java, built their own JVM, shipped it with Windows, and then forked the Java language by adding Windows-specific APIs to Microsoft Java and not adding the Java 1.2 features to Microsoft Java. You can’t convince me their aim all along wasn’t specifically to kill Java, and cross-platform technologies like it. The whole “Windows tax” thing is another good example. And “Open Core.”

And, who knows. Maybe they’re either nicer now or less competent at that kind of evil. But if so, that’s a relatively new thing. Their history as a company is full of (not-so-)“secretly planning to control the world”. And they have never really faced any consequences for their anti-trust violations. And if they didn’t want people to hold grudges, maybe they should have thought of that before fucking everyone over as thoroughly as they possibly could.

I guess you could say Microsoft was perfecting the art of enshittification before it became such a pervasive thing. Plus, I largely blame Gates personally for the rise of the institution of proprietary software, which is also complete BS.

Mind you, I don’t blame you for working for Microsoft or anything. No ethical consumption (or employment) under capitalism and all that. And it’s not like I’m not doing evil things on a regular basis as an employee where I work.

Sugar. Ok, that’s a slight exaggeration. I don’t eat anything with added sweeteners. (Like, if it has sugar, honey, HFCS, corn syrup solids, cane juice, apertame, sucralose, agave nector, dates, maple syrup, etc, that’s just a deal breaker for me.) And I don’t eat anything that has natural sugar any sweeter than a tomato, red bell pepper, or carrot.

I’ve been doing that for the last 15 years at least and made very very infrequent exceptions. (Like, I can literally count the times I remember making exceptions to this rule in the last 15 years on one hand.)

…because any time I do make an exception, I have severe gastrointestinal symptoms.

Happy cake day, fellow Lemmy user.

Microsoft gives the Wine team infectious mononucleosis. Got it.

But seriously, Microsoft is nobody’s friend and shouldn’t be trusted.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

• Two mirrors.
• Take a photo or video holding your smartphone behind your head pointed at you.
• I suppose if you needed to see it in roughly realtime, you could figure some way to live-stream your smartphone camera to a screen in front of you.

The only other ideas that are coming to me are joke answers like “bend over backwards and lay the back of your head on the bed of a photocopier” or “visit a hall of mirrors.”

What’s your purpose for doing so?

I don’t know how I could possibly have been more explicit about it not yet being ready for any real-world use cases than I was.

If you want the name of a payment techology that isn’t snake oil, isn’t blockchain-based, isn’t a cult, doesn’t claim to be a currency, doesn’t work on proof-of-work or proof-of-stake, but actually does provide certain privacy guarantees for your basic purchasing needs, is cryptographically secure, and can be used with only FOSS, I recommend looking into GNU Taler.

The only downside is that it’s not really supported anywhere at all yet. But I do hope it becomes a real thing some day.

Cryptocurrency is speedrunning ruining everything. We might as well have a laugh at the cryptobros’ expense in the meantime.