Being disingenuous about the security problems of Opera's man-in-the-middle attack style proxying doesn't make them go away.
Man in the middle attack?
Wow, why don't you turn up the hyperbole and FUD a bit more? You are a bit too low-key there.
The defnition of a MITMA:
"In cryptography, the man-in-the-middle attack (often abbreviated MITM), or bucket-brigade attack, or sometimes Janus attack, is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker."
Opera makes it very clear that Opera Mini uses a proxy.
Opera is not "attacking".
Opera is not "controlling the connection", it is merely providing routing and compression.
So as you can see, there is no MITMA here. Just hyperbole and FUD on your part.
Being disingenuous about the security problems of Opera's man-in-the-middle attack style proxying doesn't make them go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
Man in the middle attack?
Wow, why don't you turn up the hyperbole and FUD a bit more? You are a bit too low-key there.
The defnition of a MITMA:
"In cryptography, the man-in-the-middle attack (often abbreviated MITM), or bucket-brigade attack, or sometimes Janus attack, is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker."
Opera makes it very clear that Opera Mini uses a proxy.
Opera is not "attacking".
Opera is not "controlling the connection", it is merely providing routing and compression.
So as you can see, there is no MITMA here. Just hyperbole and FUD on your part.
Histrionics won't make it go away either.
Apart from the fact that your response completely ignores that I wrote "man-in-the-middle attack style proxying" and not simply "man-in-the-middle attack" (Maybe you went off the deep end before you could read any further?), this part of your response is obviously incorrect:
Quote:
Opera is not "controlling the connection", it is merely providing routing and compression.
I'm probably making the same mistake as Gazoobee here by jumping in to defend someone, but he is 100% right in his assessment of your character IMO.
Taking a few comments from the last three posts you made, it seems to me that you are basically an angry bully. I can say that without it being an ad hominem attack because the evidence is right above. There isn't another way to interpret your constant peppering of your posts with derogatory remarks about the people you are arguing with.
They very cleverly don't cross the line into ad hominem, but as with most writing it's really about the meaning being imparted, not the technical details. You are meaner, and more insulting to everyone on the forum than Gazoobee ever is.
While you've technically escaped being in the position for anyone to ban you, there are three or four personal attacks and insults in every post you make. You are calling Gazoobee an idiot or a fool over and over again above, but because he called you an a-hole in one post, he is the bad one? If you were even a quarter as smart as you maintain you are, you would see that he is right about his assessment of you even if you disagree on the substance of what you were arguing about.
You seem to actually relish insulting people.
One argument you make is that you are not rephrasing, or misinterpreting anonymouse's remarks yet there are examples in almost every post you make. Above, you admit to "refactoring" anonymouse's remarks yourself. How is that different from "rephrasing?"
The other thing you say over and over again is how people are simply repeating their remarks but that's all you ever do yourself. You completely dominate the thread. The majority of all the posts are either from you or someone responding to you, but the content is pretty much nil. Therefore Gazoobee's comment about you "blathering" or just enjoying the sound of your own voice also seems accurate to me.
Thanks for signing up an alt Gazoobee, try not to get this one banned again. Others here that use alts when they are banned own up to that, but I suppose that is a trait of honesty, no?
But, to correct you, I never called him/you an idiot. You are making that up. Perhaps you feel the need to make up your arguments? Oh, sorry, is that bullying you? As for refactoring, vs rephrasing, again, if you cannot understand the distinction, I cannot help you. When I saw that I had made a mistake with Anonymouse's post, I owned up to that. Gazoobee (you) could not do the same. That is unfortunate.
Actually, I should ask you for some clarification. How is it you feel that insulting someone is not an ad hom? When you/Gazoobee called me an a-hole, which I may very well be, it was a clear insult and even resulted in that nick being banned. Now, when you call me a bully, which again I may be (I don't think so, really), how is that now not an ad hom? Yet, when I simply ask Gazoobee or you to actually back up assertions made, you take that as an insult. If I said I don't expect much from Gazoobee, it is because so little came of the discussion with that alt. I'll ask you too, but should I expect more?
I am a little surprised that after the Gazoobee alt got banned for overt ad homs, you would introduce your new alt with an ad hom. I haven't seen anyone, in the many years here, get an infraction or banned after just one post. And yes, calling me an angry bully is an ad hom.
Comments
Being disingenuous about the security problems of Opera's man-in-the-middle attack style proxying doesn't make them go away.
Man in the middle attack?
Wow, why don't you turn up the hyperbole and FUD a bit more? You are a bit too low-key there.
The defnition of a MITMA:
"In cryptography, the man-in-the-middle attack (often abbreviated MITM), or bucket-brigade attack, or sometimes Janus attack, is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker."
Opera makes it very clear that Opera Mini uses a proxy.
Opera is not "attacking".
Opera is not "controlling the connection", it is merely providing routing and compression.
So as you can see, there is no MITMA here. Just hyperbole and FUD on your part.
Being disingenuous about the security problems of Opera's man-in-the-middle attack style proxying doesn't make them go away.
Man in the middle attack?
Wow, why don't you turn up the hyperbole and FUD a bit more? You are a bit too low-key there.
The defnition of a MITMA:
"In cryptography, the man-in-the-middle attack (often abbreviated MITM), or bucket-brigade attack, or sometimes Janus attack, is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker."
Opera makes it very clear that Opera Mini uses a proxy.
Opera is not "attacking".
Opera is not "controlling the connection", it is merely providing routing and compression.
So as you can see, there is no MITMA here. Just hyperbole and FUD on your part.
Histrionics won't make it go away either.
Apart from the fact that your response completely ignores that I wrote "man-in-the-middle attack style proxying" and not simply "man-in-the-middle attack" (Maybe you went off the deep end before you could read any further?), this part of your response is obviously incorrect:
Opera is not "controlling the connection", it is merely providing routing and compression.
I'm probably making the same mistake as Gazoobee here by jumping in to defend someone, but he is 100% right in his assessment of your character IMO.
Taking a few comments from the last three posts you made, it seems to me that you are basically an angry bully. I can say that without it being an ad hominem attack because the evidence is right above. There isn't another way to interpret your constant peppering of your posts with derogatory remarks about the people you are arguing with.
They very cleverly don't cross the line into ad hominem, but as with most writing it's really about the meaning being imparted, not the technical details. You are meaner, and more insulting to everyone on the forum than Gazoobee ever is.
While you've technically escaped being in the position for anyone to ban you, there are three or four personal attacks and insults in every post you make. You are calling Gazoobee an idiot or a fool over and over again above, but because he called you an a-hole in one post, he is the bad one? If you were even a quarter as smart as you maintain you are, you would see that he is right about his assessment of you even if you disagree on the substance of what you were arguing about.
You seem to actually relish insulting people.
One argument you make is that you are not rephrasing, or misinterpreting anonymouse's remarks yet there are examples in almost every post you make. Above, you admit to "refactoring" anonymouse's remarks yourself. How is that different from "rephrasing?"
The other thing you say over and over again is how people are simply repeating their remarks but that's all you ever do yourself. You completely dominate the thread. The majority of all the posts are either from you or someone responding to you, but the content is pretty much nil. Therefore Gazoobee's comment about you "blathering" or just enjoying the sound of your own voice also seems accurate to me.
Thanks for signing up an alt Gazoobee, try not to get this one banned again. Others here that use alts when they are banned own up to that, but I suppose that is a trait of honesty, no?
But, to correct you, I never called him/you an idiot. You are making that up. Perhaps you feel the need to make up your arguments? Oh, sorry, is that bullying you? As for refactoring, vs rephrasing, again, if you cannot understand the distinction, I cannot help you. When I saw that I had made a mistake with Anonymouse's post, I owned up to that. Gazoobee (you) could not do the same. That is unfortunate.
Actually, I should ask you for some clarification. How is it you feel that insulting someone is not an ad hom? When you/Gazoobee called me an a-hole, which I may very well be, it was a clear insult and even resulted in that nick being banned. Now, when you call me a bully, which again I may be (I don't think so, really), how is that now not an ad hom? Yet, when I simply ask Gazoobee or you to actually back up assertions made, you take that as an insult. If I said I don't expect much from Gazoobee, it is because so little came of the discussion with that alt. I'll ask you too, but should I expect more?
I am a little surprised that after the Gazoobee alt got banned for overt ad homs, you would introduce your new alt with an ad hom. I haven't seen anyone, in the many years here, get an infraction or banned after just one post. And yes, calling me an angry bully is an ad hom.