eu8

joined 1 year ago
[–] eu8@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It is bad programming. Specifically it is very bad security (especially setting a maximum length - that is just ridiculous). I think websites should not rely too much on passwords anyway. They should be designed under the assumption that attackers will fairly commonly get access to user passwords, and therefore not let someone do too much damage from simply being able to login to your account.

[–] eu8@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The best way to handle passwords IMO, is to have the browser compute a quick hash of the password, and then the server compute the hash of that. That way the "password" that is being sent to the server is always the same length.

[–] eu8@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well we don't know how that website is actually storing the password. They may well be using a password hash. Also, you should use scrypt or argon over bcrypt IMO. And there should be no upper restrictions on password length. argon2 can handle hashing megabytes of data in about the same time as a short password, so there's never a need to limit the password length.

[–] eu8@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To potentially answer my own question: I believe the protocol I was looking for might have been the dat protocol which seems to have been replaced by something else.

 

Hello. I remember a long time ago I found some protocol that was boasted as a less out-dated version of bittorrent. I think one of its features was that you could update a whatever-their-equivalent-of-a-torrent-is with small changes and those changes could be seeded.

If this sounds familiar, and you know anything about this, I would really appreciate pointing me in the right direction. Thank you.

 

I do think they will essentially die. They will morph into completely different websites, but I think they will be around for a long time, and I think their userbase won’t shrink even a bit.

Big websites are slowly adopting the facebook model: All the content is hidden and requires you login to view it. Creating an account requires some sort of personally identifying information like a phone number, photo of ID, mailing address, etc.

The old model simply turned out to be unprofitable. It was always done under the motto of “bring the people and the money will come” and so they made it as easy as possible to build up a large user base, but it turns out that motto is false on the internet, and investors have finally realized it. There is no point in having a massive user base if they don’t actually generate a profit for you. Anonymous internet users do not do this. They are indistinguishable from bots. If they don’t use adblock, they don’t click on ads. They don’t donate money. Yet they use up the majority of the server resources.

It used to be that you at least needed anonymous users to generate content for you, but (in part thanks to facebok) non-anonymous usage of the internet has become normalized. If anything the best content will come from someone who has their real name, and profile picture attached to the content they submit. The anonymous nobody is much less likely to post anything valuable.

I think the internet as we know it is dead, and tbh I don’t even blame big corporations for this. I blame mass tech illiteracy, and people’s willingness to sacrifice their privacy for some dopamine hits.

[–] eu8@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I disagree with the prevailing sentiment here. Meta using ActivityPub is going to help ActivityPub grow an will be good for federated platforms like lemmy, and mastadon.

Lemmy should not block threads.net. Individual users can simply opt out of using threads, but it's good if we can communicate with people using it and they can communicate with us using a decentralized, free, standard.

[–] eu8@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

c/Xporn when X is not sexual. Like r/foodporn, r/earthporn, or r/animalporn.