this post was submitted on 04 May 2024

59 points (74.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35807 readers

1807 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why don't computers have "computer-numbers" equivalent to phone numbers (lemm.ee)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

115 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Why doesn't every computer have 256 char domain name, along with a private key to prove it is the sole owner of the address?

Edits: For those technically inclined: Stuff like DHCP seems unnecessary if every device has a serial number based address that's known not to collide. It seems way more simple and faster than leasing dynamic addresses. On top of that with VOIP I can get phone calls even without cell service, even behind a NAT. Why is the network designed in such a way where that is possible, but I can't buy a static address that will persist across networks endpoint changes (e.g. laptop connecting to a new unconfigured wifi connection) such that I can initiate a connection to my laptop while it is behind a NAT.

Yes, it would be a privacy nightmare, I want to know why it didnt turn out that way
When I say phone number, I mean including area/country code
AFAIK IP addresses (even static public ones) are not equivlent to phone numbers. I don't get a new phone number every time I connect to a new cell tower. Even if a static IP is assigned to a device, my understanding is that connecting the device to a new uncontrolled WiFi, especially a router with a NAT, will make it so that people who try to connect to the static IP will simply fail.
No, MAC addresses are not equivalent phone numbers. 1. Phone numbers have one unique owner, MAC addresses can have many owners because they can be changed at any time to any thing on most laptops. 2. A message can't be sent directly to a MAC address in the same way as a phone number
Yes, IMEI is unique, but my laptop doesn't have one and even if it did its not the same as an eSim or sim card. We can send a message to an activated Sim, we can't send a message to an IMEI or serial number

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

its not the same as an eSim or sim card

I think you have part of your answer.
Get a laptop with a SIM Card reader, and do what you may.

The reason it doesn't work with IP is because, it started out with local networks and was expanded from that. A domain name is similar to a phone number, just that the user has the IP routing information available, whereas in case of phone connection, a probably similar system for routing is all abstracted by cell exchanges.

P.S. Thanks for the food for thought.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

MAC's used to be static, but then hackers found ways to spoof it. Now manufacturers don't care to make them static anymore.

Get a laptop with a SIM and you will have an IMEI and phone number, plus 5G.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Android defaults to lying about your Mac address, which can be frustrating if you want to manage your home network.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Really? So I don't have to worry about them recording my MAC address when I torrent on mcdonalds wifi?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Google will know. They gather all WiFi and Bluetooth data in the name of location services.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Because

When the internet was rolling out, a decentralized, open, best-effort solution of TCP/IP thankfully won over telephone companies' centralized system proposal
IPv6 is still not universal for some damn reason
Onion addresses solve these problems but good luck getting everyone aboard with Tor
You always trade anonymity for reachability, and with the amount of threats, NAT and firewalls have been put up to make it harder for unsolicited requests to reach you by default

[+] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Thank you for such a long and detailed post! I indeed did not know about things beyond the SIM, and I didn't know about the extra details about the country codes either. That is extremely interesting to me.

With the phone spoofing though, does that mean two factor with a phone number is basically useless? If I had authentication based on a MAC address, it would take seconds to break it. But I think, and sure hope, that auth based on phone numbers is more secure.

I think your domain name answer -- that for the most part computers didnt need them -- is a very satisfying answer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Phone number 2FA isn't useless, insomuch as it's better than no 2FA at all, but it is easily the worst form of 2FA because SIM jacking (usually involves a scammer tricking a customer service agent into migrating your phone number to their device instead of yours in order to intercept the 2FA messages) is laughably simple using easily acquired info such as your DOB, address, and last 4 of your SSN.

If phone 2FA is the only option, use it. But don't use it if you have any other option.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

I haven't read all of the replies to see if somebody else had said this, but it's because the Internet was designed to be completely decentralized, whereas the phone system requires your line or device to be registered with the network operator(s). Any device that can get a valid Internet address for the local network can communicate with the whole Internet, but a phone will only work if it's explicitly known by the phone service provider, and that information shared to all providers.

We could set up a system, layered on top of the Internet, by which each computer could register itself in a central directory each time it connects, and thus be reachable at the same address no matter where it connects, even on a NAT connection. In fact, it's easy to do with a VPN and Dynamic DNS (both of which require the cooperation some centralized authority). It's just not universal, because, well, what's the utility of doing so?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

You seem to have be missing a fundamental thing about tech but I can't pin down what it is. So I will respond to your edits.

but I can't buy a static address that will persist across networks endpoint changes

You can. It's called Provider Independent Space and it a pain to go with as an individual.

Yes, it would be a privacy nightmare, I want to know why it didnt turn out that way

Because people smarter than you, I, and everyone else in this post said 'Yes EUI-64 is a good idea in principe but the problems on a privacy perspective outweigh the advantages. So let's build a system called MAC randomisation so people can get multiple address to access the internet with. '
The good news is you can turn off MAC randomisation.

AFAIK IP addresses (even static public ones) are not equivlent to phone numbers. I don't get a new phone number every time I connect to a new cell tower

In some parts of the world or before 2000 if you changed mobile providers, say from Vodafone to Telstra you had to get a new number. Since that change number routing has become a nightmare and it makes the BGPv4 table look sane in comparison.

Even if a static IP is assigned to a device, my understanding is that connecting the device to a new uncontrolled WiFi, especially a router with a NAT, will make it so that people who try to connect to the static IP will simply fail.

This is a complex one due to NAT in the ipv4 space. NAT exists purely to allow devices to have the same private IPv4 address and hide behind a public v4 address.

No, MAC addresses are not equivalent phone numbers. 1. Phone numbers have one unique owner, MAC addresses can have many owners because they can be changed at any time to any thing on most laptops. 2. A message can't be sent directly to a MAC address in the same way as a phone number

MAC do have unique owner blocks. Cisco somewhat owned the 0000.0C block.
Yes you can. That is literally how it works down the TCP/IP stack.

Yes, IMEI is unique, but my laptop doesn't have one and even if it did its not the same as an eSim or sim card. We can send a message to an activated Sim, we can't send a message to an IMEI or serial number

If your laptop has a regular Sim slot it will have an IMEI. True we can't send messages via IMEI or serial because those systems were never designed for message routing.

load more comments