As far as my limited understanding goes using the the key fob for remote central locking does not expose any risk, instead its the immobiliser part, so manually opening your door with the physical key provides no extra safety, its when the key is present near the ignition barrel, thats where the immobiliser kicks in and where this venerability exists
From what I understand, they have to capture two uses of the key fob to be able to brute force, so if you don't use it then they can't capture anything. Or they just captured two uses from a random car and now it'll work on any car. I wish the article went into more detail.
They captured 2 uses of the RFID-based immobilizer. That gets used every time you start the car, regardless of how you unlocked the car. It's completely separate from the UHF-based keyless entry system which you use to unlock the car.
The paper makes this distinction in the first paragraph, but of course the article fails to distinguish.
As bri3d has mentioned, I think you are confused because the key actually has three independent functions and you need to make the distinction between them all.
- Remote central locking via UHF
- Immobiliser authentication via RFID (this is what is vulnerable)
- Key for the ignition barrel or manual unlocking of doors
I think its known Google can masquerade as a "normal" visitor if it suspects you of cloaking (non identifying UA string and coming from a non disclosed google crawl IP)
Yes and this is what is the most unsettling part, the TLDR for small businesses is if you don't sell through a marketplace your sod out of luck and now regarding the VAT threshold and need to burden the cost of becoming VAT registered
Thanks! The quick response is we haven't got around to it yet. We have been hard at working integrating new features and with only a select few customers (that we can count on two hands) it wouldn't showcase the platform very well.
Our initial customers are primarily retailers but we aren't intentionally limiting ourselves to that market, the platform works across a few different sectors.
We have a Magento plugin as our first drop in integration so if you are running a Magento webstore you can just install and configure a plugin and we will automatically ask all your customers for a review a certain amount of days after purchasing. We also have a few POS and Point of Delivery integrations currently in the pipeline but as it stands they are all custom integration jobs to be branded up as the registered company, maybe this could be addressed with an iPad app that restaurants could present when customers are settling the bill?
It's honestly something we haven't looked at yet but if a potential client wants this to come onboard with us then we are more than happy to put in the development time to provide the solution
Good timing on this post, recently decided to shape up my own practices.
I'm currently storing everything in a separate OSX keychain with a strong 20+ character password but there seems to be very little out there describing how OSX encrypts the notes. I can only find articles from a few years ago staging it's 3DES but I would like to think its been upgraded since then.
Trained as a locksmith out of college, dad and sibling still trade mainly on "warrant runs" for the large energy providers when they need to get access to house to cut people off.
It's really cool seeing people take an interest in picking, but just wanted to point out that professional & hobbyist picking is completely different.
A professional’s first priority normally is to get into the property, damage generally not being a huge issue so the approach changes dramatically.
First you try all the doors, as you would be surprised by how many people just simply don't lock their doors whilst making a judgment what will be the easiest entrance.
Then you target the door with the worst lock, normally a UPVC door with a euro cylinder and use an electric pick gun to give it a quick blast. This gets you in within 5 minutes 90% of the time. [1]
If the pick gun doesn't work you snap the cylinder in the door and replace the lock for a total cost of about £5 [2]
The hardest part of the whole job is when you have to identify a mortice lock in order to bypass it and knowing if it's worth an attempt at a pick. (Simple 3 lever locks are worth a pick first before a drill)
Once the lock has been identified though it's easy to drill, you get your template out [3], mark up the holes and drill out the stump
There are also other methods and the general gist of the story is you use the method which takes the least amount of time with doesn't leave an unreasonable amount of cost!
Some other methods/products to look at which are interesting and commonly used:
With both myself and my partner having Crohns we have found a lot of value it Crohnology and its absolutely an amazing idea, simply for the community thats grown around it.
However my single annoyance is all the treatments are display by brand name and over here in the UK medicine is generally never referred to by its brand name, meaning it was extremely difficult to input my past treatments without a lot of googling
If matt says it's more substantial than penguin 1.0 then its going to have a big ripple effect, the last penguin update effected more than 10%+ of SERPS.
If your worried about this update then you haven't being doing "SEO" right.
There was a lot of collateral damage done to innocent sites during both Panda and Penguin. I think there's good reason for everybody who relies on Google traffic to worry a bit.
My main site was part of the collateral damage from Panda, so I'm pleased to hear Matt say that they're still tweaking Panda to help sites that are still being affected.
My site is pretty much all user generated content (car reviews), and Panda seems to struggle with differentiating such sites from content farms, unless they're part of a larger, established brand.
Almost two years of attempting to fix the problem by improving quality and layouts, reducing ads etc had no effect. Then I raised my case on Google's own forums, resulting in a lot of attention, and a few weeks later I saw a massive improvement (I know, correlation is not causation). Unfortunately I seem to have been hit again last week, by something that looks suspiciously like Panda (though I'm not 100% sure).
I've mostly moved on (now working on an iOS app), but it did appear from the outside that Google was comfortable with the impact of Panda, and it's good to know that they're still focussed on improving it.
I understand it's all algorithmic and there will be some truly innocent collateral damage involved but Google wouldn't be pushing this out if they didn't feel the overall quality of search would increase.
Most of the collateral damage is going to be people straddling the grey hat line and rightly so in my own opinion.
I think it's very possible that google would push this out without thinking the quality of search would increase; if they think their PR will be able to continue controlling the message and getting discussion away from the potentially decreased search quality and fighting any possible damage to the brand through extremely tight & multi-layered propaganda around any dissent or competition that comes up in the news cycle.
Glass fans should be happy to know that shortly after the algo change they should be seeing another wave of public demonstrations, perhaps a self-driving car sighting or two.
I don't disagree, but look at it from the perspective of the small business owner that gets 80% of their revenue from Google traffic. Even if they were one of the few unlucky ones, their livelihood is lost.
Look at it from the perspective of the small business owner who currently has next to no revenue from Google traffic, because their genuinely useful or relevant site is drowned out by spam.
That makes sense, if virtually every update didn't promote the likes of Amazon, eBay, and Google properties. Small businesses are toast and getting toaster by the update
Right? Not enough keywords and you just don't rank, too many bold keywords and you're hit. Nowadays you get a penalty far before you do anything black hat (Though Penguin should not be about onpage).
Keyword stuff is abusive, bolding all your keywords should rightly get you penalised. It's not far off the old days of stuffing the defunct meta keywords tag.
First point on googles webmaster guidelines says it all. Your chasing google, build a site for your users first, google will follow because it's in there interest to provide the most relevant content.
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings.
A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee.
Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?
What is abusive? With 1 keyword on the page you will not rank. You at least need it in the body, text, url and h1. Is this abusive?
Google tells you to design for the user. This assumes that Google is just as clever as people - what they love to tell you - but which it isn't. That's the main reason people put text blurbs everywhere, create landing pages, put synonyms and different keywords on their pages, because Google is not clever enough.
And your competition just ranks. If you design your pages for users you don't rank from my experience - e.g. people do not care about URLs, do not care about H1 tags on ecommerce pages, don't care about bold, don't care about explanations on ecommerce sites what a t-shirt is or what trousers are . But Google does.
Most of the current high ranking pages, SCREAM "I've been designed for Google!" right into your face.
The text on the page to the bottom and to the left clearly isn't for users.
If you have examples of your SEO work where you rank for keywords and have designed your pages for users and not designed the pages for Google I'd be very interested to learn from you - as would /r/seo.
I can't deny negative SEO is a worry and yes whilst Google opened up the doors for it they also recognised it and have started providing ways to hopefully protect yourself. (Disavowing links etc)
If your in a competitive market where you have to worry about negative SEO so much so that it is making an impact on your SERPs then I'm sure the web spam team would be more than interested in hearing from you
The largest problem with Disavow is that it doesn't scale as quickly as negative SEO does. You can't possibly build a legit disavow list, contacting every website, documenting effort, not to mention that Google doesn't even show you all the links, when $5 at Fiverr can toss 20k forum links at a site.
You are naive, even if disavow works, Google runs this update every six months are so. Do you realize what a traffic drop does to a business with payroll to meet?
Yes probably I am, because we are talking millions of sites and statisticly your going to get anomolies. Then again if your business model is based primarily on your SERPs then you have a bad business model and should be doing everything you can to mitigate that risk.
It's one of the risks you take which should of been identified if your a competent business owner that wants to survive.
Your post has nothing to do with the previous message or point, you're just switching arguments. Most e-commerce businesses cannot scale /downscale every 50% + or - organic search traffic changes.
Apologies your right. Trying to bring it back around to my original point by rephraseing my orgional statement then.
If your worried about this update then you haven't been doing seo right and If your relying solely on a 3rd party for the existence or profitability of your company then you have bigger issue at hand than just your seo.
For the record, I'm out. Been out since a few months after Panda, now I just do a thing here and there for others.
>>If your worried about this update then you haven't been doing seo right
I love this statement, heard it right after Panda when the "good SEOs" were bashing the panda hit sites...and then their own sites were destroyed too. As horrible as it may sound, I actually felt good.
