New answers tagged google
The common nomenclature for "typing patterns" is called a fist. Many decades ago when morse code and telegraphy were common for long-distance communication, telegraph operators could identify other telegraph operators by the habitual quirks in each-other's style of tapping the key. This soon became called a "fist" and it exists even today. Our typing ...
Although I cannot say for sure what Google does or does not, it is unlikely that it records your "typing pattern". You can see the reason why thanks to Fabian Monrose's paper. Since you are not likely to type long texts in the search bar the keystroke dynamic is not accurate enough to identify you perfectly, let alone out of millions of users. Moreover, you ...
In addition to the existing answers, I'd like to add: it provides an attack vector. Host flagrantly malicious content at www.evilstuff.com Add to my domain records the IP addresses for: cnn.com IP addresses microsoft.com IP addresses stackexchange.com IP addresses Wait for Google to detect said content on my server and decide to blacklist the domain ...
Possibly because once the malware site is booted off its ISP or hosting company, the IP gets recycled to some other perfectly legitimate organisation. The domain name was clearly controlled by the malware owners, whilst the IP is owned by the ISP.
Many times (smaller) websites are run on shared servers which uses the same IP address but distinguish by path/URI instead - also, IP addresses change, it's not hard to re-direct what IP address a particular domain name points to, it's just a DNS update away.
There is no tool, it's a parameters of your google account. Try to make a NSFW (Not Safe For Work) research And read the SafeSearch manual To prevent others from changing your setting, like your kids or anyone who is borrowing your computer, click Lock SafeSearch. Learn more about locking SafeSearch
You fix the typo in the url https://aws.amazon.com/forms/aws-mfa-support/ (notice the 'r' in 'forms' that was previously missing
So there is nothing you can do about his activity, except to ignore it as the comments suggest. What you can do, is to re-evaluate your security practices, and make sure your house is in order in case he decides he wants to try to do some digital damage, to ensure you're as well protected as can be. This means: Choose strong passwords. Don't reuse ...
Yes and no. If done right it will be, but what you are describing is simply an authentication cookie. I would suggest to not reinvent the wheel. The framework/programming language that you use probably already have a way to manage authentication cookie. I would go with that instead of creating it yourself.
As Tokk said it is possible that your mail account is compromised from some place else but as you said you are using two factor authentication I believe it is more likely your phone is infected. Check your recently installed apps. Look at comments of the app and installation count. Sometimes they make a clone of an app to spread malware. If you find ...
You should not only focus on your cellphone, as there are other possibilities how this can happen. If a mail is sent from a pc it will also be shown in you GMail App, so this is no evidence that your mobile phone is the root of the mails. Look at your Google Account's recent activity, perhaps your password has been guessed or stolen from somewhere. There ...
It seems like the only security advantage is that if using one-time code flow, browser component and server component of the client each get their own token. In pure server side flow, only server gets the token and web application flow only client gets the token. Sending token from client to server, and vice versa, exposes end user to a certain risk. Using ...
"This one-time code flow has security advantages..." The statement is absolutely valid while considering one of the most dangerous attack a web application can suffer. It is the Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF in short). Before explaining the advantage of one-time code, let me clear the concept of CSRF. CSRF is the number 8 in OWASP list of most dangerous ...
Top 50 recent answers are included