The grumpy thread

[myglaren]

9 hours ago, High Jetter said:

I hope it's just the regular drill

Is it safe?

[Bren]

Bollocks. Neighbour caught it with his 4x4 which is also in a bit of a state. They want to go through insurance ( vehicle is leased) but that is no use to us as our car will be written off.

We haven't had much luck with this car.

[cort1977]

Not good obviously but if they write it off can't you buy it back?  

[Talbot]

11 hours ago, artdjones said:

Great, so we can all spend €3-400 or more on a phone every 3 years. Would it be impossible for Google to upgrade security on older Android versions?

Not impossible, but also not really viable, as most manufacturers customise Android for their phones, and then only update them for a while on the basis that the average phone lifetime is maybe 3-4 years at best.

If you want the latest android OS on an older phone, that's perfectly possible, you just have to install it yourself by rooting the phone and uploading a custom OS.

No different to buying a windows laptop and then finding out 5 years later that the OS is no longer supported and you need to do something else.  You can buy a new one with a new OS, ditch the old OS and install a newer one (and possibly tolerate poor performance) or just keep using the old OS with no security updates.  Phones are now exactly the same, just on a shorter lifespan.

[artdjones]

Don't let the car be taken away to be assessed. 

[Talbot]

47 minutes ago, cort1977 said:

buy it back?  

No need to.

If Bren makes the claim direct against the other persons insurer, even if they decide to write it off, they have no contractural claim to the car, so you get a payout and that's it.  They might *offer* to remove the scrap car, or indeed (incorrectly) claim that it's now their car, but you have no need to surrender the car if the claim is not being made against your own insurer.

You must (IE Bren must) however notify his insurer that there has been a material incident with the insured vehicle, but that he is taking action directly against the other persons insurer.  That has to be recorded as information only and *shouldn't* affect the premium paid, as no claim has been made.

[R1152]

11 hours ago, High Jetter said:

I binned Natwest's app, only use internet banking on a fully protected and updated PC.

To quote a friend of mine - and how do you know that really is a bank's site you're logging into? 

(he will not 'do' online banking, too prone to "man in the middle" attacks according to someone he met from GCHQ)

[Bren]

The car is my wife's. She is worried if she notifies her insurer she will get bent over - the other insurer has to admit liability.

[Talbot]

10 minutes ago, Bren said:

The car is my wife's. She is worried if she notifies her insurer she will get bent over - the other insurer has to admit liability.

it's highly likely that contracturally she will have to.  In the terms and conditions of your(her) current policy it will likely state something like "the insured party must make the insurer aware of any material fact relating to the insured vehicle", which essentially translates as "you have to tell us about everything"

I've heard of instances where a car stereo has been stolen, and the cost hasn't been worth it, so a replacement piece of glass (£10, breakers) and a replacement stereo (£30 ebay) has fixed it.  However, when later in that insured term the car was then stolen, the insurance refused to pay out as there was a material fact (the loss of the stereo) that wasn't declared, even though no claim was made.

I've had a similar situation just recently.  A minor bump where neither party was at fault. I notified my insurer, mainly to ensure the other person didn't try to make a claim against me (their damage was significantly more than mine on a much newer car).  It is recorded as a "loss", but of zero value.  It didn't affect my premiums any more than general movement of insurance prices (I changed insurers at the end of the term anyway).

The other insurer doesn't necessarily have to explicitly accept liability, however if you make the claim directly against them, with information that you(your wife's) car was parked and unoccupied at the time, then they have pretty much no option but to pay out as that's slam-dunk the neighbour's fault.  As soon as they pay out, that's acceptance of liability.

[loserone]

1 hour ago, R1152 said:

too prone to "man in the middle" attacks according to someone he met from GCHQ

Anyone from GCHQ would be questioning his threat model.  

 

Take reasonable precautions.  Don't click links from emails or SMS.  Make sure the device is patched.  Use MFA wherever you can.  But not using it at all is a pretty high impact to the A in CIA 😁

[R1152]

17 minutes ago, loserone said:

Anyone from GCHQ would be questioning his threat model.  

 

Take reasonable precautions.  Don't click links from emails or SMS.  Make sure the device is patched.  Use MFA wherever you can.  But not using it at all is a pretty high impact to the A in CIA 😁

It is frustrating because normally he sends me cheques which either means I have to post the things with a form or take a bus ride into the city nearby (it's cheaper than driving/parking) to pay them in. The one time I said "pay me with Paypal" I gave him an incorrect e-mail address thanks to a keyboard-induced typo, which he wasn't pleased about. Luckily, the e-mail address the typo produced doesn't exist. And I do know of one society that lost £20,000 thanks to hacked mail accounts and plausible e-mails asking for online payments to UK accounts that then disappear.

But yes, this was the advice he was given by a man from GCHQ when he worked in local government several years ago, and he has serious concerns with security and GDPR as well. I can see his point, as scams get ever more clever and elaborate but the truth is, my business couldn't function without managing its bank accounts online.

Otherwise, I already do the things you have suggested.

[loserone]

Just now, R1152 said:

this was the advice he was given by a man from GCHQ

No, it really wasn't.  That's my point.  

[R1152]

1 minute ago, loserone said:

No, it really wasn't.  That's my point.  

No, it really was. He has no reason to say otherwise.

[New POD]

2 minutes ago, R1152 said:

No, it really was. He has no reason to say otherwise.

How do you know?  Have you seen his contract of employment? If you have how do you know it's genuine? 

[R1152]

1 minute ago, New POD said:

How do you know?  Have you seen his contract of employment? If you have how do you know it's genuine? 

"What you on about, Willis?"

[loserone]

MITM attacks are possible, but endpoint compromise and social engineering / phishing are much more likely.  Anyone who works for GCHQ would know that, and would be careful with what advice they provide, otherwise they wouldn't work for GCHQ for very long.

Most likely is he's trying to justify his paranoia and personal discomfort with using computers.  He's using Cheques for fuck's sake

[R1152]

12 minutes ago, loserone said:

MITM attacks are possible, but endpoint compromise and social engineering / phishing are much more likely.  Anyone who works for GCHQ would know that, and would be careful with what advice they provide, otherwise they wouldn't work for GCHQ for very long.

Said advice was given many years ago, before anti-social media became a thing.

I still know plenty of bodies that ask only for cheques... it has to be said, the fraud on the society I mentioned earlier would have been impossible if only cheques were used.

[Talbot]

32 minutes ago, R1152 said:

Said advice was given many years ago, before anti-social media became a thing.

So completely and utterly out of date then.  Security advice can be out of date within weeks when it comes to the internet, so "Many years ago" is utterly meaningless now.

I'll bet the advice pre-dates the use of https for web pages.

He might as well be giving advice on how to safely use a fax machine for all the relevance it has now.  Or in automotive terms,  recommending you keep your carburettor dashpot topped up with 20w/50, when you're driving about in a newish Focus.

[artdjones]

It's amazing how all the reservations people have about internet banking or anything to do with internet security are always answered with "Don't be a fuddy-duddy, get with the programme", (at substantial personal expense).

[Talbot]

32 minutes ago, artdjones said:

It's amazing how all the reservations people have about internet banking or anything to do with internet security are always answered with "Don't be a fuddy-duddy, get with the programme",

I don't think anyone has said that have they?  My point is that taking advice about internet security that was given *years* ago is utterly irrelevant now.

Yes, there are other security concerns now, but the ones that have been highlighted years ago are now utterly meaningless.  Security issues these days are all about exploiting the person, as they're now the weakest link in the chain.  The actual transmission of data to and from your bank is nowhere near the weak link it used to be.

[HillmanImp]

20 hours ago, LostnotFound said:

At least we'll be able to answer the age old question of whether a Hillman Imp shits in the woods....

 

 

 

Hope you have a good ride tomorrow. Weather is cracking for it.

Well, it was okay in the end. Felt okay but did play it safe with a bog roll in the backpack.... 

and braved the public toilets at the site before I set off. 

Which weren't too bad thankfully. 

Good fun, didn't get passed once on my way round despite my bike probably being older than half the kids I went past. I feel absolutely fucked now though, my legs struggled a bit with some of the uphill bits. 

I notice the bags in each photo, its a bit of a 'bags day out' post this 'innit. 

The drive over to Gisburn is epic fun though in the Subaru. Really makes realise what a fucking weapon this thing is. People on the roads round there too get out of your way as well, it seems to happen each time I go. Probably rightly thinking just let the idiots past before they crash into you trying to overtake where they shouldn't. 

I did do a proper police camera action moment on the way over too before I'd even got to the good roads, feel a bit of a dick about that, hopefully they didn't have a dashcam. I don't normally drive like that much of a twat, honest. Got a bit excited to be giving the car an Italian tune up for the first time in months. I blame the Pepsi max I'd drank a few minutes earlier. 

I did panic it was breaking down at one point though as it smelt like a Hillman Imp (not me, an actual car) but realised it was the oil I'd put on the bike so am not sure what that similarity is.

[Zelandeth]

What idiot decided that this was a smart place to put an oil filter?

Always get it to come off in the end, but it's a right faff.  There are vacuum and hydraulic lines running below it you can't see as well, plus the space to the right under the boost pipe is mostly full of coolant lines and hydraulic pressure regulator.

It's not the most difficult one to get at I've dealt with by a long shot, but it is one of the most annoying.

Especially as if they had flipped the oil cooler through 180 degrees vertically (it wouldn't have fouled on anything if they had) the two coolant lines immediately above the filter would be underneath it and it would be dead easy to change.

[Talbot]

24 minutes ago, Zelandeth said:

What idiot decided that this was a smart place to put an oil filter?

That's your Xantia isn't it?  If you look on early XU engines (XU or XUD) the filter is really easily accessable.  It's only as the engine was developed and had stuff added to it (including the cooler) that access got really crap.

You can tell the cooler is an afterthought... if you remove the single tube bolt that holds it in place, the original filter mounting can be seen on the block.  the cooler replicates the filter base, essentially stepping the filter about 30mm forward away from the engine.

[Zelandeth]

55 minutes ago, Talbot said:

That's your Xantia isn't it?  If you look on early XU engines (XU or XUD) the filter is really easily accessable.  It's only as the engine was developed and had stuff added to it (including the cooler) that access got really crap.

You can tell the cooler is an afterthought... if you remove the single tube bolt that holds it in place, the original filter mounting can be seen on the block.  the cooler replicates the filter base, essentially stepping the filter about 30mm forward away from the engine.

Yep.  Which is why it's particularly awkward as there's extra hydraulic rigid line spaghetti around both the pump and in the vicinity of the pressure regulator compared to any other Xantia variant.

Being turbocharged doesn't help either for underbonnet simplicity...does help with going quickly though.  The amount of poke this car has when it comes on boost still makes me grin.

[cort1977]

Bloody rust. Been fiddling about with passat rear brakes, old caliper rusted to bits, won't retract even when i bought new correct tool. So bought new caliper.

Fitted today, new pads, sliders all good - then the flexible line starts leaking.

OK, I'll buy a new one, let's get it off, oh no now the nut is rusted solid and the rigid pipe is twisting. FFS.

I'm going to throw it in to the garage and let them deal with it.

[Split_Pin]

Good move, and heavy crappy jobs or something that I forecast will go to shit usually gets punted into a garage.  As long as its a simple job as they can't deal with anything complicated.

[myglaren]

20 hours ago, Talbot said:

No need to.

If Bren makes the claim direct against the other persons insurer, even if they decide to write it off, they have no contractural claim to the car, so you get a payout and that's it.  They might *offer* to remove the scrap car, or indeed (incorrectly) claim that it's now their car, but you have no need to surrender the car if the claim is not being made against your own insurer.

You must (IE Bren must) however notify his insurer that there has been a material incident with the insured vehicle, but that he is taking action directly against the other persons insurer.  That has to be recorded as information only and *shouldn't* affect the premium paid, as no claim has been made.

Exactly what I did with my Accord.  It had been pristine.  The insurers gave me more than I had paid for the car.  Drove it for a year then part-exed it for a C5.

[Tadhg Tiogar]

Feckin' rivet failed on the spotlight connector. Fuxake.

[Fumbler]

BX's engine electrics have failed rather badly and I'm now stranded in the college carpark. With no breakdown cover. FML.

[Tadhg Tiogar]

4 minutes ago, Fumbler said:

BX's engine electrics have failed rather badly and I'm now stranded in the college carpark. With no breakdown cover. FML.

Er.....how badly?