Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Efficiency,Observation,WEP
Sargon Deep Fritz playing a person may be more cutting edge (and take a lot more processor power), but it seems like an awful lot of resources to spend on playing chess. Alex Bischoff writes: "From the February 1983 issue of "Your Computer", it's chess in 1 KB (for your brand-new ZX-81)."
But sir, even the judges are objecting! saulgood writes "the NY Times is carrying a further article here, about the revolt amongst some judges over their ability to look at Britney Spears and download Metalica mp3's at work... that's right - Power to the People Baby!!! No justice, No peace..."
Take that -- no, please, take that. Bob Lee writes:
"I authored the open source program Code Red Vigilante. This is an open effort to inform the public about the dangers of the Code Red worms and to specifically notify the owners of infected machines ... Vigilante is featured on Incidents.org, OnJava.com, TheServerSide.com, and it will be on the ScreenSavers on TechTV on next Monday.
Not to put too fine a point on it ... Jeffrey Fanelli of Sniffer Technologies writes: "Just to clarify on your story, that intern didn't crack 802.11x, but WEP in a 802.11b environment. 802.11x is a recently developed standard extension to Radius and 802.11 to allow for dynamic keys to be generated per user session. 802.11x uses the same WEP RC4 encryption, but makes it far more difficult to crack given the fact that all nodes associated with a particular Access Point will have a unique session based KEY (a key which, I might add, the user of the Mobile Unit in question cannot themselves identify).
"We are going to have to rule on the legality of this," he said, "because employers all over the country are doing this."
Are, were, have been for the last ??? years... This reminds me of Sandra Day O'Connor's contempt that people in Florida couldn't follow allegedly simple voting procedures (the folks at the country club where she votes just mark "Republican" all down the ballot for you and hand you a martini), or George Bush the First's amazement a infrared scanner at the grocery store late in his term (he hadn't been to a grocery store in years). Welcome to Everybody Else's America, judge!
At issue is whether it is legal and ethical for officials in Washington to check to see if any of the judiciary's 30,000 employees, among them nearly 900 active judges and hundreds of semiretired ones, use their computers for pornography, streaming video or music.
While this is certainly what the esteemed newspaper reporter has printed, we must ask ourselves: is it true? That is, is the monitoring program they have installed so brilliant, so incredibly artificially intelligent, that it can distinguish these three things: "pornography, video, and music" from everything else the judges might be looking at? Or is it (as I might believe to be the case) that the program is far less intelligent than the reporter claims, that the program simply monitors what web pages are viewed, and reports & tracks this at a central authority. Perhaps the judges don't wish any central authority to know that they are reading www.2600.com? Or perhaps that they are posting to weblogs as "Anonymous Coward", writing tracts such as "IANAL", which we all know means "I am not a lawyer (i'm a judge)" but which might be construed as pornography (I ANAL).
I think we must petition the reporter to check his facts at once.
"A coward is incapable of causing destruction; it is the prerogative of the brave" - Mahatma Ghandi
The vote stems from a conflict that has been simmering since this spring. At issue is whether it is legal and ethical for officials in Washington to check to see if any of the judiciary's 30,000 employees, among them nearly 900 active judges and hundreds of semiretired ones, use their computers for pornography, streaming video or music.
So I guess the judges are forbidden to actually see the capabilities of the internet, but merely listen to half baked descriptions and accusations from the various special interest groups?
My Grandmother had a saying "Believe none of what you hear, half of what you read, and all of what you see". This filtering bullshit will SERIOUSLY impede the judges ability to make an INFORMED decision.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
"My biggest concern is that signing off on these proposals opens the field to allow monitoring of every keystroke and basically makes an individual's computer an open book," And all along I had assumed that when at work, the computer I was working on was my employer's property, and they could monitor it. Maybe all laws should be tested on the legislators (and judicial branch that upholds such laws) so they can feel the effects. Heh, maybe it would even lead to police and the US President following some of the laws that the rest of us have to live under.
http://www.codewolf.com - Just good stuff to waste time
You are not penetrating the remote system...
That system has initiated an HTTP request to your system, and you are merely fulfilling that request.
It's just like when you choose to browse a web page, and it includes some Java, or Javascript. When you initiate the connection, you get what you get.
Can you sue some website just because they toss a few pop-up windows at your screen?
Besides, the owners of infected systems are negligent, as the patch to this vulnerability was released by Microsoft almost 2 full months ago (June 18th). Their negigence is contrinuting to this modern day "Tragedy of the Commons."
F*** 'em.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Correction: By using that software, you ARE penetrating the remote machine. The Java code takes the Code Red http attempt to spread and drops it, then fires back at the same hole Code Red exploits and causes the pop-up. The software is causing a pop up to appear on that machine, which can be viewed as a penetration from your machine into the remote machine. This is can be viewed as illegal because you are knowingly making access to a computer system which you have not been authorized.
I agree that negligent admins are to blame at this point. But that doesnt matter to the legal system (at least in the US).
At least in theory, if company Z's SA gets such a pop-up and wants to sue the guy ran Code Red Vigilante and caused the popup, the press could gobble up this as company Z failing to follow good security practices and result in a bad taste for Z's customers. So in reality, no lawasuit suit or other legal action may actually come out as a result.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
...then why don't they just buy their own box to use in the office?
"Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho