Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Blaster, Sabers, Canada
Art of the Saber Jagaast writes "As a counterpoint to all the hype about the Star Wars kid, here's a Star Wars fan film that's actually very well done. Art of the Saber is 'a light saber fight sequence with the flavor of a Hong Kong martial arts action movie.' Well worth watching." Update by J : I've made torrents available.
Vote early, often, and reversably. An anonymous reader writes "As a follow up to a previous story here on Slashdot on electronic voting, Excite has a story on the same subject with a bit more information including this amazing quote from Deborah Seiler, Diebold's West Coast sales representative: '"These activists don't understand what they're looking at," Seiler said.'"
GSM-crack paper online morcheeba writes "Copies of the GSM-crack paper described in last week's Slashdot article are now available online (PDF) thanks to John Young's Cryptome"
Mandrake ads...take 2 *no comment* writes "Apparently there has been some controversy over the ads in the upcoming Mandrake 9.2. I thought it was pretty cut & dried, but apparently Mandrake thought it was enough of a controversy to to release a written statement about it. I wonder how many flames were posted in the slashdot forum using the download version of Opera."
Blaster Worm still alive and well on MIT campus fwc writes "MIT still has 900 network drops disabled due to the Blaster worm infection. Of particular interest is that MIT network security requires users to reformat their hard drive and re-install their operating system before they get back on the network. Sounds like a good excuse to reinstall something other than a Microsoft operating system."
A big AWOOOGAH for Canadian file sharers.
Rumor writes in response to a recent story suggesting that Canadian users could swap files scot-free: "Listen, Canadians, don't go using your p2p apps and thinking you are immune from lawsuit, you are liable for copyright infringement if you share files on p2p apps.
To wit: a fellow law student and I have written an
analysis of s. 80 of the Copyright Act and we've
concluded that one can download music safely under the Private Copying provision, but no one can share or upload files without infringing on copyright.
In a nutshell, Private Copying allows anyone to make a
copy of a song purely for their own use. As you
probably know, when you share files and someone
downloads from you, what actually happens is that
their computer makes a request and your computer
actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying
for someone else's use and infringing. It doesn't
matter if you didn't realize that's what happens,
either... intent is not required for infringement.
The upside is that you can accept copies from other
people (ie. download) all you want. Although there
might be an issue of contributory infringement to
worry about... I won't go into analyzing that, since
so far the record companies are only suing uploaders.
The article can be found on greplaw.
I've recently confirmed this analysis with an IP law professor at my university, so I'm pretty damn sure of it. So, please, be aware of this danger. Downloading cool, uploading/sharing not. I
guess the situation still better than nothing."
Why not ask for your money back? zaaj writes "There are several articles out about a newly found/fixed(openssh.org) buffer management bug in OpenSSH and some derivatives. Cisco's Advisory only mentions DoS attacks against certain of their SSH-enabled devices, but ZDNet's article hints at rumors of long-existing root exploits. Regardless, RedHat's got their typical list of updated packages with the patch back-ported. A few other distro's have info in the vendor section of Cert's advisory CA-2003-24"
Canada's in Star Wars?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Any reason this is in the Apache section?
GSM-crack paper online morcheeba writes "Copies of the GSM-crack paper described in last week's Slashdot article are now available online (PDF) thanks to John Young's Cryptome"
I dunno what's the world coming to?
You can buy crack rock on the street and get crack paper online so what's next, crack scissors from your local hardware store?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think I have a way of sharing music while avoiding legal action. The client should work like this:
1) Request a file
2) Ask "Is bit #0 a 1"
3) Get a response, write the appropriate bit to a disk (or buffer).
4) Repeat for the other 9238472093847 bits.
Now, here we're not copying anything. We're just asking about it in a way that lets us make an educated guess about the contents of the file. How can that be illegal!?
My other car is first.
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN- 2003-0682
may I suggest a nice bottle of '01 -fstack-protector?
That's a draconian policy if I've ever heard of one!
To reformat you need to backup - and if you have more data to backup than some puny CDRs? and you can't get on the network to backup onto your friend's gigantic file server that he has kindly carved out a nice chunk for you for a week? and I have a laptop so it's not exactly a good idea to be pulling drives out?
all practical concerns I'd face if I was part of the MIT network - but glad that I am not on the MIT network, and that blaster didn't come my way. heh...
poor suckers who'd have similar problems with me, though - maybe that kind of explains why there are still so many people un-connected... they are all looking for used tape drives...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
PS. Don't feed the trolls! Given the recent DCOM fiasco, it's fairly obvious where this thread goes...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
"MIT still has 900 network drops disabled due to the Blaster worm infection. Of particular interest is that MIT network security requires users to reformat their hard drive and re-install their operating system before they get back on the network. Sounds like a good excuse to reinstall something other than a Microsoft operating system."
Reformat? That's pretty dumb
B. Clear your computer of the Blaster worm
1.On the taskbar at the bottom of your screen, click Start, and then click Run. Type in services.msc and click on OK.
2. The Services window will appear. Enlarge it, if small, so you can see things. Click on the Name heading so the list is in alphabetical order. Look down the list for Remote Procedure Call (RPC) which Provides the endpoint mapper, etc. Do not choose Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Locator, which Manages things. Right click on Remote Procedure Call (RPC) and left click on Properties.
3. Click on the Recovery tab, and change first, second and subsequent failures to Restart the service, not Restart the computer. Click on Apply then OK. Close the Services window.
4. Hold down Ctrl and Alt keys and press the Delete key. The Windows Task Manager window will appear. Click on Processes. Click on Image Name to put the list into alphabetical order. Look down the list for msblast. There it is. Right click on it and click on End Process. Close all windows.
Total time to find this info: less than 30 seconds on Google cache... Interested in SoBigF? Check out my psychotic rants on it.
As for so called security team of whatever, I don't know why they would tell their users to format their machines... Seems a bit irresponsible, and makes me think their too lazy to read something like the DOC I just linked (Google cache link)... Hell they don't have to if you think about it... Print it out and throw it on every damn door. Come on if MIT can hang cars off bridges, place cars on roofs for pranks don't tell me they cant ctrl-p a damn doc...
MoFscker
The file's has a .mov extension, but neither file nor xine seems able to recognize it. Does anyone know what format it is, and how to play it?
MPlayer with the Quicktime support compiled in plays it fine. It's using the SVQ3 decoder module, if that helps.
Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
I'm not too suprised to see that Blaster is still running around, even at MIT. I work in an office that's behind a firewall, but it wasn't until yesterday that somebody discovered one of the Blater variants in our internal network. Most likely it was introduced by somebody taking their laptop home, and then back to the office. So what's the big deal? We're a small software house with reasonably intelligent folks working here, but that didn't stop people from a) avoiding the install of Microsoft patches on their office machines, even though these are internal machines and thus "immune" from external traffic, and b) from taking a laptop computer home and using it on a non-firewall protected environment. That we're seeing stuff like this still happening on MIT campus doesn't suprise me. Sure, a good number of /. readers will scoff at this, but there are plenty of intelligent people out there who still think that a firewall will protect them from everything. And that's just the reasonably intelligent people. What about the average, non-technical folks who don't even know what a firewall is? What the heck has to change (other than Microsoft cleaning up Windows, and shutting down all of its stoopid ports) for this kind of things to stop?
OK, so the student reformats the drive and reinstalls windows. Whee! Network access is turned back on.
Of course, no patches have been installed, since they are available as downloads unless MIT is distributing service packs and patches to the students via CD.
So now you have completely unpatched machines on the network, at least for the time it takes to repatch.
I've had rebuilt machines reinfected during that short time (yes, I should have thought of that first).
Maybe they have something in place to prevent this from happening, but that isn't indicated one way or another.
Besides, given the ease of fixing problems like these without reinstalling the OS, why bother forcing a drive wipe?
Just wondering if they're forcing everyone with the SSH hole to reformat and reinstall? (Yes, not as serious since it isn't a worm, but still)
I don't use Mandrake, but I have to respect any company that knows enough to number points in a press release starting with zero.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
I thought when the story was posted the other day it smelled off. Copyright law here as I understand it says you can LEND a CD to someone and they can copy it, that's legal. If you copy it for THEM though, that's illegal.
The loophole? Okay, on a P2P app, when someone downloads a file from you it is REMOVED from your hard drive. Translation: You've lent it to them. Then you get sent the file back. They've made their copy by "borrowing" yours, and then given it back.
Probably not viable since there'd be wankers who'd download and then kill the software so you don't get your song back (the RIAA would love to abuse that I bet!) but still, there has to be some loophole as the law doesn't take P2P into account.
Why are the MIT sysadmins being so draconian as to require infected computers to be reformatted, without solving the cause of the problem by *requiring* the windows bug to be patched? The article says "Reinfection rates are very high". Unbelievable!
The furore about Mandrake placing one commercial ad tarnishes the Open Source users' image. Here is a financially struggling firm trying to make some money through ethical means, and we feel violated having to view it? As mentioned in the press article, they have had ads before, and none of the intrusive, irrelevant shit found on the web. Why shouldn't they try every ethical, non-invasive means to stay afloat?
I've always held Mandrake in high esteem as they are the [possibly only] commercial entity that adheres closest to the principles of Free Software, listens to community feedback, and, if you read the press release about the ad, very polite in their communication - even when lesser people would've ignored us or told us to fuck off. Do you imagine slagging them off for being French makes you look intelligent? Hell, if they are typical of France, I would hold them with deep respect.
Remember - we all have our favourite distros, preferences, and so on. But until the day we realise that a loss for our [Mandrake-loving] peers is a loss for the entire community, we are not living by, and upholding, the principles of freedom, choice and tolerance.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Usually when I am installing an operating system, I leave the room or do something else when I am done with any user interaction. Why should I care if the show an ad while the OS is being copied to my hard drive and I am not looking?
As for the bookmarks who cares if I can delete them. Microsoft does this, Netscape did this(and now AOL does this.) You have to pay for Microsoft's OS (In more ways than one), and with AOL's version of Netscape they have things like Net2Phone that you can't remove. (I admit when AOL posted its ad links that could not be removed, I switched to Mozilla.)
As long as Mandrake sticks to their words from their press release, "ads won't be intrusive (no pop-up windows) and can be removed easily;" I will not mind if they make a few bucks to stay afloat financially.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Art of the Saber is one of legions of "lightsaber effect" videos made by fans.
TFN Fanfilms has a huge library of Star Wars home movies. Many of them have excellent stories, and do much more than display the rotoscoping skills of the creators.
Duality is one of the most visually impressive, but because of conflicts between the two guys who made it it's not available on TFN anymore.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Reformat and reinstall is a pretty standard response to a root-level system compromise. It also serves as a rather effective deterrent to users who might want to delay installing patches in the future.
The command-line exploit for the hole was available several weeks before the Blaster worm came out. I demo'd it in the office by breaking into my Boss's workstation (Yes, while he was watching over my shoulder). Compile the exploit on a Linux box, run it against a remote NT host, up comes a nice command-shell with Administrator access.
While the Blaster worm itself is pretty easy to get rid of, the RPC/DCOM bug is a remotely-compromiseable hole that gives you Administrator privileges. As such, it's quite possible that vulnerable machines could have been backdoored by something other than the worm (or by some rare variant of the worm) in the process.
A Blaster-infected machine was wide open for long enough for the virus to catch it. At that point, you have no idea what malware could have be installed. You're pretty sure it's "just" the regular worm, and the standard removal instructions are all you need, but how sure is that? Network security want to be completely sure that their network doesn't become a home of a few thousand more DDOS drones.
In my judgement MIT security may be being a little paranoid, but if you work in network security, you're paranoid by definition anyway.
Charles Miller
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
... because it's a heap buffer. Furthermore, it's not a simple buffer overrun, but an error in reallocation. As far as I've seen, there are no known exploits of it either. If there are, please link.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Here is how:
Break up any mp3 files into say 10 RAR and calculate MD5 for each part plus total.
Name the 10 parts equal to their MD5 number
Make small Identity file that contains above plus all of the normal mp3 ID's like Name, artist etc.
Make small plug in that disallows for any more than 3 or so of the parts to be made available for up load and obviously never the total mp3 file.
Make small script that takes Identity file as input and as output automatic tries to find and download all MD5 pieces.
Once retrieved combine and play.
If real fancy you could make the "Encryption" / "decryption" function DMCA proof, so RIAA can not legally tamper with it.
I am sure we can elaborate but you get the idea.
Help fight continental drift.
The University of Minnesota has a similar policy for using it's network, except for the whole reformat thing. They were actually nice enough to provide each student with a CD that had all the necessary patches and removal tools on it. Your ethernet jack was disabled until you proved to them that you had been patched.
Seems like a much more reasonable way of dealing with it than MIT's policy.
The problem with law school is that while you learn the theory of law, you don't learn much about the practice of law. That comes only after law school.
All the potential copyright actions in the world aren't going to matter when you don't know who to name as a party defendant.
The DMCA has a subpoena provision which has been interpreted to require an ISP to provide the identity of the Kazaa user (say) in the USA.
No such similar provision exists under Canadian law and the DMCA has no applicability in Canada in a civil suit. The closest you could get to it is a Bill of Discovery for an intended action.
While you might get such a discovery right against the ISP, this area of the law is wholly unexplored in the context of file sharing in Canada.
Getting a Bill of Discovery granted for a novel action is also problematic.
And most of all - it would be extremely expensive. You can't just do all your Bills of Discovery in one motion either. To do them all at once would amount to a Class Proceeding, which in this context, would first require a certification motion and motions to strike before you ever got a single user name. And then it's appeals to the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, motion for Leave to Appeal to the SCC and maybe even leave granted...
Four years later...your Kazaa user isn't even with the ISP anymore and Kazaa is yesterday's news. What now Mr. Bronfman?
Theory is fine - but $$$ and delay are the essence of the practice of litigation.
Robert Trifts
Barrister & Solicitor (Ontario)
.Robert
what actually happens is that their computer makes a request and your computer actually sends the file to them. Thus, you're copying for someone else's use and infringing.
The Crux of this argument revolves around a simple question: Who is operating the computer?
Possible Answer #1: The owner of the computer is operating it. Even if he does not explicitly review and authorize each operation that the computer performs, the owner still dictated the paramaters under which the computer would make those decisions. As a result, the computer copying and sending the music file is identical in every respect to the owner copying and sending the file... a clear copyright violation.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." The friend then burns you a copy of the CD and gives it to you, a clear violation.
Possible Answer #2: The remote individual is teleoperating the computer. The owner has permitted some limited form of teleoperation, but each action the computer takes is at the behest of that remote individual. Since the non-owner individual is running the remote computer, its actions in making a copy for that individual's personal use are reasonable and completely legal.
The parallel to this notion is that you go to a friend's house, point to a CD on his shelf and say, "I want that one." You then take it off the shelf and copy it using your friend's computer while he stands by and watches. Legal in Canada.
Possible Answer #3: The computer is operating itself. Soon it will take over the world. Muahaha. We'll relegate this answer to science fiction where it belongs.
The current caselaw is varied and confusing. Generally though, the following theme has developed: INTENT. If the owner knew and expected the computer to be used for a specific purpose, then when the computer does its as if the owner did that same action himself, regardless of who actually instigated the action. If the owner did not know and should not reasonably have known that the computer could perform such an action, then whoever actually induced it to perform that action is the guilty party.
Lets set up exteme hypotheticals to illustrate that theme:
Example #1: You rig an electric chair to a computer and a modem so that the next time a telemarketer calls, the chair will electrocute its occupant. A telemarketer calls. Who is guilty of murder, you or the telemarketer? Duh. You of course.
Example #2: Your Windows laptop gets a worm on it. You don't know it. You carry it to work behind the corporate firewall where it runs rampant, deletes everything and ruins the company. Are you guilty of destroying the company or is it entirely the worm author's fault? You're absolved; its entirely the worm author's fault.
So, how does all this help with the question of who's running the computer as it makes and sends the copy of the song? Well, it doesn't really. You could make a powerful argument that running a P2P server is no different than inviting the public at large to use your computer. You could strongly counter that by specifically setting up the computer to copy those particular songs, you and not the stranger are the agent of its copying. You could argue that its no different than radio, deliberately putting specific songs into the ether where any stranger can record them.
In fact, you can argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations. Before the matter is settled, you can expect the courts to argue the issue back and forth through a lot of permutations, ruling both ways while they seek the right balance.
So basically, the short answer is:
If you want to try to prove a point, go ahead but beware: Folks who want to live don't jump in front of trucks and epect them to stop, and the courts are behaving like a drunk drivers. Your best bet for longevity is not to play in the street.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Have you got any 0s?
;-)
Isn't still running MS Windows, after all these years, also a bit extreme?
Which is more extreme? One of these acts has been increasing in extremity, for a very long time. The other act started out as extreme, but at least it's stable and doesn't get any more insaner as the years drag on.
It's just a question of when one of them passed, or will pass, the other. Pretty subjective, I guess. But when you see it keep happening year after year, with complete oblivion to experience and a total lack of capacity for learning, it's hard to keep a straight face when anyone throws around the word "extreme."
You always keep thinking, "Is that finally the last lemming that will jump off the cliff?" and they just keep surprising you with their determination.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
How could some people be smart enough to crack GSM and not smart enough together a PDF that does not look like ass?
I don't know shit about dot products but I do know a shitty looking PDF when I see one.
Somebody give these folks some fonts!
It would be legal in Saudi Arabia to both download and upload. Since the downloading is legal in Canada there would be no liability under section 80 for a Canadian in Canada to download whatever she wants if she can ascertain the source can legally upload. In fact it would be a real streatch to go after any Canadian who uploads from anyone out of the country.
However, since the communication actually does involve one machine copying from another it would seem the ISP the downloader is connecting to might well be liable for anything downloaded as well as the telecomunications industry. Yet, there are provisions in place so that the telecommunications indusrty has a legal right to copy and cache anything that is put on the net so perhaps they are off the hook too.
It seems the laws with respect to internet content have been designed so that the creators of the work lose the right to control or otherwise profit from the distribution of their content the moment it hits the net. The opportunity to profit transfers to the telecomunications industry.
This means that there is perhaps a business opportunity. If we set up a company in say Saudi Arabia to serve copyrighted material for say a small subscription and legally buy one copy of each CD then any Canadian should be able to rip off the musicians legally. As for Americans, well perhaps we can legally ship pirated music out of Saudia Arabia... I don't know... it is an open question in my mind but I do think it is legal for any American to purchase a legally created CD even if it arrives from Saudi Arabia.
Another way out for Americans might be for each to claim they are offering telecommunications services because under the DMCA they would then gain the right to "cache" any music placed on the net. They might not have the right to listen to it mind you - but then they would have to be caught in the act so to speak.
There is already another business opportunity which is well underway now... this is the resale of used CD's. For about $12 bux I can buy a used CD in the mall near here and then copy it for my personal use and then take it back an hour later for a refund of $6 bux.
Personally I think the spread is too great mindyou. But I suspect the prices will come down with more competition.
If I ever bother to buy a cd burner perhaps I will make some copies but only of material I presently own as albums. I personally consider this fair use. I do not think ripping off artists is morally acceptable but then it was a stoopid liberal politition named Sheila Copps who organised the changes to the copyright act. Thus, WHY the present laws are written the way they are is perfectly understandable.
On the other hand, what this change has accomplished is basically to remove the opportunity to profit from the distribution of copyrighted material away from the recording industry and transfer it without compensation to the retailers who set up little cd exchange shops. In a twist of fate it would seem however that the RIAA effectivly managed to do that to the artistic community because as Janic Ian pointed out, she has never received a royalty cheque where they did not claim she owed them money!
One could argue that this puts recording artists into the same boat as webmasters because webmasters also lose the opportunity to make money from the distribution of their copyrighted materials as soon as they are placed on the net.
Oh well, artists should expect to be poor and die broke!
First, I realize that any action's legality can only -truly- be tested in the courts and we're playing theoretical/law-school games here. But how about this protocol...
:-)
1) Server receives HTTP GET for file.
2) Recognize that (for example) a 3 megabyte file can be described by a 24 million bit long number in base 2, or even shorter numbers in other bases you might prefer.
3) Recognize that numbers are free and can't be copyrighted. Every number can and is used for a multitude of purposes.
4) Respond with HTTP code 401 Unauthorized or a 403 Forbidden or whatever is applicable. Heck, create a new code that informs the client that you can't give them the file requested, since copying a digital work -may- infringe on copyright law.
5) In the body of the response, give an extended error code number as per 2) above. It's up to the client how they interpret or use that number. You're giving them a freely available and multi-purpose number.
Nothing in my response to the client was a copyrighted work, just a free number that is not and cannot be copyrighted.
Okay, my tongue is out of my cheek now...