Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Calls For 'Digital Geneva Convention' (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the time-to-sort-things dept.

Microsoft is calling for a digital Geneva Convention to outline protections for civilians and companies from government-sponsored cyberattacks. In comments Tuesday at the RSA security industry conference in San Francisco, Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said the rising trend of government entities wielding the internet as a weapon was worrying. From a report on USA Today: In the cyber realm, tech must be committed to "100% defense and zero percent offense," Smith said at the opening keynote at the RSA computer security conference. Smith called for a "digital Geneva Convention," like the one created in the aftermath of World War II which set ground rules for how conduct during wartime, defining basic rights for civilians caught up armed conflicts. In the 21st century such rules are needed "to commit governments to protect civilians from nation-state attacks in times of peace," a draft of Smith's speech released to USA TODAY said. This digital Geneva Convention would establish protocols, norms and international processes for how tech companies would deal with cyber aggression and attacks of nations aimed at civilian targets, which appears to effectively mean anything but military servers.

66 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Of course its Microsoft by JustNiz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because theirs is by far the most architecturally broken and bodged, therefore most insecure and vulnerable OS.

    1. Re:Of course its Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Windows' architecture isn't the problem. From that standpoint, it's really no better or worse than any other OS at any level. (Rage all you want, Linux zealots, but it's true.)

      Windows' user base is the problem. Let me count the ways...
      1) They don't want to know how to use a computer. This is the electronic equivalent of not wanting to know how to operate (much less maintain) a car or follow traffic laws, but still wanting to drive on public roads. Fortunately, it's uncommon for people to die because a computer fucks up from operator error.

      2) They want everything they've ever used to keep working forever, regardless of need, merit, or technical feasibility. Because of this, Windows is full of shims and hacks to keep old shit working. If you're that desperate to keep old hardware or software working, pay up. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "how much will it cost to replace/upgrade/whatever". No, it won't be cheap. Sucks to be you with your specialized need that nobody else has.

      3) Security is seen as a hindrance. This is closely related to #1, above, since most people don't want to learn. But this goes even deeper than that. Computers that refuse to perform certain actions (unsecured ones) are viewed as slaves disobeying their master. Worse yet, pop-up warnings that require user interaction are seen in the same mutinous light. This aversion to "you can't do that" needs to stop. But it won't, because people are whiny little bitches.

      4) Shiny sells. This is entirely a user problem. If it doesn't look new, it isn't new, even if everything else is upgraded underneath. And if it doesn't sell, Microsoft can't pay the bills or keep investors happy. So since shiny sells, shiny ships, and real improvements are slow and invisible.

      5) Non-shiny doesn't sell. I guarantee you that if you're a Linux fan that hasn't tried out Windows since the XP days, Windows 10 would shock your balls off. Figuratively. Not because of the shiny, but because of the drastic changes in stability and security that have happened since 16 years ago. And yet, I still see comments on /. daily where some twat is whining about something that was fixed years ago. That guy is one more reason Windows doesn't get better faster. Don't be that guy.

      Now, that's not to say there aren't valid arguments to be made about how Microsoft has been untrustworthy in the past and that various software communities are still a bit gun-shy from it. There absolutely are. But the software and business side of Microsoft have been vastly improved in the last 15 years. The user base, however, has not improved, and shows no signs of getting their head out of their own ass. And worse, Microsoft aren't the only ones to have to deal with this problem. For proof, see the various Linux-land wars that have raged of late. Proprietary video drivers. FFMpeg vs. some fork run by a shady mofo. Pulseaudio. Systemd. Lennart Poettering in general. These are all taken as signs that either the system is being dumbed-down or that fogeys hate progress, and those are both user base issues. It's no different from what currently makes Windows suck the most, and it's draining the life out of Linux too.

      TL;DR: Windows suffers from dumb users that make everything suck. So does Linux.

    2. Re: Of course its Microsoft by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      There is a simple test. It applies not only to the kernel but to all Microsoft products.

      If the splash screen looks great, then the code is great. Ship it. Customers will send in beta test issues.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Of course its Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not discounting the majority of your post, but this:

      "Because of this, Windows is full of shims and hacks to keep old shit working."

      Is simply not true. *Everything* in Windows is hacked together garbage, even the new stuff.

      Exhibit A.

    4. Re:Of course its Microsoft by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Your link has nothing to do with "new stuff". It is literally dated 2006... you know, when that strategy was put into effect.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:Of course its Microsoft by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Windows' architecture isn't the problem. From that standpoint, it's really no better or worse than any other OS at any level. (Rage all you want, Linux zealots, but it's true.)

      No it really isn't true. Just 3 examples (believe me there are many more):
      * Unlike Linux, with Windows there is no real divide between apps and the OS. With Windows, apps and OS both keep their settings in a shared place called the registry that either can access and change. Under Linux, each app generally has its own unique configuration file held separately and there is no shared area for OS and app configuration.

      * The standard model for Installing an app in Windows is to insert itself into the OS and even extend the OS itself. With Linux the OS is effectively partitioned away because unlike windows, it is completely unmodifiable by users.

      * Unlike Windows, patches to Linux are well-documented and optional, so under control of the user.

  2. Makes sense by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want peace you need to start by committing not to attack the other side, only to ever defend yourself.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Makes sense by gnick · · Score: 1

      There are no Ukrainian boots on Russian soil, didn't seem to work out that well for them.

      Clearly it isn't sufficient to just defend yourself if you want peace.
      It might be a good start but something else is needed beyond that.

      Are you implying that Ukraine should have invaded Russia? That seems like a terrible idea for the Ukrainians. Even worse than the situation they're in now.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Makes sense by skids · · Score: 2

      Clearly it isn't sufficient to just defend yourself if you want peace.

      In a multi-lateral situation you need to form a community that represents a plurality if not a majority of military power system-wide that agrees to act responsibly and be open enough that other nations can be pretty sure they aren't just appearing to act responsibly.

      Once you have that you shun the worst offenders among those not in the community to deprive but not destroy them, offering them paths back into favor if they start behaving like adults. Some (like North Korea) will take a while to get over their tantrum and realize sitting at the kids table isn't as much fun as it used to be, others will start reforming themselves earlier.

      Then once this all appears to be more or less working or at least maybe possible to get working, you get people angry that they don't have an in-ground pool and that they get called assholes for refusing to frost wedding cakes for gay people to elect an erratic know-nothing to direct one of the leading voices in the community to ignore the fact that one of the kids just wiped snot on the silverware. Wait no, skip that step, it must be a typo, nobody would want that.

      Anyway, as much as I detest the business culture MS stands for, I think they are right... responsible nations need to establish what acceptable behavior is, and then start to apply some peer pressure.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
  3. Let's take a step back. by hackwrench · · Score: 1, Troll

    Maybe we should restore general law literacy first. The way things currently are, law is enforced strictly at the whims of the powerful.

  4. Just as long as.... by downright · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just as long as.... as unleashing Clippy on the world is deemed a war crime.

    1. Re: Just as long as.... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The current assistant, Cortana is little better. They just made it more intrusive amd replaced a cutesy avatar with a circle.

    2. Re: Just as long as.... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      While the current assistant, Cortana is a little bitter, they made it so you can't fully turn it off. The avatar needs to have horns and a forked tongue.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  5. Why? So we can violate that too? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not a "digital land mine treaty" while we're at it?

    1. Re:Why? So we can violate that too? by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 1

      So, now you have flowers exploding in your face, when you pick it? How is that supposed to be less violent?

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
  6. The US failed to ratify the Geneva Conventions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Perhaps there's a good reason to call it a 'digital Geneva Convention' - It's basically a nice guideline to point to that the US browbeats others with, only to fail to ratify into law and enforce themselves.

    Without an enforcement body, this is meaningless. Who would you trust to enforce it anyway, MICROSOFT? Why not just call it a digital waste of time.

    1. Re:The US failed to ratify the Geneva Conventions. by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US is a signee of all four Geneva Convention treaties. There were three additional protocols, though the US has only ratified the third, but not the other two. The various treaties that the US has signed:
      GC I: Amelioration of the wounded and sick in the armed forces (1949)
      GC II: Amelioration of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked in the naval forces (1949)
      GC III: Treatment of prisoners of war (1929/1949)
      GC IV: Protection of civilian persons in times of war (1949)
      P III: Protection of anyone wearing Red Cross, Red Crescent, or Red Crystal to denote medical/religious personnel (2005)
      Signed but not ratified:
      P I: Protection of victims of international armed conflicts (1977).
      P II: Protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (1977)

      The Geneva Convention treaties are signed by a number of countries who seek to use them as a weapon against their enemy ("they broke the convention treaties, they should be tried for war crimes!") while they don't follow them themselves.

    2. Re:The US failed to ratify the Geneva Conventions. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Geneva convention and it's relatives and predecessors have been enforced. Yes, it tends to be after the fact, but the war crimes tribunal hasn't had a lack of work. The international community does tend to enforce the rules, either directly or via sanctions, and it appears to have had a major effect in the world.

      It's really only a big problem with the offenders are Russia, the US or China. Even then, those powers are hesitant to break international law directly: see for example the US dissembling over the use of torture.

    3. Re:The US failed to ratify the Geneva Conventions. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For a little context, the Hague conventions of the early Twentieth Century are, as far as I can tell, the first codification of the laws of modern war in treaties. I believe they're still the basis for much of it, although those conventions were found a trifle lacking in WWII. The Geneva Conventions, as far as they relate to war, are extensions of the Hague.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Good luck at that... it isn't just nations... by ctilsie242 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good luck with that, MS. The adversaries out there are not just nations who might have something to gain by playing fair or following rules due to game theory, but terrorist groups, criminal organizations, heck, even disaffected college students. Unlike conventional weapons that require expensive physical objects, a massive DDoS can be launched from a cast-off 486 as the top level command console as it can from a high-end supercomputer.

    The main focus needs to be on "Great Wall of xxx", "xxx" being the country. If this isn't thought of now, it will be done by the government when some cyber-terrorism event happens that gets knee-jerk reactions going (think the USAPATRIOT act.) China has their Great Firewall. Iran is building their own Internet. Australia is in the process of building their nationwide firewall. Blocking attacks from other countries is going to be an issue sooner or later.

    A second focus needs to be on LARTing IoT makers to follow a ground up security design. A hub (or hubs for redundancy) and spoke system, so IoT devices do their communication through a hardened hub that only allows the devices to communicate with what sites the signed manufacturer's manifest allows (and 0.0.0.0/0 is not allowed directly.) As it stands now, there is actually a punishment for IoT makers to design any security in their products. Mainly because if v1.0 has a security hole, when IoT maker makes 1.1, all the owners of Device 1.0 will upgrade or else face being pwned. If the IoT maker did updates, they would lose out on that revenue, plus to them, every dollar spent on security is a dollar with no ROI. Unless pressure is placed on IoT makers, we will be seeing exponentially worse DDoS attacks when every fridge, microwave, smart TV, sex toy, and doorbell be used for it.

    1. Re:Good luck at that... it isn't just nations... by unixisc · · Score: 2

      This is what struck me as well. They explicitly want to address government sponsored cyberattacks, while ignoring cyberattacks by everybody else. Interesting approach for a company that has a very cavalier attitude towards privacy

    2. Re:Good luck at that... it isn't just nations... by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that, MS. The adversaries out there are not just nations who might have something to gain by playing fair or following rules due to game theory, but terrorist groups, criminal organizations, heck, even disaffected college students.

      Just because it does not address every threat doesn't mean that a digital treaty is not worthwhile. For one thing, state sponsored attacks are likely to be far more sophisticated than what "disaffected college students" can do. When the US conducted Operation Olympic Games, they set a dangerous precedent in digital warfare. And history shows that rules can be applied to warfare. Not perfectly, to be sure, but perhaps better than no rules at all.

    3. Re:Good luck at that... it isn't just nations... by chispito · · Score: 1

      This is what struck me as well. They explicitly want to address government sponsored cyberattacks, while ignoring cyberattacks by everybody else. Interesting approach for a company that has a very cavalier attitude towards privacy

      Well only the US Government really has the authority to make MS complicit in such attacks.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  8. Useless idea by Nunya666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thanks to the NSA and CIA, and such "rules" will have so many back doors that they will be useless.

    1. Re:Useless idea by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well how would they know what rules to break if no rules exist? You take the fun out of being a three letter agency!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re: Rules by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Rules get ignored and circumvented. Devices and software have backdoors. I don't see how to make sense attempting to apply the concept in one area to the other.

  10. In the words of Ed Grooberman... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Well, the best defense is a good offense. Do you know who said that? Mel the Cook on Alice."

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  11. Enforcement by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do you enforce a digital Geneva convention?

    You unfriend any nation state from your nation's facebook page if they break the convention? The regular Geneva Convention is hard enough to enforce, a digital one will be even harder because it's harder to prove an actor is really from a location or nation. Even if an assailant traced back to Russia is caught breaking the convention online and Russia "fails to catch" the person responsible they can claim he was a Ukrainian acting on behalf of Ukraine from within their borders.

    Even the regular Geneva Convention isn't really respected anymore. You've got the US brazenly violating it in Gitmo. Iraqi troops during the gulf war were violating it. No-one really takes it seriously anymore.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Enforcement by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How do you enforce the non-digital one? ;)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Enforcement by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      How do you enforce a digital Geneva convention?

      You unfriend any nation state from your nation's facebook page if they break the convention? The regular Geneva Convention is hard enough to enforce, a digital one will be even harder because it's harder to prove an actor is really from a location or nation. Even if an assailant traced back to Russia is caught breaking the convention online and Russia "fails to catch" the person responsible they can claim he was a Ukrainian acting on behalf of Ukraine from within their borders.

      Even the regular Geneva Convention isn't really respected anymore. You've got the US brazenly violating it in Gitmo. Iraqi troops during the gulf war were violating it. No-one really takes it seriously anymore.

      How's the US violating it in Gitmo? (I'll give you a hint: the GC covers uniformed soldiers)

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    3. Re:Enforcement by gravewax · · Score: 1

      The US courts and international courts say otherwise.

  12. Re: Taking seriously by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Or law in general anymore. Law only gets enforced at the whim of the powerful. For that matter, it's hard to tell what anyone takes seriously anymore, as most people seem to be more eager to be ground underfoot than the people doing the grinding.

  13. Nice by iampiti · · Score: 3, Funny

    how about an agreement that forces the OS makers off the user's data? No? You mean you'd have to significantly alter Win 10 to pass those new rules?

  14. Re:Translation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If you can't store data safely, you better not store it at all.

    The only thing that needs to happen to clean up this whole mess is to make people and corporations FULLY responsible for any data collected and any damage done to anyone by the data being leaked. You'll see that data snooping end pretty fucking quickly that way.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. No, we need a right to strike back by Khyber · · Score: 2

    A guaranteed right for civilians to strike back against state-sponsored attacks that should not be targeting them should be enshrined into law. All forms of warfare. Collateral damage? No fucking longer, because it will be your ass.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  16. Including domestic ones? by argee · · Score: 1

    Does that mean that NSA, FBI, IRS, etc. would not "attack my server?" This is the most
    idiotic idea that anyone ever not thought through. Its a total non-starter. I thought even
    Clintonite Democrats from Washington and California were smarter than that.

  17. Article I by Solandri · · Score: 1
    Article I. The computer belongs to the purchaser of the equipment (Owner) and must remain under his/her full control. Hardware vendor or software author (Vendors) are not allowed to modify the computer's operation to secretly advance Vendor's own purposes, or otherwise degrade the Owner's control over the equipment.
    1. Hardware components and software (Products) must exclusively do what Vendors advertised they would do when sold to Owner. There is to be no secret or hidden functionality which contravenes or exceeds the advertised scope of the product.
    2. Automated feedback mechanisms sending information to the Vendor for improving future versions of the hardware or software are allowed only if:
      1. The Owner is clearly notified.
      2. The Owner is given the option to opt out of such feedback, without degrading the advertised functionality of the Product that the Owner paid for.
      3. or the Vendor pays the Owner for the service of providing feedback and use of Owner's network connection.
    3. Product updates cannot reduce or eliminate pre-existing functionality. In the event that advertised functionality is removed after purchase, the Owner may ship the Product back to the Vendor at Vendor's expense for a full refund.
  18. Just Use Non-State Actors by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    Would this make any serious impact though? Vast majority of cyber attacks aren't the life-and-death ones like bringing down the power grid. They are the more gray areas, espionage and theft, that nation-states may not be as quick to sign up for. If anything, many nations, including Western ones, view economic espionage as a civic duty in a global economic zero sum game. Why would they sign up for that? In addition, you nation-states already tend to use "non-state" actors to give them plausible deniability. Oh those hackers who hit your grid - just some vagrant teenagers.

  19. However, if you are to run Windows 10... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    If you aren't running Insider builds you really aren't looking after your own interests. That's what I do. I also handle things for my Mom, but she mostly uses it to play Facebook games and other Facebooky things. She does what in her world amounts to "serious stuff" on an Android phone I picked out for her. I also picked out her "Facebook computer".

    Maybe I "enable" my mom too much.

  20. Friendly challenge by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    I've twice tried to submit a story where we could all get together and issue our friendly challenges regarding Slashdot but they were declined. Eventually I'll likely work up the gumption to try again. Anybody else like to have a go?

  21. Re: Rules by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

    Rules get ignored and circumvented. Devices and software have backdoors. I don't see how to make sense attempting to apply the concept in one area to the other.

    Sorry, poor terminology choice. I should have said "exceptions" or "loopholes."

  22. Windows "Home" is problematic though. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I actually want a Home product that is maintainable. I have health problems though, so my cash is at a premium. I try to make use of Home, but there are features of Pro that would make my life easier in maintaining my and my mom's computers. Then there's no product for maintaining home devices. For that matter, diagnostic messages and recovery procedures of devices and software are garbage. My phone today would attempt to connect to my home network and then not do it. No error message or anything.

  23. Exhibit B by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    All right, so you have 32-bit Windows. It puts stuff in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32. You then bolt on 64-bit Windows. Do you put the 64-bit stuff in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM64? Not if you're Microsoft. For them, the correct answer is to put the 64-bit stuff in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 and put the stuff for 32-bit programs that turn them into 64-bit calls into C:\WINDOWS\SYSWOW64

  24. Re: Rules by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Hoped I helped. Society is already badly frayed and this is an area which could result in Tower of Babel levels of falling out if we don't tend to it.

  25. Bad comparison by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Comparing a desktop operating system. especially one for home use, to a server operating system, is not useful.

    1. Re:Bad comparison by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      What makes them cubbyhole categories in your mind. They are use cases. So what if your home system is Gentoo? You are applying a different use case and it cannot usefully be compared to a Gentoo system being used as a server for security. You want completely different software installed on it so it presents completely different attack vectors.

      I don't expect Microsoft to look after my interests. That's why I actually buy books that are published on Windows internals. Yes, they exist. Windows isn't the black box people make it out to be.

  26. Re:Sovereignty by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I have a saying. National sovereignty is a violation of personal sovereignty. I need to further develop my philosophy, but you gotta start somewhere.

  27. Re:Translation by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    "So yeah, you crashed the economy"

    "You owe us one economy. Better get started on that.

  28. Re:No, it's kind of cruft by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Originally Windows was essentially a shell over MS-DOS. At that time, Windows was 16-bit and SYSTEM was the directory. Some stuff kind of still wants other stuff there, and this matters in the 32-bit versions of Windows which can still run 15-bit Windows programs and many DOS programs. The transition to 32-bit was not the major compatibility breaking change you say it is. 16-bit calls were thunked to 32-bit routines just as 32-bit calls are now thunked to 64-bit routines in 54-bit versions of Windows.

  29. Why? by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Are security protocols that broken at larger organizations or is it just Microsoft asking for government protection from improving and finding bugs in their software?

    It's easy to defend against a security attack, you could use perhaps a large amount of sites small enough to be managed by a 2 or 3 man team and then connect those sites with a network that takes different routes around when one goes missing. We could have ARPA develop the thing and call it ARPAnet.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  30. Nonsense by Kjella · · Score: 1

    The NSA isn't snooping on Facebook and Gmail because they expect to find Chinese and Russian military secrets there. Almost all active conflicts now are asymmetric warfare where at least one of the parties aren't enrolled in regular armies of any kind, it's just people. They don't dress up in uniform, they don't have any particular military infrastructure, they hide among the civilian population in civilian buildings and use civilian tools. The general population's freedom, privacy and anonymity will come under attack again and again. I can wave a convention at the NSA all I want, they don't care. What we need are hardened tools, better transparency and more control. And the legal protection to be able to use those tools freely.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  31. Re: The US failed to ratify the Geneva Conventions by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

    Where do you buy security breeches? The normal ones I wear are forever letting me down.

  32. Re:Here's a "HYPER ALLOY Combat Chassis..." by Khyber · · Score: 1

    None of your HOSTs files protects against state-sponsored attacks. That one got proven by plenty of state actors already.

    Give up on your shitty outdated 'security' as this modern world barely even uses HOSTs any longer.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  33. How about digital NATO instead, by John.Banister · · Score: 2

    where all the signatory companies agree to spend a minimum percentage of gross profits on making their products secure. And, they could agree to cooperate with other digital defense treaty companies on security matters.

  34. Re:Translation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Too big to fail? Are we there yet again already? Companies being exempt from law because if we could slap them with a fine that isn't but a slap on the wrist, they take our economy with them, essentially holding our economy hostage?

    Any corporation "too big to fail" must be broken up, anything "too big to fail" is a threat to the economy in general.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. In the Future by hughbar · · Score: 1

    Only Microsoft will be allowed to attack and spy on you, without being perturbed or sidelined by these annoying competitors.

    Sorry, that's juvenile and I should know better, but these little outbursts of virtue signalling from them get my goat. And I haven't even got a goat.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  36. Re:Gitmo passes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The Hague convention says that civilians get the same protections, provided they carry arms openly and fight more or less according to the laws of war, before their enemy has intervened. If the perfidious Canadians were to cross the border and attack the Twin Cities, I'd have the legal right to pick up a rifle and start shooting as a lawful combatant. That right ends the moment the US Armed Forces show up, which in this particular case would be before I could get a rifle.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  37. Re:If they use hostnames? It works by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "By the way, Khyber - Are YOU doing better than I have on this front?"

    I've never had an attack or network penetration, ever, because I'm smarter than you. I've never had to write a HOSTs program, because unlike you, I'm not stupid enough to get infected by anything, and I'm smart enough to use dedicated hardware that's impervious to OS workarounds.

    You, on the other hand, and your outdated security friends, have tried to beat my system, and you've all failed miserably. So, please, come back when you're actually competent at breaking into systems, then you can talk about security.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  38. Re:/.ers & malwarebytes disagree #1/2 by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Hey, guess what? My internal to router block list is only TEN lines long and runs a thousand times faster than your shitty hosts file.

    You needed 16,000 lines to do what I could do in ten. You're fucking PATHETIC and so are the people that trust and support you.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  39. Re:That's NOT what I asked... apk by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I've built my own protocols. This is why you can't touch my stuff.

    It's called PROPER PROGRAMMING - something your 16,000 lines of code is not.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  40. Re:LOL! Depending on routers = FOOL's game by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Documented facts"

    >nothing but a bunch of other 3rd world 'security' people having their words repeated by you

    Meanwhile, as I've proven (and as Microsoft has proven) time and time again, HOSTs is bypassed by the OS and browsers AT WILL.

    You fucking moron.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  41. Re:You prove you're a moron again by Khyber · · Score: 1

    >fake name and fake life

    Meanwhile, as Vice President of one of the oldest mineralogical societies in California, I've secured their entire network exactly as I described and ran a full-out attempt to get any ad to display on our computers.

    ZERO ADS DISPLAYED.

    I just block the largest ad networks off the bat by wildcard IP and it's fucking done in my router. ZERO ADS TOUCH ME.

    Apparently, you're not smart enough to figure out that the ad companies paid for static IPs for easy configuration, in whole blocks. Just block the entire fucking range.

    Code line reduction by four fucking orders of magnitude.

    Meanwhile, back to my job as Vice President and certified gemologist, LOSER.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  42. Re:Yet you didn't know you are wrong... apk by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Windows doesn't block hosts fool (only 4 windows update)"

    I didn't say Windows blocks HOSTs - now you're putting words in my mouth you incompetent fuck.

    But it still bypasses it for Windows update? THAT IS EXACTLY WHY HOSTS IS USELESS!

    If I fucking say YOU DO NOT GO THERE and yet the computer STILL GOES THERE, then HOSTs is BROKEN.

    That you cannot accept this logic is proof that you're insane, untrustworthy, and a FRAUD.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  43. Re:You prove you're a moron again by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Where do hosts get bypassed no mind? Windows Update ONLY stupid fuck!"

    And every browser, and any program can be programmed to bypass HOSTs, proven time and time again with a simple GOOGLE SEARCH - how? Ignore fucking DNS resolution in the OS and do it yourself (ever hear of ZenMate for Chrome? It does exactly that.)

    USELESS. This is why IP blocking works best.

    BTW, you can simply bypass HOSTs if a piece of malware simply removes the user permissions from HOSTs. Pretty shitty 'security.'

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  44. Re:Who're u bs'ing jailbird? U SAID Microsoft liar by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Ahh, the moron looking at OLD NEWS (in which the e-mail was proven a FAKE - the header was TWO LINES LONG. Obviously fake.)

    See how stupid you are? Now I have you, Alexander P Kowalski, for libel, and the proof is right here, where you can't touch it, hide it, or deny it.

    Now to hunt you down and file suit.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  45. Re:Jailbird san quentin "minerological society" by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the extra libel evidence.

    I love it when you lose so hard you have to resort to personal attacks.

    I'm going to love to even more when the news of the lawsuit comes to bite you in the ass.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.