This is a fallacy. The reverse is also true: the admin account won't be able to access your personal accounts online.... by itself. If you choose to have local applications retain your credentials, that's your problem, not root's.
There's a "COG (Ceritified Organically-Grown)" symbol on the broadband. It's a bit of a lie, though..."Freerange broadband" just means the broadband lives in a 2'x2' cage rather than a 1'x1' cage. It doesn't mean your broadband gets to see the sun and eat bugs outside.
That can change terms downstream to the client, but in no way can it magically make multiple levels of municipal, state/provincial and federal government and their associated regulators get along.
"But ours is a small network of around 20 servers and about 150 users. So this is not as tedious as it sounds."
Ah. I was wondering how you remained so optimistic. Good for you, but the average user/server to sysadmin ratio is *much* higher. The things you mentioned are on all admin minds, but the cash and time are not.
Not all components in source and target of the analogy need to be analogous. The burden of liability in failed security is roughly the same here, so the analogy fits.
Not locking your car doors in 1973 in my suburb: acceptable. Not locking your car doors in 2016 in my neighborhood: stuff is missing from your car. It's well-known. In the same way, being ignorant of bad guys and malware on the internet in 1993 is acceptable because the risk was much lower. Being ignorant in 2016 is not acceptable and deviates from standard cultural knowledge.
Yes. Vulns in "*other*" products. Not vulns in your OWN product, which you are expected to fix as part of the common social understanding of vendor-customer relationships.
Using your example, imagine how pissed off people would be if Ford launched a campaign to announce they are recalling their vulnerable door lock... but only in 30 days, not before.
I agree on your definition of mysogyny... except these posts don't explain the statistics they discuss... they're just opinions and should be treated as such.
That was a silly thing to write. "Social awkwardness" is most definitely a box I checked in my last long-form census.
The 'why' is very clear: fewer women trained in CS or IT. That's it.
Let's see how long ppl put up with vuln marketing campaigns like this one. Then we'll know!
Seriously, though, you're not correct. Vulns exist, and people make money patching them, but in the big picture they slow down industry. It's the difference between a garage that repairs cars and a manufacturer of car security systems that makes money fixing its own product. Cars are expected to break down, but if a car door lock has an exploitable vuln, you can imagine the backlash against trying a stunt like this.
Having worked in IT security for years, I can attest that vendors try putting spin on vulns in their product all the time... And it blows up in their face every time.
Vulnerabilities aren't profitable. The cockroaches who make money from their fallout might see it that way because that how racketeers think, but vulns hurt business overall. And that's setting aside potentially ruined lives because of identity theft etc.
The heartbleed marketing fiasco brought out of the woodwork low-lives who made fake "test your system for heartbleed" pages.
This is not a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
All good points, which Snap in no way addresses.
This is a fallacy. The reverse is also true: the admin account won't be able to access your personal accounts online.... by itself. If you choose to have local applications retain your credentials, that's your problem, not root's.
Why? You're choosing to go under the friggin hood, of course you'll incur a higher risk.
Desktop Environment, you casual.
Agreed, but one simply has to scroll down half the endless parade of badly scanned ads from bygone tech to realize the article is baseless.
"Computer, Earl Grey tea, hot."
Lol wat. Do you know what air-gapping is?
You spelled 'cthulhu' wrong. Unless you were referring to a Mexican dessert, in which case you also spelled it wrong.
There's a "COG (Ceritified Organically-Grown)" symbol on the broadband. It's a bit of a lie, though..."Freerange broadband" just means the broadband lives in a 2'x2' cage rather than a 1'x1' cage. It doesn't mean your broadband gets to see the sun and eat bugs outside.
That can change terms downstream to the client, but in no way can it magically make multiple levels of municipal, state/provincial and federal government and their associated regulators get along.
"But ours is a small network of around 20 servers and about 150 users. So this is not as tedious as it sounds." Ah. I was wondering how you remained so optimistic. Good for you, but the average user/server to sysadmin ratio is *much* higher. The things you mentioned are on all admin minds, but the cash and time are not.
Not all components in source and target of the analogy need to be analogous. The burden of liability in failed security is roughly the same here, so the analogy fits. Not locking your car doors in 1973 in my suburb: acceptable. Not locking your car doors in 2016 in my neighborhood: stuff is missing from your car. It's well-known. In the same way, being ignorant of bad guys and malware on the internet in 1993 is acceptable because the risk was much lower. Being ignorant in 2016 is not acceptable and deviates from standard cultural knowledge.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Of course it would. But $1600 is not *nearly* the exposure risk they had and will likely carry for several months.
Yes. Vulns in "*other*" products. Not vulns in your OWN product, which you are expected to fix as part of the common social understanding of vendor-customer relationships. Using your example, imagine how pissed off people would be if Ford launched a campaign to announce they are recalling their vulnerable door lock... but only in 30 days, not before.
That's doesn't really negate AC's statement.
You clearly haven't worked for many governments.
I agree on your definition of mysogyny... except these posts don't explain the statistics they discuss... they're just opinions and should be treated as such.
That was a silly thing to write. "Social awkwardness" is most definitely a box I checked in my last long-form census. The 'why' is very clear: fewer women trained in CS or IT. That's it.
Sure. 2 years in IT + 2 years in construction = 4 years in IT. Makes sense.
TFA mentions (if you read it) that a samba dev is the one releasing the bug.
Let's see how long ppl put up with vuln marketing campaigns like this one. Then we'll know! Seriously, though, you're not correct. Vulns exist, and people make money patching them, but in the big picture they slow down industry. It's the difference between a garage that repairs cars and a manufacturer of car security systems that makes money fixing its own product. Cars are expected to break down, but if a car door lock has an exploitable vuln, you can imagine the backlash against trying a stunt like this. Having worked in IT security for years, I can attest that vendors try putting spin on vulns in their product all the time... And it blows up in their face every time.
Vulnerabilities aren't profitable. The cockroaches who make money from their fallout might see it that way because that how racketeers think, but vulns hurt business overall. And that's setting aside potentially ruined lives because of identity theft etc. The heartbleed marketing fiasco brought out of the woodwork low-lives who made fake "test your system for heartbleed" pages. This is not a good thing.
Fucking mod up, you shiftless, baseless cowards!
You deputize them.