The AC would have a point (it would still be a terrible one btw, relieving human suffering is noble regardless) if it weren't for the family planning work that they're doing. As it is, it's a clear bias against a man who has committed the majority of his wealth to philanthropy.
There are problems with the American system, but this isn't one of them. The organs have to be transplanted within hours of being harvested. Steve Jobs was willing and able to travel thousands of miles at the drop of a hat to get there in time. It's not reasonable or feasible to do that for everyone.
Prohibiting him from getting the organ equally makes no sense. It's based on need, so he was the one with the most need who could get there.
There have been proposals for networks with directed signal where you have either a receiver in something like a light fixture or a few throughout a room. It would be harder, but for speeds like that it might be worth it.
The other thing you could use it for is to put it on the roof and point it to a receiver on a pole for last mile connections. Easier to maintain than a traditional wired connection, although hopefully it would be strong enough and wide enough that a bird or swarm of gnats wouldn't take you down.
I assume that's because Intel uses their video chipsets to augment their processor market (basically creating a low end market). AMD and nVidia both have a large portion of their revenue tied up in video cards, so they can't risk it even though they probably should.
You need to read the summary. When they say offline, they aren't referring to the internet, they're referring to your OS, ie you have to restart to apply the update. Just like Windows.
Simplifying a great deal, a high score implies inelligence. Low score gives no imformation so implies a 50% chance of intelligence.
By your analogy, 75% of the people who take the SAT are intelligent, but only 50% of the people who get a low score are intelligent. So getting a low score does end up giving you information - that they're half as likely to be intelligent. Put another way, of the population of intelligent people, only 1/3 get a low SAT score. You can't say definitively whether a person with a low score is intelligent or not, but saying that it gives you no information is wrong.
a high score implies inelligence. Low score gives no imformation so implies a 50% chance of intelligence
That logic doesn't work. Since the group of people scoring low on the SAT includes all unintelligent people in the population of those who took the test but only includes the intelligent people who did poorly, the likelihood of being intelligent is lower in that group than in the population as a whole. So it doesn't give no information, it just gives less accurate information.
But if you're making decisions based purely on SAT scores, then you're not being intelligent:)
Two points: you just said you can decide on someone being intelligent based purely on their SAT scores, and nobody in their right mind has said that they should be the only measure.
Part of the salt that is global (the same for all passwords)
A XOR value to apply to the per-userId part of the salt
A symmetric key (for encrypting the data in the DB column)
Each of these is essentially serving the same purpose from what I can tell. The point of having a portion in the code that is the same for all passwords and one that's in the database on a per-user basis is so that they have to have access to both the database and the code. Each of these is just another piece that requires a bit more than what's in the database. In other words, from a cryptographic standpoint, they're all equivalent to a static portion since they all serve to be a required piece of knowledge to compute the hash. Putting it in different secure places adds incremental security, but in the end they'll all be accessible to the application so they're all at the same level of security.
Your SQL server is then locked down so it will never allow a SELECT of the column and access is only possible via store procedure(s) which allows access one-at-a-time (as you suggest) but in order for the stored procedue to allow read back of the encrypted. Access to run the stored proc is restricted to this different SQL login account whose only function is to serve high-security parts.
Basic least privilege, but implemented very well. I like it.
The password hash itself would use PBKDF2 the only reasonable choice surely.
At it's best PBKDF2 is the same as what I described above: one of the sha-2 family of hashes, key stretching, and good salting. The down side is that PBKDF2 is also obfuscating what's going on and allows an insecure mode of use. I much prefer to use the raw hash algorithms so I can be sure what's going on and that I'm using it right, but it's pretty much even either way.
A part of the salt is static and hidden in application code. This means even in the DB of salts is compromised, deduction of the missing piece is still required (as well as knowledge of its existence)..
This is already common practice and has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I will therefore ignore it:D
In a example setup there are three servers, the Application/Authentication server that is accepting login requests (Server A), the Database server hosting the DB of password hashes (Server B), and the Database server hosting the DB of the password salts (Server C).
It all comes down to cost. Having a dedicated database that just holds either the hash or the salt is definitely more secure, but you're paying a lot of money for something that only really protects against SQL injections. If they've already compromised server A or if it's an internal leak, then they'll still have access to both databases.
If properly stored with a strong hashing algorithm, a salt, a static component in the code, and key stretching, then the strength of the resulting hash is entirely up to the user. If the user chooses to use a secure password, they'll be secure even in the event of a hash leak. If security is indeed a "high priority consideration", then they're probably going to use 2-factor authentication anyway. The gap where the cost is worth using separate databases but not using 2-factor is extremely small.
The search/index key in both databases would be the username, so the attacker would also need the complete list of usernames as well.
Actually, you'd want it to be the id on the user table so that no additional information is being leaked if they can only get the one table. Either way, I can't imagine any realistic scenario where the attacker gets only one column out of the table. 99.9% of the time they'll be able to get everything out of the table that they want, so the linking column would be leaked as well.
if the salts...were secured separately from the password list
That's not really feasible. Presumably if they have access to the passwords they also have access to the salts. In the end the legitimate application requires access to both, so if they've compromised the application they can probably get both.
I think we're discussing different Warren Buffets. This is the guy that asked for a higher tax rate on himself. The same guy who is a fierce advocate for long term stock trading. He also is giving his fortune away to charities that are trying to improve the world in a lasting way.
Just because someone's rich doesn't mean they're bad. He made his money by being smart, and he's done good with it now that he's got it.
Chill dude. Languages are dynamic and evolving, and "-gate" is a perfect example in English. Not unlike "-ism", "-ology", etc, it's concise, immediately recognisiable, and perfectly convey the essence and nuance of the whole situation.
I couldn't agree more about language, but the reason I hate "-gate" is that it doesn't convey the essence and nuance of the situation. It signals that there is a scandal and possibly gives you a half-word about what the scandal is about, but in most situations I find that it does more to confuse the meaning than it does to convey it quickly. I believe that's why people get angry about it, because it's not doing the job it's supposed to be doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The AC would have a point (it would still be a terrible one btw, relieving human suffering is noble regardless) if it weren't for the family planning work that they're doing. As it is, it's a clear bias against a man who has committed the majority of his wealth to philanthropy.
Only on a slashdot discussion of bill gates would you find someone finding fault with curing diseases.
You, sir, are a magnificent troll. The only question is whether that's your intent or not.
Maybe for the student version.
So it'll do everything the Livescribe pen does, but with a tablet? Sounds like the tablet's superfluous there.
There are problems with the American system, but this isn't one of them. The organs have to be transplanted within hours of being harvested. Steve Jobs was willing and able to travel thousands of miles at the drop of a hat to get there in time. It's not reasonable or feasible to do that for everyone.
Prohibiting him from getting the organ equally makes no sense. It's based on need, so he was the one with the most need who could get there.
Most companies use their internet connection to process credit cards don't they?
There have been proposals for networks with directed signal where you have either a receiver in something like a light fixture or a few throughout a room. It would be harder, but for speeds like that it might be worth it. The other thing you could use it for is to put it on the roof and point it to a receiver on a pole for last mile connections. Easier to maintain than a traditional wired connection, although hopefully it would be strong enough and wide enough that a bird or swarm of gnats wouldn't take you down.
I agree with you. There's a lot of room for improvement between those two extremes.
I assume that's because Intel uses their video chipsets to augment their processor market (basically creating a low end market). AMD and nVidia both have a large portion of their revenue tied up in video cards, so they can't risk it even though they probably should.
I have a five year old
Sure you do.
You need to read the summary. When they say offline, they aren't referring to the internet, they're referring to your OS, ie you have to restart to apply the update. Just like Windows.
Agreed. If it were melanoma, my whole family would be shitting our genes.
GET IT?!?!
I find it hard to believe that Hawking wrote the line
Me too. Maybe dictated.
Simplifying a great deal, a high score implies inelligence. Low score gives no imformation so implies a 50% chance of intelligence.
By your analogy, 75% of the people who take the SAT are intelligent, but only 50% of the people who get a low score are intelligent. So getting a low score does end up giving you information - that they're half as likely to be intelligent. Put another way, of the population of intelligent people, only 1/3 get a low SAT score. You can't say definitively whether a person with a low score is intelligent or not, but saying that it gives you no information is wrong.
a high score implies inelligence. Low score gives no imformation so implies a 50% chance of intelligence
That logic doesn't work. Since the group of people scoring low on the SAT includes all unintelligent people in the population of those who took the test but only includes the intelligent people who did poorly, the likelihood of being intelligent is lower in that group than in the population as a whole. So it doesn't give no information, it just gives less accurate information.
But if you're making decisions based purely on SAT scores, then you're not being intelligent :)
Two points: you just said you can decide on someone being intelligent based purely on their SAT scores, and nobody in their right mind has said that they should be the only measure.
Each of these is essentially serving the same purpose from what I can tell. The point of having a portion in the code that is the same for all passwords and one that's in the database on a per-user basis is so that they have to have access to both the database and the code. Each of these is just another piece that requires a bit more than what's in the database. In other words, from a cryptographic standpoint, they're all equivalent to a static portion since they all serve to be a required piece of knowledge to compute the hash. Putting it in different secure places adds incremental security, but in the end they'll all be accessible to the application so they're all at the same level of security.
Your SQL server is then locked down so it will never allow a SELECT of the column and access is only possible via store procedure(s) which allows access one-at-a-time (as you suggest) but in order for the stored procedue to allow read back of the encrypted. Access to run the stored proc is restricted to this different SQL login account whose only function is to serve high-security parts.
Basic least privilege, but implemented very well. I like it.
The password hash itself would use PBKDF2 the only reasonable choice surely.
At it's best PBKDF2 is the same as what I described above: one of the sha-2 family of hashes, key stretching, and good salting. The down side is that PBKDF2 is also obfuscating what's going on and allows an insecure mode of use. I much prefer to use the raw hash algorithms so I can be sure what's going on and that I'm using it right, but it's pretty much even either way.
A part of the salt is static and hidden in application code. This means even in the DB of salts is compromised, deduction of the missing piece is still required (as well as knowledge of its existence)..
This is already common practice and has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I will therefore ignore it :D
In a example setup there are three servers, the Application/Authentication server that is accepting login requests (Server A), the Database server hosting the DB of password hashes (Server B), and the Database server hosting the DB of the password salts (Server C).
It all comes down to cost. Having a dedicated database that just holds either the hash or the salt is definitely more secure, but you're paying a lot of money for something that only really protects against SQL injections. If they've already compromised server A or if it's an internal leak, then they'll still have access to both databases.
If properly stored with a strong hashing algorithm, a salt, a static component in the code, and key stretching, then the strength of the resulting hash is entirely up to the user. If the user chooses to use a secure password, they'll be secure even in the event of a hash leak. If security is indeed a "high priority consideration", then they're probably going to use 2-factor authentication anyway. The gap where the cost is worth using separate databases but not using 2-factor is extremely small.
The search/index key in both databases would be the username, so the attacker would also need the complete list of usernames as well.
Actually, you'd want it to be the id on the user table so that no additional information is being leaked if they can only get the one table. Either way, I can't imagine any realistic scenario where the attacker gets only one column out of the table. 99.9% of the time they'll be able to get everything out of the table that they want, so the linking column would be leaked as well.
if the salts were different on every password
If it's not then it's not really a salt.
if the salts...were secured separately from the password list
That's not really feasible. Presumably if they have access to the passwords they also have access to the salts. In the end the legitimate application requires access to both, so if they've compromised the application they can probably get both.
now it's PBS doing the job
Nova's been on the air since 1974. Either you're really old or you aren't giving PBS enough credit for always having good science shows.
Hulu is easier for me than torrents. It requires no effort, automatically manages the queue, and isn't disruptive with its ads.
I think we're discussing different Warren Buffets. This is the guy that asked for a higher tax rate on himself. The same guy who is a fierce advocate for long term stock trading. He also is giving his fortune away to charities that are trying to improve the world in a lasting way.
Just because someone's rich doesn't mean they're bad. He made his money by being smart, and he's done good with it now that he's got it.
It's too bad the mods will never see this comment, because it's fucking hilarious and pertinent.
the best-tasting turd
I'm now going to use that line as my own. Thank you, kind sir.
Chill dude. Languages are dynamic and evolving, and "-gate" is a perfect example in English. Not unlike "-ism", "-ology", etc, it's concise, immediately recognisiable, and perfectly convey the essence and nuance of the whole situation.
I couldn't agree more about language, but the reason I hate "-gate" is that it doesn't convey the essence and nuance of the situation. It signals that there is a scandal and possibly gives you a half-word about what the scandal is about, but in most situations I find that it does more to confuse the meaning than it does to convey it quickly. I believe that's why people get angry about it, because it's not doing the job it's supposed to be doing.