The file sharing that allowed the nasty on the remote terminal to get at the fileserver was not required and was not part of the reason for allowing that RDP connection. But it was there because RDP in the wild overshares by default.
SSH and X don't tend to overshare by default. You can do port redirection, but only by explicitly asking for it.
Yes, it presents hazards never even dreamed of by X or VNC.
In one case I know of (no, I am bound to not name names here), RDP was a vector for a CryptoLocker attack. A reasonably secure operation (AV on email, IDS, strong user training, etc) granted an outside support person a temporary RDP connection to diagnose a problem. It seems the support person opened a bad email on his own machine while connected and CryptoLocker took advantage of the RDP forwarded file shares to encrypt the fileserver.
I mix my own e-liquid, so I control the inclusion or not of an MAOI. It's much easier than growing one's own tobacco.
That's probably why large corporate interests are so against e-cigs. It's just too easy to DIY or for mon'n'pop to get into the market and they hate that.
There are some people who use 'tobacco alkaloids' that may include the MAOI, but it's not that common and at least they know what they're getting. It's still less harmful than smoking.
In other words, you would like for other people to pay for their choices. You consider your choices to be unassailable.
It is really comical that you suggest that anything this leftist has to say is 'Randian'. You might want to check your yardstick. You are much closer to Rand than I.
But they don't actually do it. For example, in some states they require proof of indigence. Not that you will end up indigent if you have to pay for a lawyer, actual proof that you are currently indigent. If you don't have that, and don't hire a lawyer, you are considered to be voluntarily pro se.
Even when you are 'provided a lawyer', what they mean is that some guy who passed the bar who has far too many cases to actually remember your name and what you were charged with will glance at your case folder for 30 seconds and urge you to plead out (once you remind him of who you are and what you are charged with).
Look it up. The actual reality is rather shocking.
It's not actually the nicotine. It's the nicotine combined with MAO inhibitors in cigarettes that makes them so very addictive. That's why there is a definite transition period is a cigarette smoker tries to switch to cigars, pipe, patch, or e-cig. They're getting all of the nicotine (or even more) that they got from cigarettes and find it missing something.
Once transitioned, the nicotine is still all there but it is a much less urgent need than with cigarettes.
It also tends to have a lot of selection bias. Once it was decided that smoking causes cancer, every case of lung cancer will be called smoking related if the patient ever smoked. Even though we know the rate is non-zero for non-smokers.
The rate of smoking is way down from the height of it's popularity, but the rate of lung cancer hasn't fallen all that much.
Living in an urban area is also a choice, and it increases your health risks. Long commutes add to health risks. Time to read that odometer and report it to your health insurance so you can get your gouging.
It turns out that never smokers cost more to insure than smokers. They tend to decline and die fast when it all catches up with them. The non-smokers tend to hang on longer at the end when they have many healthcare expenses. You'll be happy to fork over that higher premium now, won't you? Because fair's fair, right?
You must have forgotten that big tobacco settlement in the '90s in the suit filed by multiple state attorneys general. Naturally, not one penny of that actually went to covering medical costs of smoking, but that was what it was supposedly for.
So you support a ban on potatoes? They also contain arsenic.,If you concentrate the arsenic content of all of the potatoes an average American consumes in a year, you will have enough to kill a horse. The dose makes the poison.
No, it really doesn't. I'm vaping right now and I'll bet you didn't know until I told you.
Even if I was right there next to you, you wouldn't know if I didn't want you to.
But taking the common situation where the vape is visible, it is substantially different from cigarette smoke. For one, it isn't laced with fine particulates and carcinogens. It has little nicotine left in it and it doesn't smell like burning tobacco. It contains no sticky tars.
As for what it does contain, that would be water and glycerin with a small trace of approved food flavorings. The same mixture hospitals are considering dispensing into the air to control infection. That guy vaping next to you just might be saving you from your next cold.
Here's the test. Would you be offended if someone with asthma took a few shots from his inhaler next to you on the bus?
If a private establishment wants to have a vaping and non-vaping section, that would be their call. If they want vaping permitted everywhere, that should be their call too. I don't see why a law should exist banning a vaping section. It does not carry any of the risks associated with second hand smoke, including the unpleasant smell.
In order for your position to be at all consistent, you will also favor a ban on perfumes and colognes (including scented antiperspirant) as well as any food that has a smell.
The FDA has been harassing ecig vendors (sometimes in defiance of court orders) and generally trying to expand it's power to cover e-cigs. At one point it even tried to get them declared as medical devices.
I fully agree that the FDA should be strictly hands-off.
It never went to trial, so we have no idea what the courts think of it. All we know is that a prosecutor thinks it's a crime, but prosecutors these days think everyone but them is a criminal.
In theory, only if they instructed you to make it better for a bank robbery. If they said they wanted it fast and bullet proof, then no. If they presented that it was for a movie about bank robbers, then no.
In practice, these days they don't even bother to match the charges with your actions anymore. If they decide to get you they'll just charge you with everything until something sticks.
Actually, there isn't much reason it's expensive other than that they can charge a lot because the other stuff is junk.
A key seems to be that a lot of systems work poorly because they attempt to be a 'simple' retrofit. So instead of providing constant power at the light fixture and let the controller handle it, and constant independent power at the switch, you end up with some wart that replaces the old mechanical switch (and barely fits in the box) that wants to draw power THROUGH the bulb in order to run (even when the light is off).
Or you get a kludge where the bulb itself has the smarts, but it only works if nobody does the natural thing and turns it off at the switch.
None of it uses a nice wired control signal since that would be unfriendly to a retrofit.
If the home is designed and built for it, it can work quite well. Next best is to re-do all of the wiring in an existing home.
But with that price tag, too many people would re-think how bad they want it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you are desperately working to miss it!
The file sharing that allowed the nasty on the remote terminal to get at the fileserver was not required and was not part of the reason for allowing that RDP connection. But it was there because RDP in the wild overshares by default.
SSH and X don't tend to overshare by default. You can do port redirection, but only by explicitly asking for it.
Did you invent RDP or something? You'll break your back bending that far backwards to absolve it of the incident I wrote about.
The attack wasn't targeted, it was a shotgun style spam opened at a bad moment.
You CAN do that with ssh but it's far from the default setting.
Yes, it presents hazards never even dreamed of by X or VNC.
In one case I know of (no, I am bound to not name names here), RDP was a vector for a CryptoLocker attack. A reasonably secure operation (AV on email, IDS, strong user training, etc) granted an outside support person a temporary RDP connection to diagnose a problem. It seems the support person opened a bad email on his own machine while connected and CryptoLocker took advantage of the RDP forwarded file shares to encrypt the fileserver.
OOOPS
OK, apparently I have been trolled!
I mix my own e-liquid, so I control the inclusion or not of an MAOI. It's much easier than growing one's own tobacco.
That's probably why large corporate interests are so against e-cigs. It's just too easy to DIY or for mon'n'pop to get into the market and they hate that.
There are some people who use 'tobacco alkaloids' that may include the MAOI, but it's not that common and at least they know what they're getting. It's still less harmful than smoking.
In practice, RDP can be a security risk. It can be mitigated, but hasn't been in practice.
In other words, you would like for other people to pay for their choices. You consider your choices to be unassailable.
It is really comical that you suggest that anything this leftist has to say is 'Randian'. You might want to check your yardstick. You are much closer to Rand than I.
But they don't actually do it. For example, in some states they require proof of indigence. Not that you will end up indigent if you have to pay for a lawyer, actual proof that you are currently indigent. If you don't have that, and don't hire a lawyer, you are considered to be voluntarily pro se.
Even when you are 'provided a lawyer', what they mean is that some guy who passed the bar who has far too many cases to actually remember your name and what you were charged with will glance at your case folder for 30 seconds and urge you to plead out (once you remind him of who you are and what you are charged with).
Look it up. The actual reality is rather shocking.
It's not actually the nicotine. It's the nicotine combined with MAO inhibitors in cigarettes that makes them so very addictive. That's why there is a definite transition period is a cigarette smoker tries to switch to cigars, pipe, patch, or e-cig. They're getting all of the nicotine (or even more) that they got from cigarettes and find it missing something.
Once transitioned, the nicotine is still all there but it is a much less urgent need than with cigarettes.
It also tends to have a lot of selection bias. Once it was decided that smoking causes cancer, every case of lung cancer will be called smoking related if the patient ever smoked. Even though we know the rate is non-zero for non-smokers.
The rate of smoking is way down from the height of it's popularity, but the rate of lung cancer hasn't fallen all that much.
Living in an urban area is also a choice, and it increases your health risks. Long commutes add to health risks. Time to read that odometer and report it to your health insurance so you can get your gouging.
It turns out that never smokers cost more to insure than smokers. They tend to decline and die fast when it all catches up with them. The non-smokers tend to hang on longer at the end when they have many healthcare expenses. You'll be happy to fork over that higher premium now, won't you? Because fair's fair, right?
You must have forgotten that big tobacco settlement in the '90s in the suit filed by multiple state attorneys general. Naturally, not one penny of that actually went to covering medical costs of smoking, but that was what it was supposedly for.
So you support a ban on potatoes? They also contain arsenic.,If you concentrate the arsenic content of all of the potatoes an average American consumes in a year, you will have enough to kill a horse. The dose makes the poison.
No, it really doesn't. I'm vaping right now and I'll bet you didn't know until I told you.
Even if I was right there next to you, you wouldn't know if I didn't want you to.
But taking the common situation where the vape is visible, it is substantially different from cigarette smoke. For one, it isn't laced with fine particulates and carcinogens. It has little nicotine left in it and it doesn't smell like burning tobacco. It contains no sticky tars.
As for what it does contain, that would be water and glycerin with a small trace of approved food flavorings. The same mixture hospitals are considering dispensing into the air to control infection. That guy vaping next to you just might be saving you from your next cold.
Here's the test. Would you be offended if someone with asthma took a few shots from his inhaler next to you on the bus?
If a private establishment wants to have a vaping and non-vaping section, that would be their call. If they want vaping permitted everywhere, that should be their call too. I don't see why a law should exist banning a vaping section. It does not carry any of the risks associated with second hand smoke, including the unpleasant smell.
In order for your position to be at all consistent, you will also favor a ban on perfumes and colognes (including scented antiperspirant) as well as any food that has a smell.
The FDA has been harassing ecig vendors (sometimes in defiance of court orders) and generally trying to expand it's power to cover e-cigs. At one point it even tried to get them declared as medical devices.
I fully agree that the FDA should be strictly hands-off.
It never went to trial, so we have no idea what the courts think of it. All we know is that a prosecutor thinks it's a crime, but prosecutors these days think everyone but them is a criminal.
In theory, only if they instructed you to make it better for a bank robbery. If they said they wanted it fast and bullet proof, then no. If they presented that it was for a movie about bank robbers, then no.
In practice, these days they don't even bother to match the charges with your actions anymore. If they decide to get you they'll just charge you with everything until something sticks.
But they won't.
Most other countries (but not all) have the same laws and reasonably effective enforcement. We *DO* have the most expensive medicine though.
Actually, there isn't much reason it's expensive other than that they can charge a lot because the other stuff is junk.
A key seems to be that a lot of systems work poorly because they attempt to be a 'simple' retrofit. So instead of providing constant power at the light fixture and let the controller handle it, and constant independent power at the switch, you end up with some wart that replaces the old mechanical switch (and barely fits in the box) that wants to draw power THROUGH the bulb in order to run (even when the light is off).
Or you get a kludge where the bulb itself has the smarts, but it only works if nobody does the natural thing and turns it off at the switch.
None of it uses a nice wired control signal since that would be unfriendly to a retrofit.
If the home is designed and built for it, it can work quite well. Next best is to re-do all of the wiring in an existing home.
But with that price tag, too many people would re-think how bad they want it.
Then your neighbor puts up an open WiFi and your TV phones home...
Really? You want to blame the author for the shitfest?
Abundance of caution used to mean not shitting on people until you were reasonably certain they needed shitting on. You know, not being an asshole.
It takes a lot of effort to turn TFA into anything resembling salacious.
There are few cases where it is the right answer. But have a look at the Linux kernel. It is IMHO well used there.
So abuse loops and nesting when you have no intention of looping? And use break which is just goto lite?
That always seems like standing on one's head to please the compiler.