Do tell-- how would you avoid this issue? The problem isnt crappy coding on the bank sites, but that these viruses have control over the desktop and are giving real-time control to a remote operator. How is the bank to know that someone else is controlling the workstation?
It sounds like this isnt hijacking that hardware dongle's "token", but the browser's login "token". That is, the user clicks "log off", but the trojan intercepts that request and presents a phony "logged off" page, while keeping the session open (or alternatively keeps the session open after the browser is closed). It then relays to the C&C server "hey, i have an active bank session here!", where someone operating said server can relay commands to the trojan. At this point, said operator basically has control over the bank account.
Adding an RSA securID style token to the login process would have no effect on this; once you are logged in, the bank trusts your session until it times out or is logged off.
As a poster indicated above, what is important is that people vote, not that you approve of them. This is a democracy, and democracy relies on people voting.
Antimatter releases energy when it annihilates itself on contact with matter. It is not the annihilation aspect that people are interested in, but the energy released-- so 1 lb of antimatter is going to have an explosive force greater than pretty much any other 1 lb device we could come up with.
According to Wikipedia (look at Hiroshima @15kT, and compare to the note on antimatter (1kg=42 MT)), 1 gram of antimatter should be more than sufficient to level a city block. If you got a "medium-to-high-rise load of antimatter", I think you would be in a position to destroy a good chunk of the planet.
I've never clicked any Google or Facebook ads because they have never hit anything that I would want. Until that gets addressed, there's not a huge future in that either.
Ive had the opposite experience. As early as 2 years ago I was getting ads for things like rsync.net, thin client solutions, blade servers, virtualization solutions, and the rest.
Perhaps proper statistics are in order?
Re:Possible fix for "I didn't know I was BCC'd"
on
The Death of BCC
·
· Score: 1
His words were
All distribution lists are BCCs
Which is not correct. You may not be running MS software, but for those who are running Exchange it is most certainly false.
Re:Possible fix for "I didn't know I was BCC'd"
on
The Death of BCC
·
· Score: 1
That is not correct. Users will see in the "to" field the name of the distribution list, which can in outlook / exchange be expanded to show all recipients.
Why are they going to respect your (niche) choices over the majority of their users? Doing so would seem irresponsible to their users, IMHO.
Not wanting tabs in THE browser that claims to be designed around tabs? You might as well complain to Tesla Motors that their latest Roadster doesnt have a gasoline option, and that they need to respect your choices.
What on earth are you talking about? Improving web standards support, improving JS execution many times over, adding 2d hardware acceleration, adding support for html5 video, improving support for extensions (including actual honest-to-goodness adblocker support in chrome), and built-in pdf support (based on foxit i believe)....
None of those are "making things better"? What on earth are you looking for? The last several versions of firefox and chrome have been repeatedly better than prior versions in speed and functionality. And for whatever reason, their market share continues to rise, so claiming "it makes no sense" seems rather disingenuous to me.
Noone is forcing you to use chrome, and complaining that Google is forcing you to use this new model is like complaining that Mozilla forces you to use a fox as your mascot. Dont like it? Use another browser, and continue to cheer this on as competition which drives things onward.
treat **all content**, sites, and platforms equally
So if you bump all HTTP traffic down to "bulk", and all SIP (VOIP) traffic up to "premium", that IS NOT NET NEUTRALITY. Youre still treating all content in a protocol equally. It can be abused, but it is a legitimate technique. Net neutrality issues would be giving Skype VOIP traffic priority over other traffic in the same protocol.
Dont understand why thats important? Consider this-- if an HTTP traffic is delayed 1500 ms, it is still useful. If the packet has to be resent, it can. VOIP traffic is useless if it is delayed more than 10-20ms, so you will simply start having calls drop. That is why you give UDP and time sensitive traffic (VOIP, streaming video, webcam) traffic higher priority-- because the disadvantages for the "bulk" traffic are marginal, while the advantages are phenomenal.
You fucking work with computers, you're not fucking Merriam-Webster.
And you apparently dont understand what the issue is. Boiling it down to "throttling different types of traffic differently" is just plain wrong, and not in some stupid merriam webster sense of it. There are legitimate uses for throttling traffic; the whole point of net neutrality is to prevent abuses by ISPs in the name of extorting money out of various content providers. The point ISNT to cripple legitimate traffic shaping techniques, and trying to shoehorn in anti-QoS clauses is precisely why techies are divided on the issue and the whole push to regulate it is likely to fail-- because people who actually understand the issue are unwilling to watch QoS get killed by regulation.
So congrats on feeling like not understanding the issue entitles you to outrage; but making the term vague and non-technical is going to kill this entire issue.
as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data,
ORIGIN, NOT PROTOCOL.
Sorry for yelling, but this is getting old. GP just got done giving a very lucid explanation of why throttling BT more than HTTP is NOT a Net Neutrality issue, and you promptly responded with (paraphrased)
Yes but BT is being throttled more than HTTP, so its a neutrality issue
Get this through your head-- throttling by protocol is called QoS. It is legitimate. It is not a net neutrality issue. Responsible ISPs do this. Throttling by source or destination address or domain is not QoS, is illegitimate, and IS a net neutrality issue.
Finally, if you cant be arsed to read someones post and take the effort to understand it, please dont respond-- especially if you spout the same argument he just rebutted.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that if everyone here had actually read the article, about 80% of these comments would never have been posted.
Do tell-- how would you avoid this issue? The problem isnt crappy coding on the bank sites, but that these viruses have control over the desktop and are giving real-time control to a remote operator. How is the bank to know that someone else is controlling the workstation?
It sounds like this isnt hijacking that hardware dongle's "token", but the browser's login "token". That is, the user clicks "log off", but the trojan intercepts that request and presents a phony "logged off" page, while keeping the session open (or alternatively keeps the session open after the browser is closed). It then relays to the C&C server "hey, i have an active bank session here!", where someone operating said server can relay commands to the trojan. At this point, said operator basically has control over the bank account.
Adding an RSA securID style token to the login process would have no effect on this; once you are logged in, the bank trusts your session until it times out or is logged off.
As a poster indicated above, what is important is that people vote, not that you approve of them. This is a democracy, and democracy relies on people voting.
Antimatter releases energy when it annihilates itself on contact with matter. It is not the annihilation aspect that people are interested in, but the energy released-- so 1 lb of antimatter is going to have an explosive force greater than pretty much any other 1 lb device we could come up with.
According to Wikipedia (look at Hiroshima @15kT, and compare to the note on antimatter (1kg=42 MT)), 1 gram of antimatter should be more than sufficient to level a city block. If you got a "medium-to-high-rise load of antimatter", I think you would be in a position to destroy a good chunk of the planet.
So should Intel's CEO be held directly responsible for the bugs in its processors? Should they be able to be sued directly?
No reason we could not drill on land, use nuclear power,
Hasnt environmentalism been the reason that nuclear power and drilling are so darn hard to get approved / funded for?
I've never clicked any Google or Facebook ads because they have never hit anything that I would want. Until that gets addressed, there's not a huge future in that either.
Ive had the opposite experience. As early as 2 years ago I was getting ads for things like rsync.net, thin client solutions, blade servers, virtualization solutions, and the rest.
Perhaps proper statistics are in order?
His words were
All distribution lists are BCCs
Which is not correct. You may not be running MS software, but for those who are running Exchange it is most certainly false.
Theres a third choice-- USB 2.0 docking stations.
Have fun getting them to not flip out every 2 weeks and break your scanner, video, etc, though.
Buffering can happen to RAM.
That is not correct. Users will see in the "to" field the name of the distribution list, which can in outlook / exchange be expanded to show all recipients.
Hate sony or not, making this a free speech issue is just ignorant.
For certain values of "effective" it is.
Why are they going to respect your (niche) choices over the majority of their users? Doing so would seem irresponsible to their users, IMHO.
Not wanting tabs in THE browser that claims to be designed around tabs? You might as well complain to Tesla Motors that their latest Roadster doesnt have a gasoline option, and that they need to respect your choices.
What on earth are you talking about? Improving web standards support, improving JS execution many times over, adding 2d hardware acceleration, adding support for html5 video, improving support for extensions (including actual honest-to-goodness adblocker support in chrome), and built-in pdf support (based on foxit i believe)....
None of those are "making things better"? What on earth are you looking for? The last several versions of firefox and chrome have been repeatedly better than prior versions in speed and functionality. And for whatever reason, their market share continues to rise, so claiming "it makes no sense" seems rather disingenuous to me.
Yes, well, we all know how lynx is eating Chrome's lunch.
Er, Chrome is Googles browser. "Your" browser is what you get when you download the chromium source and hit compile.
HTH.
but what it is is a forced configuration
Noone is forcing you to use chrome, and complaining that Google is forcing you to use this new model is like complaining that Mozilla forces you to use a fox as your mascot. Dont like it? Use another browser, and continue to cheer this on as competition which drives things onward.
What do you suppose said disgruntled techie does after being fired? Keeps his mouth shut?
You essentially just described SE Linux / apparmor.
treat **all content**, sites, and platforms equally
So if you bump all HTTP traffic down to "bulk", and all SIP (VOIP) traffic up to "premium", that IS NOT NET NEUTRALITY. Youre still treating all content in a protocol equally. It can be abused, but it is a legitimate technique. Net neutrality issues would be giving Skype VOIP traffic priority over other traffic in the same protocol.
Dont understand why thats important? Consider this-- if an HTTP traffic is delayed 1500 ms, it is still useful. If the packet has to be resent, it can. VOIP traffic is useless if it is delayed more than 10-20ms, so you will simply start having calls drop. That is why you give UDP and time sensitive traffic (VOIP, streaming video, webcam) traffic higher priority-- because the disadvantages for the "bulk" traffic are marginal, while the advantages are phenomenal.
You fucking work with computers, you're not fucking Merriam-Webster.
And you apparently dont understand what the issue is. Boiling it down to "throttling different types of traffic differently" is just plain wrong, and not in some stupid merriam webster sense of it. There are legitimate uses for throttling traffic; the whole point of net neutrality is to prevent abuses by ISPs in the name of extorting money out of various content providers. The point ISNT to cripple legitimate traffic shaping techniques, and trying to shoehorn in anti-QoS clauses is precisely why techies are divided on the issue and the whole push to regulate it is likely to fail-- because people who actually understand the issue are unwilling to watch QoS get killed by regulation.
So congrats on feeling like not understanding the issue entitles you to outrage; but making the term vague and non-technical is going to kill this entire issue.
as Net Neutrality has to do with discriminating with types of data or origin of data,
ORIGIN, NOT PROTOCOL.
Sorry for yelling, but this is getting old. GP just got done giving a very lucid explanation of why throttling BT more than HTTP is NOT a Net Neutrality issue, and you promptly responded with (paraphrased)
Yes but BT is being throttled more than HTTP, so its a neutrality issue
Get this through your head-- throttling by protocol is called QoS. It is legitimate. It is not a net neutrality issue. Responsible ISPs do this.
Throttling by source or destination address or domain is not QoS, is illegitimate, and IS a net neutrality issue.
Finally, if you cant be arsed to read someones post and take the effort to understand it, please dont respond-- especially if you spout the same argument he just rebutted.
Were his comments wrong, or are you just going the "ad hominem" route?