Yeah, this works too, not as effective in order to snoop-in without being detected, hmmm. I mean without disrupting normal business operation but it would work for his computer father.
Dedicated port on switches are more standard for security audits. You just plug a laptop with one network interface on it et voila.
Also, routing traffic through your Linux changes something to the network topology so you are actually interfering with the network compared to stealthily listening.
Then you are stuck with buying a slightly more expensive switch with a special broadcast (HUB like) port designed for just this usage. Many have those. Most corporate switches have them in order to enable security audits or other network surveillance tools.
Agreed, I do it from my Linux router which I assume is not owned.
It is nevertheless better to reserve a machine on your network for just this usage. Nothing installed on it but tcpdump and similar tools. You should even disconnect than machine from the network when not in use. Again, that's what security expert firms do.
The important point is to be confident than what you are looking at is not coming from something that is already owned. Many root kits modify netstat, tcpdump and the like...;-)
> which is the idea that the savings would actually make it down > to the consumer.
They usually make in down to the customer unless the company is already more competitive than anybody else. Also, many times the price won't drop ! The savings will be used to be able to maintain the same price while facing increasing costs like energy costs etc. or just to offer a more competitive product by offering more features.
Still, the savings are indirectly propagated to the customer by maintaining the same price or raising the price less than they would have add to do ( think about inflation ).
As I already replied before : "In the end the principle you state could only apply to very high niche market where say less than 100 persons in the world can afford the given product. Apple is far from that, it is still driven by mass market rules."
Well, in this case Apple should just go ahead and raise their prices so they can compensate for people abusing the warranty terms.;-)
There is no logic in Apple bothering to implement those sensors in order to raise profits, just simply raise prices;-))
You have a point about Apple niche although, I understand you perfectly. Please note that I do not use Apple products at all, I never have since my assembly for the Mac course in 1987;-)
In the end the principle you state could only apply to very high niche market where say less than 100 persons in the world can afford the given product. Apple is far from that, it is still driven by mass market rules.
boost their profit margin = boost ability to be more competitive by reducing the sell price.
Of course, the company might choose not to be more competitive, but in economy 101 it is seldom seen unless we are in presence of a real, 100% monopoly.
In economics, it is a little like the physic equations that recognize that nothing is created and nothing is lost; E=mc2 for instance.;-)) So I would still believe that I pay for people which cost the company more than I do.
What you are saying is like saying that you can shoplift as much as you want because the store would just put the profits in its pocket anyway. Or, that you can fraudulently claim insurance because the insurance company would just put the profit in its pocket anyway.
> and don't use it in any way that they disapprove of.
Well, in my understanding, you would still be allowed to use it in any you want to use it. But if it breaks and that you have used it in non-warranty covered conditions, then you would have to pay for the repairs.
Similar conditions exists in many fields, for example, if you buy a car to modify it and take it to the race track, it usually voids the warranty.
Well I guess this could make sense, I know people that really abuse the vendors by returning products that have been used in non-warranty covered conditions and I have always known that I am indirectly paying for them when I buy a new product.
> however the idea of sensors inside your portable devices detecting > what you do with them might raise eyebrows even beyond > the tinfoil-hat community.
The line is thin, but I guess if different agencies or companies want to spy on people, they won't tell us in advance anyway.
Problems could arise in case the "abuse detection" device malfunctions and falsely report abuse by the consumer.
As stated in TFA this is already done anyway, I don't see public pressure stopping this.
This is last week news, the article linked in the summary was published on July 21th, it looks like the release won"t be affected after all !;-))
MONSTERPOCALYPSE SERIES 3: ALL YOUR BASE STRATEGY GUIDE CLEARED BY HOMELAND SECURITY
Bellevue WA, July 30, 2009â"The Monsterpocalypse Series 3: All Your Base Strategy Guide, which was detained by Homeland Security last week, has been cleared of all security concerns and delivered to Privateer Press. The guide, which contains detailed information on every figure from All Your Base, as well as tactics and strategy tips for using those figures with current Monsterpocalypse figures, is scheduled to be released Friday, August 14, 2009. For more news and information on the Monsterpocalypse collectible miniatures game visit www.monsterpocalypse.com.
This is a great breakthrough. This means that we can now wear full face tinfoil hats for even more protection without risking to bump into something anymore. Thanks that tinfoil hats are actually made of aluminum nowadays !;-))
1) Facebook generates a private/public key pair and sends a certificate request to Verisign. (note that Facebook's private key is not sent to Verisign as part of the certificate request.)
2) Verisign signs the certificate request using what is called a CA cert.
3) Facebook receives the response to its certificate request from Verisign and can then assemble its own certificate.
4) Firefox needs to have the public portion of the CA cert used by Verisign to sign Facebook certificate request installed in order to not display any warnings when the user visit the Facebook site.
5) There is many CA certs used by many certificate signers and new CA certs are created every year. Hence one might need to update the list of CA certs installed in Firfeox.
Slashdot Mirror
> Plug you father computer into a HUB
> ( not a switch, UNLESS IT HAS A SPECIAL PORT FOR THIS USAGE)
corporate switches have a dedicated port for this
Did you read my sign ?
>> 1) Plug you father computer into a HUB
>> ( not a switch, UNLESS it has a SPECIAL PORT for this usage)
> Or they use a "real" switch that has port mirroring, or a passive ethernet tap [sun.com].
Thanks ! ;-)))
Yeah, this works too, not as effective in order to snoop-in without being detected, hmmm. I mean without disrupting normal business operation but it would work for his computer father.
Dedicated port on switches are more standard for security audits. You just plug a laptop with one network interface on it et voila.
Also, routing traffic through your Linux changes something to the network topology so you are actually interfering with the network compared to stealthily listening.
Then you are stuck with buying a slightly more expensive switch with a special broadcast (HUB like) port designed for just this usage. Many have those. Most corporate switches have them in order to enable security audits or other network surveillance tools.
Agreed, I do it from my Linux router which I assume is not owned.
It is nevertheless better to reserve a machine on your network for just this usage. Nothing installed on it but tcpdump and similar tools. You should even disconnect than machine from the network when not in use. Again, that's what security expert firms do.
The important point is to be confident than what you are looking at is not coming from something that is already owned. Many root kits modify netstat, tcpdump and the like... ;-)
netstat could be modified not to report the botnet connections if you are owned, hence the fool proof solution.
Well the only fool proof way that I can envision is the following
1) Plug you father computer into a HUB ( not a switch, unless it has a special port for this usage)
2) Plug the router into this HUB
3) Plug a Linux machine into the HUB and use tcpdump to examine traffic.
This is what security experts do.
> that they offer the "Apple experience", ;-))))
> which is the idea that the savings would actually make it down
> to the consumer.
They usually make in down to the customer unless the company is already more competitive than anybody else. Also, many times the price won't drop ! The savings will be used to be able to maintain the same price while facing increasing costs like energy costs etc. or just to offer a more competitive product by offering more features.
Still, the savings are indirectly propagated to the customer by maintaining the same price or raising the price less than they would have add to do ( think about inflation ).
As I already replied before :
"In the end the principle you state could only apply to very high niche market where say less than 100 persons in the world can afford the given product. Apple is far from that, it is still driven by mass market rules."
If what you are saying is true:
Well, in this case Apple should just go ahead and raise their prices so they can compensate for people abusing the warranty terms. ;-)
There is no logic in Apple bothering to implement those sensors in order to raise profits, just simply raise prices ;-))
You have a point about Apple niche although, I understand you perfectly. Please note that I do not use Apple products at all, I never have since my assembly for the Mac course in 1987 ;-)
In the end the principle you state could only apply to very high niche market where say less than 100 persons in the world can afford the given product. Apple is far from that, it is still driven by mass market rules.
> Problems could arise in case the "abuse detection" device
> malfunctions and falsely report abuse by the consumer.
This would definitely qualify for this case mentioned in the GP post ;-)))
boost their profit margin = boost ability to be more competitive by reducing the sell price.
Of course, the company might choose not to be more competitive, but in economy 101 it is seldom seen unless we are in presence of a real, 100% monopoly.
In economics, it is a little like the physic equations that recognize that nothing is created and nothing is lost; E=mc2 for instance. ;-)) So I would still believe that I pay for people which cost the company more than I do.
What you are saying is like saying that you can shoplift as much as you want because the store would just put the profits in its pocket anyway. Or, that you can fraudulently claim insurance because the insurance company would just put the profit in its pocket anyway.
This is usually not how retail economics work ;-))
Well, I do not use Apple products at all, I never have since my assembly for the Mac course in 1987 ;-)
> and don't use it in any way that they disapprove of.
Well, in my understanding, you would still be allowed to use it in any you want to use it. But if it breaks and that you have used it in non-warranty covered conditions, then you would have to pay for the repairs.
Similar conditions exists in many fields, for example, if you buy a car to modify it and take it to the race track, it usually voids the warranty.
Well I guess this could make sense, I know people that really abuse the vendors by returning products that have been used in non-warranty covered conditions and I have always known that I am indirectly paying for them when I buy a new product.
> however the idea of sensors inside your portable devices detecting
> what you do with them might raise eyebrows even beyond
> the tinfoil-hat community.
The line is thin, but I guess if different agencies or companies want to spy on people, they won't tell us in advance anyway.
Problems could arise in case the "abuse detection" device malfunctions and falsely report abuse by the consumer.
As stated in TFA this is already done anyway, I don't see public pressure stopping this.
> helps to know what a building looks like BEFORE YOU
> TAKE CARE OF IT when you haven't been there before, and street-view sure works for that.
fixed,
> on for self driving cars
I want one of these !
Just tell it where you want to go, no more speeding tickets etc. I could even use my car to go to the bar.
Where do I get one ?
> Braille on drive-up ATMs may finally be vindicated.
The above had me laughing quite a bit... ;-)
This is last week news, the article linked in the summary was published on July 21th, it looks like the release won"t be affected after all ! ;-))
MONSTERPOCALYPSE SERIES 3: ALL YOUR BASE STRATEGY GUIDE CLEARED BY HOMELAND SECURITY
Bellevue WA, July 30, 2009â"The Monsterpocalypse Series 3: All Your Base Strategy Guide, which was detained by Homeland Security last week, has been cleared of all security concerns and delivered to Privateer Press.
The guide, which contains detailed information on every figure from All Your Base, as well as tactics and strategy tips for using those figures with current Monsterpocalypse figures, is scheduled to be released Friday, August 14, 2009.
For more news and information on the Monsterpocalypse collectible miniatures game visit www.monsterpocalypse.com.
http://www.monsterpocalypse.com/story/monsterpocalypse-series-3-all-your-base-strategy-guide-cleared-by-homeland-security
Hey ! I though about posting on this with the same spirit that you used when I saw this coming up.
For some reason I did not do it. Now I know why ! ;-)
You have expressed it better than I would have. Thanks to you and thanks to Alan, the guy has been contributing for a while...
I agree... plus where is the asbestos armor ?
It looks like this robot components would melt pretty quickly in presence of fire ;-))
This is a great breakthrough. This means that we can now wear full face tinfoil hats for even more protection without risking to bump into something anymore. Thanks that tinfoil hats are actually made of aluminum nowadays ! ;-))
Imagine the progress for this brave user:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JVVaXmiE24g/RuYklvXfUqI/AAAAAAAAFDo/ES8XpC4bcbg/s400/tinfoil2.bmp
Tinfoil hats are made of aluminum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
OK here is another version ;-)
1) Facebook generates a private/public key pair and sends a certificate request to Verisign. (note that Facebook's private key is not sent to Verisign as part of the certificate request.)
2) Verisign signs the certificate request using what is called a CA cert.
3) Facebook receives the response to its certificate request from Verisign and can then assemble its own certificate.
4) Firefox needs to have the public portion of the CA cert used by Verisign to sign Facebook certificate request installed in order to not display any warnings when the user visit the Facebook site.
5) There is many CA certs used by many certificate signers and new CA certs are created every year. Hence one might need to update the list of CA certs installed in Firfeox.
This reminded me some Dilbert: ;-)
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2001-12-15/
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-23/