I don't know. I'd suggest the updates that prevent known browser hijacks, for example, would probably be worth it, for home users who are behind NAT. While I understand what you're saying, I find it difficult to suggest not patching as a solution to not having to reboot, now and then. How many home users, who are behind NAT and just play games, need 24x7 uptime? It is entirely possible to select "reboot in 4 hours" several times, generally for more than a day. Who needs more than 24 consecutive hours of a game in steam, without a reboot?
No more updates sounds like a pretty bad idea. How about setting updates to manual and installing them when you have time? Wouldn't that be a _significantly_ better idea?
The article talks about an automated Windows 10 installation and quote: "Regardless of how good Windows 10 might be and how automatic installs boost user numbers, forcing it down the throats of unsuspecting gamers, weather people and workers isn’t exactly going to breed goodwill among Windows users" but it's very clearly just a Windows Update on a machine already running 10.
You may say this is a minor distinction: the PC still rebooted when he didn't want it to - but it's still shoddy journalism with an obvious axe to grind. This isn't a case of Windows being forced down someone's throat - it's a case of a normal Windows Update, which would have been warning him for hours of the pending reboot and he had the opportunity to disable.
Furthermore, how did Microsoft get into the position of forcing reboots for updates on people? Because people ignored updates, otherwise, resulting in millions of unpatched XP boxes and everyone blaming Microsoft. So Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
As much as I hate the forced reboot effect of patches, I know how we got to this point and I understand why it's like this. Microsoft updates do warn you and allow you to put the reboot off for 1 or 4 hours (repeatedly) so again, I think he had some opportunity to prevent this. Additionally, he's effectively a "professional sportsman", so he should know his equipment. It's not like you cannot turn off automated updates. He should have done that. If his job revolves around needing his PC to not be interrupted in real time, he should have taken the simple steps required to make that happen.
Nonsense. I'm no Apple fanbois (feel free to read my comment history, I'm not exactly pro-Apple) but when you have the kind of cash that Apple has, you're basically immune to disruption (putting aside Apple's other weapon, being that they are basically a religion and it's already proven some will stick with Apple, regardless). People talk about some iPhone killer coming along and knocking Apple over but they don't seem to understand that Apple doesn't need to out-innovate anyone. Let's imagine some company invents the NewThing. And it's awesome. And everyone want's one. Apple just has to buy that company or "reverse engineer" its tech. Problem solved. Same deal for Microsoft, Google, etc. So Windows is in decline? Big deal. Just buy whoever or whatever the competition is. When you have 100's of billions to spend, you basically can't fail, unless you completely and utterly fail to respond, like Kodak (who did not have 100's of billions to spend).
How? Domain admins cannot extract users' passwords. The encryption isn't reversible (by default, unless you foolishly tell it you want it to be). Potentially as a domain admin you could disable password lockouts and try massive brute force attacks but surely someone else would notice the billions of failed logins in the logs?
No matter which way you cut it, you need to be inside the domain, already, to start exploiting this. If you're already in the domain, then the victim already has problems. Not saying this isn't real - but it's just another headache for the victim, not the original attack vector.
You know, this is true in my experience, too. I've worked with 3 law firms in the past, one of who is actually massive, and they were all mind blowing cheapskates. One place we tried to get work from charges barristers out at something near $1,000 an hour - and refused to pay an IT company more than $50. They said that kind of work wasn't worth more than that. I literally walked out. Another place was involved in a Royal Commission (a very big deal in Australia) and they had a single, 7 year old server running Linux with Samba emulating an NT domain (for a totally Windows environment) not because they believe in Linux but because they wouldn't spring for a Windows Server license.
but in the video she's clearly not doing that. Even if she is, her job is human-button-pusher. For that kind of money ($1.4 mil) I would expect total automation. Just have a turnstyle with two lanes that randomly opens one gate, for goodness sakes.
Frankly, for $1.4million, I'd at least expect it to sense movement (you know, like the sensors on the automated doors about 5 meters away from the people in this video that cost a few dollars each) and automatically tell people left or right, without requiring an actual human to stand there and press the screen to randomly change left to right when they feel like pressing the screen (which is random, how??).
Or if they insist on an iPad, at least use the camera to determine someone is there and then say left or right. How is it that this "random" system requires a human to press the screen to change the arrow. In what way is that random?
Many years ago I worked in a University. All devices, printers included, had public IP addresses (and open ports). It was a hang-over from a previous time, when that was just how the uni set things up and deeply tied into the internet billing (charge by the byte) system the uni had. I was only a lowly desktop guy at the time but it was still a real problem for us. Every desktop PC, server, printer, whatever had a public IP. To block any ports, and I am being fully serious here, required approval from the university senate. Not an IT group - a bunch of arts lecturers and student guild type people. And they equated "blocking ports" with "censoring the internet". So absolutely every time we tried to change things, senate voted it down and we were stuck, for many years, with only ports for SMB blocked - every other port was open. To the world. On all our devices. We were allowed firewalls on devices like PCs - but that's not so easy on a printer.
Every morning we had to restart every printer with a HP jet direct (and many times during the day) because it turns out of you port scan an old jet direct, it hangs. We'd also have to leave printer trays open over night, so they couldn't just waste printer paper all night long, printing NIMBDA crap. We used to find that if you installed Windows on a PC or server with the NIC connected, it was literally infected before the installation was complete (truly).
According to her own comments in the (comments section of the) article, the dates were not serious and were deliberate research for this start-up. So rather than simply sucking at dating she merely sucks at not using people. Not entirely sure if that's better or worse?
For Stephen, he's gone from CEO of Nokia (massive global brand) to head of a large division at Microsoft (massive Global brand) to kind of "some guy" at Telstra. A company everyone in Australia has heard of, sure - but probably no one else.
For Tesltra, it's like picking a guy who keeps failing (and you can certainly argue for issue outside of his control - but you could argue against that, too). I get there's more to it than this but I have to say, this seems a bit weird, all around.
This is interesting. I live in Australia and I have barely even heard about this vote. It's been a "non-issue" in the news, here. There has been minor coverage of the FBI issue with Apple but extremely minor. You'll note the link in the article, "delimiter" is hardly a mainstream news outlet. The main news outlets here (abc.net.au, etc.) haven't even got this on their front page (at the time of this post).
So basically, both sides of government have managed to keep it pretty much below the radar.
I'm not saying it's totally out of the news (I heard it in a news bulletin that lastest about 4 seconds) but the media is not running with this as an issue. So Joe Public will never care because he's never going to even know he should care.
Yeah probably but I'm not being serious. Even still, Matlida Bay Brewery (previously, a small, boutique brewery in Perth, Western Australia), wasn't something I ever expected to see here.:-P
I once (recently) had a Windows Phone for work - recently enough to be on the beta of Windows Phone 10 (as in in the last 3 months). It automatically connects to any WIFI hotspot, if Wifi is enabled and it's as annoying as hell. Windows Phone 8.1 and 10 both do it.
So I would be in a shopping centre and my phone would auto connect to the wifi (which was of course open but without internet unless you punch in some code you get on your receipt when you buy something). I'd then try to check my mail and find it wouldn't connect - then remember about the stupid autoconnect and turn off my wifi. Then I'd go back to the office and realise after a day or so that my wifi was still off.
So I imagine a good number of these travellers were on Windows Phone and didn't even notice they'd connected to the wifi. Not a huge number because... you know.. Windows Phone.. but still, airports have business travellers and Windows Phone pretty much only exists in businesses, so at least some of them.
I get what you're saying - but they're not rooting their phone with an APK they got, unsolicited, in an SMS, from a total stranger. They're rooting their phone with an APK they got from a site full of people they have at least some level of trust for.
Basically, this. The UN can't force Australia to do anything it doesn't want to do. Ergo, it's not legally binding. The UN cannot pass laws in member states. It can pass resolutions, which member states can sign on to, but even those in no way appear to be legally binding. So basically, it does nothing. Except allow adversaries to score cheap, yet hollow, political points against each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. I'd suggest the updates that prevent known browser hijacks, for example, would probably be worth it, for home users who are behind NAT. While I understand what you're saying, I find it difficult to suggest not patching as a solution to not having to reboot, now and then. How many home users, who are behind NAT and just play games, need 24x7 uptime? It is entirely possible to select "reboot in 4 hours" several times, generally for more than a day. Who needs more than 24 consecutive hours of a game in steam, without a reboot?
No more updates sounds like a pretty bad idea. How about setting updates to manual and installing them when you have time? Wouldn't that be a _significantly_ better idea?
The article talks about an automated Windows 10 installation and quote: "Regardless of how good Windows 10 might be and how automatic installs boost user numbers, forcing it down the throats of unsuspecting gamers, weather people and workers isn’t exactly going to breed goodwill among Windows users" but it's very clearly just a Windows Update on a machine already running 10.
You may say this is a minor distinction: the PC still rebooted when he didn't want it to - but it's still shoddy journalism with an obvious axe to grind. This isn't a case of Windows being forced down someone's throat - it's a case of a normal Windows Update, which would have been warning him for hours of the pending reboot and he had the opportunity to disable.
Furthermore, how did Microsoft get into the position of forcing reboots for updates on people? Because people ignored updates, otherwise, resulting in millions of unpatched XP boxes and everyone blaming Microsoft. So Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
As much as I hate the forced reboot effect of patches, I know how we got to this point and I understand why it's like this. Microsoft updates do warn you and allow you to put the reboot off for 1 or 4 hours (repeatedly) so again, I think he had some opportunity to prevent this. Additionally, he's effectively a "professional sportsman", so he should know his equipment. It's not like you cannot turn off automated updates. He should have done that. If his job revolves around needing his PC to not be interrupted in real time, he should have taken the simple steps required to make that happen.
Another way to view this information is more people use Windows 95, 98 and 2000 than people use Linux, on the desktop. :-P
Nonsense. I'm no Apple fanbois (feel free to read my comment history, I'm not exactly pro-Apple) but when you have the kind of cash that Apple has, you're basically immune to disruption (putting aside Apple's other weapon, being that they are basically a religion and it's already proven some will stick with Apple, regardless). People talk about some iPhone killer coming along and knocking Apple over but they don't seem to understand that Apple doesn't need to out-innovate anyone. Let's imagine some company invents the NewThing. And it's awesome. And everyone want's one. Apple just has to buy that company or "reverse engineer" its tech. Problem solved. Same deal for Microsoft, Google, etc. So Windows is in decline? Big deal. Just buy whoever or whatever the competition is. When you have 100's of billions to spend, you basically can't fail, unless you completely and utterly fail to respond, like Kodak (who did not have 100's of billions to spend).
I fixed the article heading for you...
Nice, thanks.
How? Domain admins cannot extract users' passwords. The encryption isn't reversible (by default, unless you foolishly tell it you want it to be). Potentially as a domain admin you could disable password lockouts and try massive brute force attacks but surely someone else would notice the billions of failed logins in the logs?
No matter which way you cut it, you need to be inside the domain, already, to start exploiting this. If you're already in the domain, then the victim already has problems. Not saying this isn't real - but it's just another headache for the victim, not the original attack vector.
You know, this is true in my experience, too. I've worked with 3 law firms in the past, one of who is actually massive, and they were all mind blowing cheapskates. One place we tried to get work from charges barristers out at something near $1,000 an hour - and refused to pay an IT company more than $50. They said that kind of work wasn't worth more than that. I literally walked out. Another place was involved in a Royal Commission (a very big deal in Australia) and they had a single, 7 year old server running Linux with Samba emulating an NT domain (for a totally Windows environment) not because they believe in Linux but because they wouldn't spring for a Windows Server license.
but in the video she's clearly not doing that. Even if she is, her job is human-button-pusher. For that kind of money ($1.4 mil) I would expect total automation. Just have a turnstyle with two lanes that randomly opens one gate, for goodness sakes.
Frankly, for $1.4million, I'd at least expect it to sense movement (you know, like the sensors on the automated doors about 5 meters away from the people in this video that cost a few dollars each) and automatically tell people left or right, without requiring an actual human to stand there and press the screen to randomly change left to right when they feel like pressing the screen (which is random, how??).
Or if they insist on an iPad, at least use the camera to determine someone is there and then say left or right. How is it that this "random" system requires a human to press the screen to change the arrow. In what way is that random?
Many years ago I worked in a University. All devices, printers included, had public IP addresses (and open ports). It was a hang-over from a previous time, when that was just how the uni set things up and deeply tied into the internet billing (charge by the byte) system the uni had. I was only a lowly desktop guy at the time but it was still a real problem for us. Every desktop PC, server, printer, whatever had a public IP. To block any ports, and I am being fully serious here, required approval from the university senate. Not an IT group - a bunch of arts lecturers and student guild type people. And they equated "blocking ports" with "censoring the internet". So absolutely every time we tried to change things, senate voted it down and we were stuck, for many years, with only ports for SMB blocked - every other port was open. To the world. On all our devices. We were allowed firewalls on devices like PCs - but that's not so easy on a printer.
Every morning we had to restart every printer with a HP jet direct (and many times during the day) because it turns out of you port scan an old jet direct, it hangs. We'd also have to leave printer trays open over night, so they couldn't just waste printer paper all night long, printing NIMBDA crap. We used to find that if you installed Windows on a PC or server with the NIC connected, it was literally infected before the installation was complete (truly).
According to her own comments in the (comments section of the) article, the dates were not serious and were deliberate research for this start-up. So rather than simply sucking at dating she merely sucks at not using people. Not entirely sure if that's better or worse?
Presumably this will come with a backdoor for the FBI, right? Just to keep things, fair, right?
Seems like odd choices, all round, frankly.
For Stephen, he's gone from CEO of Nokia (massive global brand) to head of a large division at Microsoft (massive Global brand) to kind of "some guy" at Telstra. A company everyone in Australia has heard of, sure - but probably no one else.
For Tesltra, it's like picking a guy who keeps failing (and you can certainly argue for issue outside of his control - but you could argue against that, too). I get there's more to it than this but I have to say, this seems a bit weird, all around.
So it's an SQL Injection attack, on Linux?
The US government has sided with Samsung and is banning iPhone sales for patent violation, at least until Apple "sees reason".
(I am kidding, btw, before someone takes this seriously and tries to ask for a reference...)
This is interesting. I live in Australia and I have barely even heard about this vote. It's been a "non-issue" in the news, here. There has been minor coverage of the FBI issue with Apple but extremely minor. You'll note the link in the article, "delimiter" is hardly a mainstream news outlet. The main news outlets here (abc.net.au, etc.) haven't even got this on their front page (at the time of this post).
So basically, both sides of government have managed to keep it pretty much below the radar.
I'm not saying it's totally out of the news (I heard it in a news bulletin that lastest about 4 seconds) but the media is not running with this as an issue. So Joe Public will never care because he's never going to even know he should care.
Yeah probably but I'm not being serious. Even still, Matlida Bay Brewery (previously, a small, boutique brewery in Perth, Western Australia), wasn't something I ever expected to see here. :-P
I once (recently) had a Windows Phone for work - recently enough to be on the beta of Windows Phone 10 (as in in the last 3 months). It automatically connects to any WIFI hotspot, if Wifi is enabled and it's as annoying as hell. Windows Phone 8.1 and 10 both do it.
So I would be in a shopping centre and my phone would auto connect to the wifi (which was of course open but without internet unless you punch in some code you get on your receipt when you buy something). I'd then try to check my mail and find it wouldn't connect - then remember about the stupid autoconnect and turn off my wifi. Then I'd go back to the office and realise after a day or so that my wifi was still off.
So I imagine a good number of these travellers were on Windows Phone and didn't even notice they'd connected to the wifi. Not a huge number because... you know.. Windows Phone.. but still, airports have business travellers and Windows Phone pretty much only exists in businesses, so at least some of them.
It is. I think Victoria.
Sober and half asleep?
I imagine about 0.000001% of slashdot has heard of Matilda Bay. I certainly never expected to see Matty B referenced on /.
I get what you're saying - but they're not rooting their phone with an APK they got, unsolicited, in an SMS, from a total stranger. They're rooting their phone with an APK they got from a site full of people they have at least some level of trust for.
Basically, this. The UN can't force Australia to do anything it doesn't want to do. Ergo, it's not legally binding. The UN cannot pass laws in member states. It can pass resolutions, which member states can sign on to, but even those in no way appear to be legally binding. So basically, it does nothing. Except allow adversaries to score cheap, yet hollow, political points against each other.