Also, have you ever read the Shelley poem that you're quoting? If you have, you really should re-read it. If you do understand what Shelley was getting at, your continued quotation of it is all the more inappropriate, given the context.
*chuckles* There's this rule in chess... if you're down to your king, and you move between the same two spaces three times in a row, your opponent wins.
This is the third time in a row that you've posted the same ignorant garbage.
So, have I tired you out yet? Why don't you answer my questions? There are two to which you have provided *no* answer to. There are four of which you have provided an insufficient answer. There is one which you provided a completely incorrect answer.
Each one of these questions is something that any college sophomore could answer. You claim that you're a professional. Prove it. Answer these questions. (Two of them are open-ended questions. They ask for your opinion. How much easier could it get?)
You're lazy. You appear to be ignorant. You claim technological knowledge. I ask pointed technological questions. You refuse to answer them. Self-inflicted transcription errors cause you to forget what question you were replying to and respond incorrectly.
You don't sound like an expert. You don't act like a professional. Just what *do* you do when you're not spreading your copypasta on internet forums?
Oh, wait. Don't bother answering that. Your version of proof is inadequate for even the most basic of authentication schemes.
Examine Table 2 of that document. It is insufficiently detailed.
Moreover: You claim to have proved things during our conversation. The only skill you've demonstrated is the ability to copy and paste. This makes you, at best, a script kiddie. At worst, it makes you -in your words- "a user".
A.) NT ACL = SeLinux MAC (I said that before, please: Take your alheimers/dementia/senility meds...)
Um... this doesn't explain anything. Are you sure that you know anything about IT or computer security? Even a clueless college sophomore would be able to look up the answers to my questions in four or five hours. You've had twelve. What's wrong?
[ "Answer" to "Why do you consider your time to be worthless?" ]
This answer is insufficient. Try again.
[Your "what is proof of ownership?" question is] OFF TOPIC
This is directly related to computer security. Re-read the first "paragraph" of this post that is enclosed in double quotes.
[Your "what is proof of identity?" question is] OFF TOPIC
See my previous statement.
How does your opinion on these two things compare with the high-level design of current implementations computerized authorization and resource control schemes?
?
A.)NT ACL = SeLinux MAC
(I said that before, please: Take your alheimers/dementia/senility meds...)
----
I've left this one in in its entirety to demonstrate how taking things out of context can lead to incorrect results. You answered the wrong question. Try again.
[Your "What are the implications of your idea of auth and trust on security schemes?" question is] OFF TOPIC
See my previous responses to your previous "...OFF TOPIC" remarks.
[ "Answer" to "How does SELinux work?" ]
You were asked to be specific. A cursory examination of Table 2 on Page 13 reveals two things: * All SELinux syscalls are glommed into an entry called "selinux ops". * EXT 3 Filesystem operations are classified as "kernel hooks". The linked paper is insufficiently specific. You would have done better by selecting the second result returned by Google for your search phrase. Try again. (It is suggested to the supplicant that he begin his search by downloading a recent kernel source package and examining the file "src/security/security.c".)
[ "Answer" to "How are ACLs implemented in recent versions of Windows?" ]
This is the opposite of specificity. Try again.
You managed to pretty much answer one question!
Here are my currently unanswered questions: Why do you spray copypasta across forums rather than host it in a central location that's easy to manage and update? What, in your mind, constitutes proof of ownership? What, in your mind, constitutes proof of identity? How does your opinion on these two things compare with the high-level design of current implementations computerized authorization and resource control schemes? What would the consequences of designing such schemes to use your level of proof of ownership and identity be? How do current implementations of SELinux interface with the Linux kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of grsecurity's interface to the Linux kernel will be accepted in lieu of information about SELinux. How do current implementations of NTFS's ACL interface with the Windows NT kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of either Windows Vista or Windows XP SP3 will be accepted.
I have proven that you cannot stay on topic for 1 thing @ this point... lol!
Very well. Here are my currently unanswered questions. Once they have been answered, I will address the rest of your points.
Why do I have a secure and performant Windows system, when all I had to do was apply offical Microsoft patches? Why do you spray copypasta across forums rather than host it in a central location that's easy to manage and update? What, in your mind, constitutes proof of ownership? What, in your mind, constitutes proof of identity? How does your opinion on these two things compare with the high-level design of current implementations computerized authorization and resource control schemes? What would the consequences of designing such schemes to use your level of proof of ownershit and identity be? How do current implementations of SELinux interface with the Linux kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of grsecurity's interface to the Linux kernel will be accepted in lieu of information about SELinux. How do current implementations of NTFS's ACL interface with the Windows NT kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of either Windows Vista or Windows XP SP3 will be accepted.
(the biggest one being trying to get the better of ME, in debate)...
This isn't a debate. You're determined to ignore any points made, avoid any pointed questions asked, and deflect any criticism with reams of copypasta declaring the unverifiable glories of some guys who like to call themselves "apk". I'm amusing myself on a lazy Saturday evening. What are you doing?
(showing my accomplishments...
Prove it. Prove that they were yours. Prove that you received some token -either a meatspace or cryptographically secure one will do- that proves that you are the author of all of the documents that you lay claim to, and that people who are not you have vouched for the documents' credibility, accuracy, and usefulness, replicate it, and show it to me. *That* is proof. Not quotes or links.
Ok - ask the guys @ NEOWIN if I wrote that guide of mine they used, for starters!
So, I ask them: "HAY, GUYS AT NEOWIN! There's a guy who claims to call himself APK, but I don't really know if he's one guy or a bunch. Really I don't know anything about him really, cause I can't get his IP. But even if I did get his IP, that wouldn't prove anything anyway due to NAT and maybe he was using a proxy. So anyway, NEOWIN guys, did this AC on slashdot write this guide that he claims is his?"
Are you sure that I can check with them to verify that you are who you say you are?
- by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Sunday May 03, @01:03AM (#27803693)
Funny - you've made SO many screwups here
What were you quoting, again?
Why are you trying to make it seem as if it is NOT worth kicking your butt in...
Are you implying that you want to physically harm me?
The link to your guide is a 404. All that your link to the NSA's SELinux page demonstrates is that you've heard of it. I would expect anyone who's been reading/. for four years to be able to demonstrate that knowledge.
Is also STRICTLY in regards to my seucurity guide!
The loose collection of quotes and advice from knowledgeable folks in the IT field that you call a "security guide" is redundant. I can achieve the same amount of security by installing Windows, keeping it up to date, and not running shady software.
Also, my security guide, to date (since late 2008), also has these "stats" to its credit:
1.) Over 250,000++ views to its credit
How many of those views resulted in a spread of useful knowledge? How many of those views resulted in someone saying, "Oh. This is just copypasta from $SECURITY_DOOD's blog."? I know that I have contributed to the view count of many a shitty forum post just 'cause it had a good PageRank and the preview on Google kinda looked like it would answer my question.
over 20 forums in around 1 yr's time online now
This is part of the problem... it's the thing that I've been oh so subtly (and then oh so bluntly) telling you from the beginning. What happens when your security guide is out of date? Are you planning to leave all of that stale knowledge around to mis-inform yet another clueless user? Or is your time so worthless that you'll spend it updating the copypasta that you've spread to dozen (hundreds? thousands?) of forums?
2.) As well as it being in the TOP VIEWED in forums that have existed for years TO DECADE++
Rage3d.com has been around for a long time. So has Phoronix. Ars Technica has been around for a long time, too. I'm sure that you'll agree that duration and quality are often not correlated.
3.) Then, my guide's nearly always being used by others too... 4)... My guide being rated VERY WELL, to the point of being made an: a. "essential guide" b. "Sticky/Pinned Thread" c. Being well rated by those...
I've seen a lot of absolute trash declared "essential" and stickied on many, many forums.
(WANT PROOFS OF THOSE TOO? I can supply them, quite quickly...)
Wait, what? Where have you proven anything? I don't know that you're not a dog.
This is quite a read, so print yourself a copy or download to your PDA, and be amazed at what you'll learn from this collection of information that APK has gathered and put in one place
That's not proof of anything. I don't have proof of your identity. On the Internet, noone knows that you're a dog. For all you know, I'm the brains behind every commenter on/. besides yourself.
Question is, have YOU?
SeLinux was built in part, for example, to addon ACL's
Aye, I have. And aye, this is correct. The point in question is your lack of understanding of how SELinux interfaces with the Linux kernel.
...you said nothing like that [ACL's] existed on NT-based OS'...
Prove it.
You try to "put me down" for the list of accomplishments I posted here...
Prove that you've accomplished any one of the AFK things that you claim.
Ion.SIMIAN.c: You're ruining your own reputation
From the looks of it, this thread is a wasteland. The only folks here are me and you, hoss. If you want an audience, go back to the amateur techie boards that you like to inhabit.
Whoops. Lemmy correct myself: "None of your comments in this thread have been upmodded. Noone but me has replied to this thread. What does that say about your advice in this thread?"
Slashdot Mirror
Also, why have you not answered my questions?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27809231
Also, show me a copy of your conversations with law enforcement. If you tell me that you don't have any, I know that you are a liar.
Wow, more copypasta.
How do I know that you are who you say you are?
You haven't answered the three most important questions of mine.
Here's a link back to them:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27809231
Here's a link back to my comments on your claims of credibility:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27812945
Also, have you ever read the Shelley poem that you're quoting? If you have, you really should re-read it. If you do understand what Shelley was getting at, your continued quotation of it is all the more inappropriate, given the context.
Prove that you are the same person that wrote those published articles, then we'll talk.
Hey, look!
It's that copypasta again.
You must be tired. Tired and ignorant.
You're thread's not stickied on xtremepccentral, btw. Why is that? It's not stickied over on Ars, either. Why is that? :)
KNemo? I've never heard of that.
I used to use the KNetworkManager tool from KDE 3.5. I now use the networkmanager-applet plasmoid.
Maybe you don't use NetworkManager? You might want to consider it if your home network uses DHCP.
Also, this email
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/2008-September/006652.html
seems to indicate that the IPod should work with Amarok 2.
What phone are you using?
This ToolTalk? ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ToolTalk
I was completely unaware of anything but DOS at the time that that was created. How much like DBus was it?
Wow, more copypasta.
*chuckles* There's this rule in chess... if you're down to your king, and you move between the same two spaces three times in a row, your opponent wins.
This is the third time in a row that you've posted the same ignorant garbage.
So, have I tired you out yet?
Why don't you answer my questions? There are two to which you have provided *no* answer to. There are four of which you have provided an insufficient answer. There is one which you provided a completely incorrect answer.
Each one of these questions is something that any college sophomore could answer. You claim that you're a professional. Prove it. Answer these questions. (Two of them are open-ended questions. They ask for your opinion. How much easier could it get?)
Here is a direct link to a post that contains the remaining questions. Good luck.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27809231
Copypasta! He chooses you!
You're lazy. You appear to be ignorant.
You claim technological knowledge. I ask pointed technological questions. You refuse to answer them.
Self-inflicted transcription errors cause you to forget what question you were replying to and respond incorrectly.
You don't sound like an expert. You don't act like a professional. Just what *do* you do when you're not spreading your copypasta on internet forums?
Oh, wait. Don't bother answering that. Your version of proof is inadequate for even the most basic of authentication schemes.
Examine Table 2 of that document.
It is insufficiently detailed.
Moreover:
You claim to have proved things during our conversation.
The only skill you've demonstrated is the ability to copy and paste.
This makes you, at best, a script kiddie. At worst, it makes you -in your words- "a user".
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27809645
Learn to read, as I covered it's MAC vs. ACL...
From the comment:
A.) NT ACL = SeLinux MAC
(I said that before, please: Take your alheimers/dementia/senility meds...)
Um... this doesn't explain anything.
Are you sure that you know anything about IT or computer security? Even a clueless college sophomore would be able to look up the answers to my questions in four or five hours. You've had twelve. What's wrong?
My unanswered questions are here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27809231
I also show where & how you are wrong in this thread also... especially about SeLinux, because I stated it used "kernel hooks" (kernel patching)
You said more than that. From here:
(& ACL's on NT-based OS & controlling them? Heh, also isn't "grafted on" as a "kernel hooking" system as is SeLinux or AppArmor for Linux by the by)
My currently unanswered questions are listed at the end of this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27809231
[ "Answer" to "Why do you consider your time to be worthless?" ]
This answer is insufficient. Try again.
[Your "what is proof of ownership?" question is] OFF TOPIC
This is directly related to computer security. Re-read the first "paragraph" of this post that is enclosed in double quotes.
[Your "what is proof of identity?" question is] OFF TOPIC
See my previous statement.
How does your opinion on these two things compare with the high-level design of current implementations computerized authorization and resource control schemes?
?
A.) NT ACL = SeLinux MAC
(I said that before, please: Take your alheimers/dementia/senility meds...)
----
I've left this one in in its entirety to demonstrate how taking things out of context can lead to incorrect results. You answered the wrong question. Try again.
[Your "What are the implications of your idea of auth and trust on security schemes?" question is] OFF TOPIC
See my previous responses to your previous "...OFF TOPIC" remarks.
[ "Answer" to "How does SELinux work?" ]
You were asked to be specific. A cursory examination of Table 2 on Page 13 reveals two things:
* All SELinux syscalls are glommed into an entry called "selinux ops".
* EXT 3 Filesystem operations are classified as "kernel hooks".
The linked paper is insufficiently specific. You would have done better by selecting the second result returned by Google for your search phrase.
Try again. (It is suggested to the supplicant that he begin his search by downloading a recent kernel source package and examining the file "src/security/security.c".)
[ "Answer" to "How are ACLs implemented in recent versions of Windows?" ]
This is the opposite of specificity. Try again.
You managed to pretty much answer one question!
Here are my currently unanswered questions:
Why do you spray copypasta across forums rather than host it in a central location that's easy to manage and update?
What, in your mind, constitutes proof of ownership?
What, in your mind, constitutes proof of identity?
How does your opinion on these two things compare with the high-level design of current implementations computerized authorization and resource control schemes?
What would the consequences of designing such schemes to use your level of proof of ownership and identity be?
How do current implementations of SELinux interface with the Linux kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of grsecurity's interface to the Linux kernel will be accepted in lieu of information about SELinux.
How do current implementations of NTFS's ACL interface with the Windows NT kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of either Windows Vista or Windows XP SP3 will be accepted.
I have proven that you cannot stay on topic for 1 thing @ this point... lol!
Very well.
Here are my currently unanswered questions. Once they have been answered, I will address the rest of your points.
Why do I have a secure and performant Windows system, when all I had to do was apply offical Microsoft patches?
Why do you spray copypasta across forums rather than host it in a central location that's easy to manage and update?
What, in your mind, constitutes proof of ownership?
What, in your mind, constitutes proof of identity?
How does your opinion on these two things compare with the high-level design of current implementations computerized authorization and resource control schemes?
What would the consequences of designing such schemes to use your level of proof of ownershit and identity be?
How do current implementations of SELinux interface with the Linux kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of grsecurity's interface to the Linux kernel will be accepted in lieu of information about SELinux.
How do current implementations of NTFS's ACL interface with the Windows NT kernel? Be specific. Cite only from credible, verifiable sources. Descriptions of either Windows Vista or Windows XP SP3 will be accepted.
Hooray! A dead thread! I win! :D
Now, on to the others.
Reread my second paragraph. You seem to have missed the point:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803715
Alternatively, check out my hypothetical query to the NEOWIN folks here for an amplification of my point:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27804009
Ok - AGAIN: Ask the guys @ NEOWIN...
Copypasta, he chooses you!
Addressed here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27804009
(the biggest one being trying to get the better of ME, in debate)...
This isn't a debate. You're determined to ignore any points made, avoid any pointed questions asked, and deflect any criticism with reams of copypasta declaring the unverifiable glories of some guys who like to call themselves "apk".
I'm amusing myself on a lazy Saturday evening. What are you doing?
(showing my accomplishments...
Prove it. Prove that they were yours. Prove that you received some token -either a meatspace or cryptographically secure one will do- that proves that you are the author of all of the documents that you lay claim to, and that people who are not you have vouched for the documents' credibility, accuracy, and usefulness, replicate it, and show it to me.
*That* is proof. Not quotes or links.
Ok - ask the guys @ NEOWIN if I wrote that guide of mine they used, for starters!
So, I ask them:
"HAY, GUYS AT NEOWIN! There's a guy who claims to call himself APK, but I don't really know if he's one guy or a bunch. Really I don't know anything about him really, cause I can't get his IP. But even if I did get his IP, that wouldn't prove anything anyway due to NAT and maybe he was using a proxy. So anyway, NEOWIN guys, did this AC on slashdot write this guide that he claims is his?"
Are you sure that I can check with them to verify that you are who you say you are?
- by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Sunday May 03, @01:03AM (#27803693)
Funny - you've made SO many screwups here
What were you quoting, again?
Why are you trying to make it seem as if it is NOT worth kicking your butt in...
Are you implying that you want to physically harm me?
No one decided to mod it up in this exchange is all... that happens!
Riiight. It's a wasteland in here. There's noone but you and me.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14210206 (+5, AND has proof of my knowing about SeLinux as well as its mechanics, from LONG ago no less)
The link to your guide is a 404. All that your link to the NSA's SELinux page demonstrates is that you've heard of it. I would expect anyone who's been reading /. for four years to be able to demonstrate that knowledge.
Is also STRICTLY in regards to my seucurity guide!
The loose collection of quotes and advice from knowledgeable folks in the IT field that you call a "security guide" is redundant. I can achieve the same amount of security by installing Windows, keeping it up to date, and not running shady software.
Also, my security guide, to date (since late 2008), also has these "stats" to its credit:
1.) Over 250,000++ views to its credit
How many of those views resulted in a spread of useful knowledge? How many of those views resulted in someone saying, "Oh. This is just copypasta from $SECURITY_DOOD's blog."?
I know that I have contributed to the view count of many a shitty forum post just 'cause it had a good PageRank and the preview on Google kinda looked like it would answer my question.
over 20 forums in around 1 yr's time online now
This is part of the problem... it's the thing that I've been oh so subtly (and then oh so bluntly) telling you from the beginning.
What happens when your security guide is out of date? Are you planning to leave all of that stale knowledge around to mis-inform yet another clueless user? Or is your time so worthless that you'll spend it updating the copypasta that you've spread to dozen (hundreds? thousands?) of forums?
2.) As well as it being in the TOP VIEWED in forums that have existed for years TO DECADE++
Rage3d.com has been around for a long time. So has Phoronix. Ars Technica has been around for a long time, too. I'm sure that you'll agree that duration and quality are often not correlated.
3.) Then, my guide's nearly always being used by others too ... ... My guide being rated VERY WELL, to the point of being made an:
4)
a. "essential guide"
b. "Sticky/Pinned Thread"
c. Being well rated by those...
I've seen a lot of absolute trash declared "essential" and stickied on many, many forums.
(WANT PROOFS OF THOSE TOO? I can supply them, quite quickly...)
Wait, what? Where have you proven anything? I don't know that you're not a dog.
YOU had best learn what MAC (mandatory access control) is on Linux, for 1 thing...
You really like that copypasta.
Addressed here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803693
Yes, and I don't think you will LIKE the answer too much, as it is shown where I wrote that, when, & it is credited to ME (APK)...
That's not proof. I can credit anything I like to APK. Is this all that you have to show me?
"This is quite a read, so print yourself a copy or download to your PDA...
Again with the copypasta! This is addressed here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803693
This is quite a read, so print yourself a copy or download to your PDA, and be amazed at what you'll learn from this collection of information that APK has gathered and put in one place
That's not proof of anything. I don't have proof of your identity. On the Internet, noone knows that you're a dog. For all you know, I'm the brains behind every commenter on /. besides yourself.
Question is, have YOU?
SeLinux was built in part, for example, to addon ACL's
Aye, I have. And aye, this is correct. The point in question is your lack of understanding of how SELinux interfaces with the Linux kernel.
...you said nothing like that [ACL's] existed on NT-based OS'...
Prove it.
You try to "put me down" for the list of accomplishments I posted here...
Prove that you've accomplished any one of the AFK things that you claim.
Ion.SIMIAN.c: You're ruining your own reputation
From the looks of it, this thread is a wasteland. The only folks here are me and you, hoss. If you want an audience, go back to the amateur techie boards that you like to inhabit.
None of your comments here have been up-modded.
Oh no?
How about nearly 100 times here on this website
Whoops. Lemmy correct myself:
"None of your comments in this thread have been upmodded. Noone but me has replied to this thread. What does that say about your advice in this thread?"