A CA isn't required at all to encrypt, just accept any self-signed certificate. If we want to introduce CAs or other method of identity verification, that may be fine but it is a different problem from encryption. We are seeing bits of this with the various opportunistic encryption extensions to SMTP and HTTP.
"if you can open it from your phone who else can?"
And who else can walk up and simply kick the door in? Is the risk of a break-in significantly changed by using the phone app? Why wouldn't anyone who wanted in simply kick in the door or just break a window? Some guy in a different country has no interest in unlocking my front door. My point is, does an app like that REALLY change your risk at all given how easy it already is to get in? Now if you are running a gold repository or something the equation is different, but for the typical wooden house owner I don't see it is any different.
But I generally agree with you, I don't want Internet connected appliances of any sort. Even my 'smart' TV is disconnected.
A better way to say this might be: the effort the manufacturer puts into security will be equal to the perceived risk. Since my garage door is already easy to open with a crowbar, the manufacturer might perceive that the risk of some wireless vulnerability is no worse than the risk I am already accepting by having a garage door in the first place. The same with vulnerabilities in my thermostat. What is the risk of someone hacking it and goofing with my temperature settings? They might feel this is not a real threat since there is no money involved for the theoretical attacker. And of course, as you point out, the risk to the manufacturer of lawsuits, etc. enters into the picture. As it stands now, they might plan to go into court and argue that since it was already easy to open the standard garage door there is no reason to make the wireless opener any more secure than that.
Israeli prime ministers have been making this claim for decades. The year keeps passing and still it hasn't happened. US intelligence agencies keep reaffirming their conclusion that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, please provide us a clarification of how you know better than them.
Does anyone think that's because now they won't be building a nuke?
Yeah, all the US intelligence agencies and the Mossad think so. The 2003 (?) National Intelligence Estimate has been affirmed every year since then, Iran has no nuclear weapons program and no real intention to build any. By all means, tell us how you know better than them.
If it was possible to identify all the PHAs antivirus would still be 100% effective. Not to mention the varying definitions of 'harm.' For instance, i consider all the apps wanting to take my IMEI harmful, and I doubt Google counted these as 'potentially harmful'.
Whatever HAS to be done is already being done. Users are en masse accepting the level of risk as it exists today, so there is no reason to do anything more on the security side. We accept a certain amount of fraud and other crimes in the rest of the world, we will continue to accept this in the Internet world as well. Diminishing returns mean we will never pay the price to pursue eliminating the last 1% of online crime.
That's equivalent to 12 of Beijing's Tian'anmen Square, the largest public square in the world, or nearly two New York Central Parks.
How many football fields is that? (American football). I hope when the specs are released for this space station, the length is reported in Library of Congresses so i can understand it.
Roughly correct, according to this. "the contractor was told to allocate total contractual overheads equally across all deliverables - raising the book price of a $15.00 hammer to $435 without affecting actual cost by a nickel."
Very true, I just went through this with my bank. They just switched everyone over to username/password only, and I had to downgrade my password so I could use it on the phone. I did the same with my home wifi passphrase. I wonder how much of the recent 'failure of passwords' is due to the limitations of password entry on mobile devices.
An excellent exercise in risk management, illustrating how security measure are only appropriate when viewed in context with risk. If there's no risk, there is no value in security measures.
How about a setup where it will shred your data, or just present an empty system, if you log on with a different finger? i.e. right index erases the box, left index does regular logon
4.5 percent already? I found this number astonishing, I would have guessed less than one percent. Shows what I know. It seems wind power has a bit of a wind problem, or I have a head in the sand problem. 50/50
Helping to drive this newfound interest in privately funded space exploration is the Google Lunar X Prize. It's a competition organized by the X Prize Foundation and sponsored by Google that will award $30 million to the first company that lands a commercial spacecraft on the moon, travels 500 meters across its surface and sends high-definition images and video back to Earth—all before the end of 2016.
This is off topic, but I would not be surprised to learn that male elementary school teachers are rare because that career to too dangerous. One nutty parent plays the pedophile card and your life and career are ruined.
One could easily argue, if people want to see it then showing it has a legitimate journalistic purpose. Even if those people then decide they want to join ISIS.
Is that what 97% effective means? I took it to mean there was a 3% chance it wouldn't work at all. i.e. if it works you could not get measles from anyone, and if it fails you could get measles from anyone else who has it. I don't think it means there is a 3% of infection on every exposure.
Slashdot Mirror
A CA isn't required at all to encrypt, just accept any self-signed certificate. If we want to introduce CAs or other method of identity verification, that may be fine but it is a different problem from encryption. We are seeing bits of this with the various opportunistic encryption extensions to SMTP and HTTP.
"if you can open it from your phone who else can?"
And who else can walk up and simply kick the door in? Is the risk of a break-in significantly changed by using the phone app? Why wouldn't anyone who wanted in simply kick in the door or just break a window? Some guy in a different country has no interest in unlocking my front door. My point is, does an app like that REALLY change your risk at all given how easy it already is to get in? Now if you are running a gold repository or something the equation is different, but for the typical wooden house owner I don't see it is any different.
But I generally agree with you, I don't want Internet connected appliances of any sort. Even my 'smart' TV is disconnected.
A better way to say this might be: the effort the manufacturer puts into security will be equal to the perceived risk. Since my garage door is already easy to open with a crowbar, the manufacturer might perceive that the risk of some wireless vulnerability is no worse than the risk I am already accepting by having a garage door in the first place. The same with vulnerabilities in my thermostat. What is the risk of someone hacking it and goofing with my temperature settings? They might feel this is not a real threat since there is no money involved for the theoretical attacker. And of course, as you point out, the risk to the manufacturer of lawsuits, etc. enters into the picture. As it stands now, they might plan to go into court and argue that since it was already easy to open the standard garage door there is no reason to make the wireless opener any more secure than that.
What good is stopping one missile if the next ten get through and bounce the rubble?
You'll see in a year or so.
Israeli prime ministers have been making this claim for decades. The year keeps passing and still it hasn't happened. US intelligence agencies keep reaffirming their conclusion that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, please provide us a clarification of how you know better than them.
Does anyone think that's because now they won't be building a nuke?
Yeah, all the US intelligence agencies and the Mossad think so. The 2003 (?) National Intelligence Estimate has been affirmed every year since then, Iran has no nuclear weapons program and no real intention to build any. By all means, tell us how you know better than them.
If it was possible to identify all the PHAs antivirus would still be 100% effective. Not to mention the varying definitions of 'harm.' For instance, i consider all the apps wanting to take my IMEI harmful, and I doubt Google counted these as 'potentially harmful'.
Whatever has to be done will be done
Whatever HAS to be done is already being done. Users are en masse accepting the level of risk as it exists today, so there is no reason to do anything more on the security side. We accept a certain amount of fraud and other crimes in the rest of the world, we will continue to accept this in the Internet world as well. Diminishing returns mean we will never pay the price to pursue eliminating the last 1% of online crime.
That's equivalent to 12 of Beijing's Tian'anmen Square, the largest public square in the world, or nearly two New York Central Parks.
How many football fields is that? (American football). I hope when the specs are released for this space station, the length is reported in Library of Congresses so i can understand it.
The existence of this tool is admitting that these papers aren't peer reviewed. Wouldn't it be simpler to just admit that and stop committing fraud?
Roughly correct, according to this. "the contractor was told to allocate total contractual overheads equally across all deliverables - raising the book price of a $15.00 hammer to $435 without affecting actual cost by a nickel."
Very true, I just went through this with my bank. They just switched everyone over to username/password only, and I had to downgrade my password so I could use it on the phone. I did the same with my home wifi passphrase. I wonder how much of the recent 'failure of passwords' is due to the limitations of password entry on mobile devices.
An excellent exercise in risk management, illustrating how security measure are only appropriate when viewed in context with risk. If there's no risk, there is no value in security measures.
you should set this up
Why the hell would I want to give your wife the ability to erase my phone?
How about a setup where it will shred your data, or just present an empty system, if you log on with a different finger? i.e. right index erases the box, left index does regular logon
Nuts, that is supposed to say "PR problem" not "wind problem"
4.5 percent already? I found this number astonishing, I would have guessed less than one percent. Shows what I know. It seems wind power has a bit of a wind problem, or I have a head in the sand problem. 50/50
Or perhaps the corpses of these monkeys in a can would seed the moon with life, panspermia ex machina.
Helping to drive this newfound interest in privately funded space exploration is the Google Lunar X Prize. It's a competition organized by the X Prize Foundation and sponsored by Google that will award $30 million to the first company that lands a commercial spacecraft on the moon, travels 500 meters across its surface and sends high-definition images and video back to Earth—all before the end of 2016.
Since she was running the State Department I'm not clear on what you expect them to do. "No boss, you can't have that thing, we won't allow it"?
I don't use "desktop features" I use applications. The only features I am interested in as far as a "desktop" are features that keep it out of my way.
In the USA the bank would pay a huge bribe, er, fine, to the Department of Justice and admit to no wrongdoing. Let's see what happens here.
This is off topic, but I would not be surprised to learn that male elementary school teachers are rare because that career to too dangerous. One nutty parent plays the pedophile card and your life and career are ruined.
One could easily argue, if people want to see it then showing it has a legitimate journalistic purpose. Even if those people then decide they want to join ISIS.
Is that what 97% effective means? I took it to mean there was a 3% chance it wouldn't work at all. i.e. if it works you could not get measles from anyone, and if it fails you could get measles from anyone else who has it. I don't think it means there is a 3% of infection on every exposure.