Ok, so Real, (a huge company with tons of resources) was told about the exploit months ago and a video of the exploit in action has even been posted by Gleg and they still can't find it?
Yeah, they should have just found it before. (rolls eyes)
How? They can't even find it now.
Security holes are avoidable.
Yeah, everyone just chooses not to avoid them. (no one's got it figured out like you) (and your perfect code)
Even Slashdot won't claim that:
I actually went and looked at the TOS myself. (should have done so already)
This is found in "Comcast Agreement For Residential Services"
Prohibited Uses of HSI. You agree not to use HSI for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, "Web hosting" or other similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network.
Here's what it actually says in the Acceptable Use Policy under "Network and usage restrictions"
() use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
() use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;
Wow, that was really convenient of you not to post the second part. Maybe you didn't see it?
Notice how there's a distinction between servers and programs?? Could my point be proved any further?
So far you've called me childish and a moron. What have you got say now?
Nothing, I bet.
How much would it damage Real if they (Gleg) just released the exploit into the wild? Far more than 10k's worth, assuredly.
If it was released into the wild, Real could (most likely) have it patched in a matter of hours.
The fact that they're not releasing it into the wild is a problem. Until it gets released (or Real pays up or finds it themselves) it will be a nasty weapon used for nefarious deeds.
According to your interpretation of the TOS (where you take the word "server" at it's most technical definition) then anybody using IM (for starters) can also be booted, because gee, you're a server then, aren't you? A server "providing services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN" Indeed. That could be a TOS violation because "Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers"
Your interpretation of the TOS clearly extends beyond P2P. (You're obviously not a lawyer)
Second, I didn't say that Comcast should kick "everyone" who has ever used P2P services, they should kick the people causing problems for TOS violations.
First off, aren't you supposed to be anonymous? Doh!
Second, yes you did:
If Comcast had simply enforced those TOS and canceled the contracts of people who violated the TOS (instead of playing around with throttling), they wouldn't have gotten into this mess.
Doh!
The TOS are not clear. Like all legal documents, when interpreted by lawyers, the first thing done is to establish definitions to the terms used in the document. The main point of contention here is the term "server." You would like to use a technical definition, one in which any computer or device serving out applications or services can be called a server. But that definition is not acceptable, as it would clearly give Comcast legal rights it was not intended to have. (Like being able to kick people for using IM, P2P, online gaming, etc.)
The TOS is a legal document. Your are a computer nerd. That is why you don't get it. (and say silly things like P2P is not allowed)
But nooo, I'm wrong, Comcast's own website is wrong, Comcast's customer support team is wrong, Comcast's technicians are wrong, we're all wrong, because you don't know how to read a legal document.
And stop posting anonymous, it's pretty obvious who you are.
Why didn't anyone think of this before??
Wait a second...
You're the person who was saying that P2P wasn't allowed By Comcast's TOS the other day...
I did waste my time taking you seriously.
When companies ship software with security holes, it's a product defect. If they don't want to be embarrassed by that in public, they should simply not introduce security holes.
I mean that the tone of the post was one of business, capitalism and greed. (where ethics have no place) That's why it seems weird (to me) that the word "ethical" was used to attack the one part of the situation that wasn't simply a money issue.
I felt the poster was/is taking a greedy position.
(though i admit it didn't really come out right)
It was more of knee-jerk reaction than a well though out post.
My apologies.
I used to use yahoo email as my primary, but it's slow, and now they make you click through their home page, just for the extra hits.
No they don't. What are you talking about?
I use both Gmail and Yahoo Mail every day and I have to disagree with you. IMO Yahoo mail is better. It's never slow. (unlike Gmail which seems slow to me consistently -maybe because I'm using https?)
Yahoo search? I use it every now and then (I like google), not too much, the the thing is I don't mind using it. On the other hand, I would never use MS search. I don't trust it.
Craigslist personals do not really compete with yahoo personals. (IMO) Have you ever used them? They are two completely different approaches to personals.
Even there, craigslist and similar services are eating their lunch. It's only a matter of time now.
I don't really get the feeling that yahoo is dying at all.
In a properly functioning market (that is, without ethically dubious anti-takeover provisions in the corporate charter) nobody would really care what the board members thought about the offer.
It's strange that you use "ethics" to back your position.
Wouldn't "greed" be more in your corner?
and respect from the public. It seems like they are actually trying to do good. Maybe the reason is that it's good for their image and profits, but it's a world of difference compared to the traditional corporations like to Microsoft, AT&T, Verizon, Halliburton, etc.
Would solar energy as an alternative be somewhat effective? I always pictured a worldwide solar grid connected all around the world. (the Sun would be shining somewhere)
(I know I'm super-simplifying the idea --but I'm just asking; and you seem like you know what you're talking about)
What percentage of the world's energy could possibly come from solar?
(And what percentage after most of our cars are electric?) (if that ever happens)
Of course Comcast isn't saying they are blocking P2P. If they were, we wouldn't be discussing this in a thread called "they should simply have kicked violators".
The name of the thread is "Comcast's New Terms of Service Disclose Traffic Management."
Of course Comcast isn't saying they are blocking P2P.
Do you mean interfering and generally screwing with? Because actually they are saying so:
Comcast may on a limited basis temporarily delay certain P2P traffic when that traffic has, or is projected to have, an adverse effect on other customers use of the service. Comcast manages certain P2P traffic specifically because, in certain situations, that type of traffic consumes a disproportionately large amount of network resources.
(Unless you mean stopping when you say "blocking", in which case you'd still be wrong)
Even if your hair splitting actually applied, the TOS clearly say that they can restrict any service they like anyway; they're just giving you examples of things that definitely are not acceptable.
The point is that, according to the TOS, Comcast has the contractual right to kick P2P users.
According to you, the TOS says Comcast has the contractual right to kick anybody.
If Comcast had simply enforced those TOS and canceled the contracts of people who violated the TOS (instead of playing around with throttling), they wouldn't have gotten into this mess.
You are saying that if Comcast kicked out everyone who used P2P, they would be in less of a mess?? Since a little over 1/3 of American internet surfers use P2P, you do understand how absurd that sounds? You can't just get rid of over 1/3 of your customers.
(And almost every ISP "plays around with throttling")
The FAQ represents customer service, and the TOS represents a legal and network management view, and they disagree. That is the problem.
You are saying that the information posted on Comcast's website is not approved by Comcast?
It's because of childish attitudes like yours, namely that if you can get away with something sometimes, it becomes your right, that Comcast should have kicked violators, as they have every right to under the TOS.
So P2P users (over 1/3 of their customers) are "getting away" with something, even though Comcast's website says "The companys customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing peer-to-peer sites, communicating over VOIP applications, and for thousands of other applications." Doesn't sound like they're "getting away" with anything, now does it?
You know is childish? Not being able to admit you were wrong.
I completely disagree with you and so does Comcast.
This is taken directly from their website:
You want to know if peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent are blocked.
No. Comcast does not block P2P traffic or applications like BitTorrent, Gnutella, or others as part of its network management. The companys customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing peer-to-peer sites, communicating over VOIP applications, and for thousands of other applications.
So I guess you're wrong. (very wrong)
It did seem ridiculous
Slashdot Mirror
Need I say more?
(I mean "Need eye sae moore?")
I'm starting to think I took a joke seriously. Doh!
it's just a proposal. Anyone know the chances of it becoming law?
quite an aspiration.
complaining about spelling mistakes has got to be the dumbest @#$% evr.
Microsoft updates you!
Anonymous should take on "FOX News"
Yeah, they should have just found it before. (rolls eyes)
How? They can't even find it now.
Yeah, everyone just chooses not to avoid them. (no one's got it figured out like you) (and your perfect code)
Even Slashdot won't claim that:
Hi nguy,
umm, ok, nobody else though of this because I'm a moron?
You do realize that doesn't make sense, right?
This is found in "Comcast Agreement For Residential Services" Here's what it actually says in the Acceptable Use Policy under "Network and usage restrictions" Wow, that was really convenient of you not to post the second part. Maybe you didn't see it?
Notice how there's a distinction between servers and programs?? Could my point be proved any further?
So far you've called me childish and a moron. What have you got say now?
Nothing, I bet.
It's so disgusting that US companies hold back the spread of medicine for profit.
The fact that they're not releasing it into the wild is a problem. Until it gets released (or Real pays up or finds it themselves) it will be a nasty weapon used for nefarious deeds.
Your interpretation of the TOS clearly extends beyond P2P. (You're obviously not a lawyer) Put up or shut up. The statistics come from here: http://www.freemusictodownload.eu/p2p-statistics.html
If you have better statistics, what are waiting for? First off, aren't you supposed to be anonymous? Doh!
Second, yes you did: Doh!
The TOS are not clear. Like all legal documents, when interpreted by lawyers, the first thing done is to establish definitions to the terms used in the document. The main point of contention here is the term "server." You would like to use a technical definition, one in which any computer or device serving out applications or services can be called a server. But that definition is not acceptable, as it would clearly give Comcast legal rights it was not intended to have. (Like being able to kick people for using IM, P2P, online gaming, etc.)
The TOS is a legal document. Your are a computer nerd. That is why you don't get it. (and say silly things like P2P is not allowed)
But nooo, I'm wrong, Comcast's own website is wrong, Comcast's customer support team is wrong, Comcast's technicians are wrong, we're all wrong, because you don't know how to read a legal document.
And stop posting anonymous, it's pretty obvious who you are.
You do know that the TOS are written by lawyers, intended to be interpreted by by lawyers.
How about:
3 cents, a half-eaten snickers bar, and nasty bout of syphilis.
Wait a second...
You're the person who was saying that P2P wasn't allowed By Comcast's TOS the other day...
I did waste my time taking you seriously.
for explaining what the orthodox definition of blackmail is.
I mean that the tone of the post was one of business, capitalism and greed. (where ethics have no place) That's why it seems weird (to me) that the word "ethical" was used to attack the one part of the situation that wasn't simply a money issue.
I felt the poster was/is taking a greedy position.
(though i admit it didn't really come out right)
It was more of knee-jerk reaction than a well though out post.
My apologies.
I use both Gmail and Yahoo Mail every day and I have to disagree with you. IMO Yahoo mail is better. It's never slow. (unlike Gmail which seems slow to me consistently -maybe because I'm using https?)
Yahoo search? I use it every now and then (I like google), not too much, the the thing is I don't mind using it. On the other hand, I would never use MS search. I don't trust it.
Craigslist personals do not really compete with yahoo personals. (IMO) Have you ever used them? They are two completely different approaches to personals. I don't really get the feeling that yahoo is dying at all.
Wouldn't "greed" be more in your corner?
and respect from the public. It seems like they are actually trying to do good. Maybe the reason is that it's good for their image and profits, but it's a world of difference compared to the traditional corporations like to Microsoft, AT&T, Verizon, Halliburton, etc.
Would solar energy as an alternative be somewhat effective? I always pictured a worldwide solar grid connected all around the world. (the Sun would be shining somewhere)
(I know I'm super-simplifying the idea --but I'm just asking; and you seem like you know what you're talking about)
What percentage of the world's energy could possibly come from solar?
(And what percentage after most of our cars are electric?) (if that ever happens)
(And almost every ISP "plays around with throttling") You are saying that the information posted on Comcast's website is not approved by Comcast? So P2P users (over 1/3 of their customers) are "getting away" with something, even though Comcast's website says "The companys customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing peer-to-peer sites, communicating over VOIP applications, and for thousands of other applications." Doesn't sound like they're "getting away" with anything, now does it?
You know is childish? Not being able to admit you were wrong.
This is taken directly from their website:
So I guess you're wrong. (very wrong)
It did seem ridiculous