an embryo becomes a human when it stops just asking questions but starts meaningfully answering them.... for a Jewish mother though, an embryo becomes a human when it gets gets degree in law or medicine;)
Well, these guys have a nuclear bunker for a data-center, they probably think that even if the government comes and attacks them, they can just ride it out inside. They'll probably survive even if US decides to blast them with a nuke (I wonder what the rest of the world would think of the USA if that happened though - US blasting an entrance into a datacenter with a thermo-nuclear weapon in a populated Swedish area. Oh well, just pretend there are WMDs in there and anything would go...
No, I'm saying that if you don't like the artist, that you're being an intellectually dishonest, ethically twisted hypocrite for copying the work regardless.
- if one doesn't like the artist, but enjoys the art, but doesn't agree with the law of copyright and decides to get something free instead of paying to a legal distributor, well, it makes this person cheap and thieving, sure, but it doesn't go against the laws of nature (trying to maximize profit while minimizing energy spending). It just makes perfect sense from reality and nature point of view. Makes the person a survivor who is more likely to make it in nature than someone, who has 'principals' based on artificial ideals and morals. Of-course sometimes morals are expected by society and those, not following these morals will be punished, so it will only make sense from point of view of evolution to be this cheap thieving surviving son of nature if you don't get caught by the punishing society.
Moral of the story? Do what is least energetically demanding. So if it takes less energy to be a thief, do that, otherwise don't.
oh, just follow my/. comments, if you are truly a fan and not being sarcastic, then I am sure I will not disappoint you;) If you are on the other hand being sarcastic and are enjoying making various stark remarks, I will try not to disappoint you either with my timely replies.
it's the rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved.
- this is not true at all.
There is no such thing as a 'right' that can be preserved at all. You think you have a 'right' to live, but a group of hyenas will kill and eat you and nature will not step in with a moral objection.
The concept of 'right' is completely artificial from beginning to the end. Thus 'rights' cannot be preserved, they only can be established by a group of people who decide what these 'rights' actually are. Also these 'rights' are only as meaningful as the force that protects them from those, who don't care at all about your artificial constructs.
So no, there is no preserved 'right' of an author to anything. There are only facts and artificial constructs. Fact: an author creates some work (maybe very original, but most likely based on work of untold millions of individuals, but this is not pertinent to the discussion.) So an author creates something. By the mere fact of creation he is obviously a creator of the work. Now the society also says: well, we will recognize that as the originator of the work you have a 'right', a copyright, and this means that within the protection of our legal system you are the only one who can say how this work is to be distributed (if at all, if the author is not distributing his/her work, then this entire exercise is pointless) for a constrained period of time.
So if some other distributor wishes to distribute the work, he must acquire permission from the original author (a paid or a free license, this can be a limited license, this is really a contract between the author and the distributor.)
If you are not a distributor, but an end user, and you have no contract with the original author, really you are in the wrong where the legal system is concerned if you make a copy of the material. However the copyright doesn't have a say as to how the copy can be used. If you happen to find a copy of the material, nothing stops you from reading/using it. You just can't legally distribute it further.
If you don't like the fact that an artist or other creator wants to be in charge of their own work, then just walk away.
- well this, or you can still break the copyright if you do not agree with the legal system. Obviously if the legal system wishes so, it can come after you with legal penalties reserved for just such a case.
You obviously don't like that artist anyway, since you don't respect the decisions they've made about how and when they wish to publish what they've created.
- or you disagree with their legal stand and with the legal system and are willing to disobey the law in a civil manner.
--
By the way, I am pro-copyright, it didn't show in my reply to you, did it? I am pro-copyright for a limited amount of time at least, but I am not deluded to think that copyright is a 'preserved right' or that such natural real constructs as 'rights' are actually based in reality and not completely artificial.
You know, it's great that those people, who commit illegal acts because they are commercially driven, are always brought to justice, no matter what their country of origin is.
Of-course there is a small matter of agreeing what exactly it means for something to be 'illegal'. There also should be an exact description of what 'commercially driven' is, after all, if you download something instead of buying a paid version, you are commercially driven - you want to avoid paying money. There is also this small matter that a corporation based in one country, can force changes upon the law of that country, which seems to propagate itself almost magically to all these other countries, this seems odd.
It's great to see that politicians are not commercially driven at all, when they pass laws that somehow seem to benefit commercial entities much more than private individuals. Citizens they used to call them, now they are all consumers, not citizens. Term 'citizen' has an implication that you have obligations and rights at least within your country. Consumers have 'rights' but really it's mostly obligations, and it has nothing to do with countries. The obligations are to the commercial entities - large firms.
It is nice to see that those politicians, who are violating the trust of citizens to act in their best interest, those politicians that are really just fronts for commercial enterprise end up paying dearly for their transgressions. You know - jail sentences, fines...
It is nice to see that commercial enterprise and their leaders are always brought to justice when they are found in breach of any laws, especially when the breach is 'commercially driven'.
It is nice that governments don't start commercially driven wars and that if they do, they end up in jail.
It is nice that governments don't take bribes and don't change the rules, so that large commercial structures benefit and private citizens suffer. Like the US federal reserve that was created by government officials so that private commercial enterprises would benefit so much (the JP Morgan, the John D Rockefeller, who then can take cheap loans at lowered interest rates and which eventually lead to the current economic disaster after the monopolies built with these cheap money destroyed the small business and moved to the cheaper manufacturing lands), it is nice that Nelson Aldrich was found guilty of conspiring against the citizens of the US and was sent to jail for his role in devaluing the US currency.
It is nice that people responsible for profitable wars in Vietnam, African countries, Middle East, Asia, South and Central America, that all those people paid heavy prices for their crimes........
Wait, wait, are you telling me that all these things didn't really happen? So what is happening here then?
Note that this basic lesson is true on all incarnations of Mac OS X, Windows, Linux or any other network enabled operating system you can download pirated software for.
- actually this brought up an interesting point. There is much less software that can be pirated for GNU/Linux systems than for MS Windows / Apple Mac systems. In the world of Free (as in GPLed and compatible) software, pirating must be less of a practical problem than for closed source systems. Of-course this does not prevent rogue players in the Free software world, but even in this case, mitigation is much simpler once the problem is identified.
the moderators are so out for lunch on the parent post... The software that was installed by the users on Macs here didn't even have a 'virus'. Virus is something that will propagate itself from file to file, will inject itself into memory, into executable files, what we have here is a one off modification to the downloaded software, which did 2 things: broke the user protection to prevent get full features out of demo versions of the software AND it was changed to become part of the DoS attack. So in this case the only way to make sure that the software is not affected is not an 'antivirus' program, because if an antivirus simply compared the original hash or even the entire byte signature of the installed software to the official release, it would have marked the file as corrupt (possibly infected). But this is the point - the file is corrupt and the user knows it. The file is corrupt to brake usage protection of the demo.
Antivirus would be of no use to these particular Mac users, they already know they have something illegitimate on their machines, they just didn't know it had a few more 'features'.
'stupid troll' - now, that's something I can agree with you on, except it doesn't apply to me, it is your moniker.
Is it document you want, what kind of document should it be? Certainly it couldn't be an audio-tape, like at the Watergate, the tapes didn't exist yet. Nelson W. Aldrich, who introduced tariffs to 'protect' US factories from foreign imports. The guy, whose closest ally and 'business partner' in railroad stock was JP Morgan. The guy whose daughter married a John Rockefeller, the guy who was most instrumental in pushing through the idea of the federal reserve, to print currency, to set interest rates (at lowered levels obviously), the guy who became rich with 'successful investments' in railroad and banking (as well as some other smaller expensive items, how does a politician get those kinds of money on a government salary exactly?) The guy, whose son became a chairman of Chace National Bank - how very industrious).
It is documentation you want? Is that what they teach you at your schools? Maybe they should teach you to read in between the lines.
I asked someone before and I would like to continue with my questionnaire - I don't mean to be rude, but do you generally lack sense of humor, or was it this particular instance of it that caught you off guard somehow? Do you believe that sense of humor is a prerequisite for survival?
I believe you are wrong in this case though, it's not a Mac that caught a virus, it may or may not be a virus, but it was installed onto the computer by the participating user on purpose. Except the user got a bit more functionality than he 'paid' for.
I don't know whether it is a double standard or what, but I believe that the difference is that once you have a Windows machine compromised at this point you may just as well reformat the entire thing.
Here users installed software that does something illicit, users were tricked into installing the software, but the trick was social, not technical.
This is not an Active X that became part of the OS because a user visited a cracked web-page. This is a user downloading and installing an application that does a bunch of unadvertised stuff.
Of-course IF the user is running with Admin privileges, then he also might as well reinstall the OS, at this point all bets are off. To me the difference is that user installed something himself, he was not under impression that there was no installation - there was an installation with full user participation.
- you are quite unfamiliar with the history of your own country, it's owners have done wonders making sure that the history classes are replaced with MTV and American Idol. If the name Nelson W. Aldrich does not ring a bell, then I can't help you.
My suggestion is that the real culprits in the financial destruction of the US is its own government and that the private sector only has a role as far as the bribing goes. Sure, sure, bankers are bastards and will always try and game the system, but the problem is that the system can be gamed simply by corrupting the people elected to uphold it.
I would shoot politicians if they were shown to be corrupt because they are causing the devaluation of the hard work of the citizens of the country (hard work is evaluated in currency of the state) but how you force accountability upon your politicians is your business. In the mean time they will make sure that history is no longer something people care to learn about - bread and circuses to the uneducated, that's how they stay in power.
one of my properties is a condo. If the condo was ran by the corporation the same way the US government runs treats its economy two things would happen: the condo corporation would go bankrupt and the building would be shut down due to lack of maintenance and a number of lawsuits would start against the board.
So what's the US people's excuse for not taking care of their own house before the US government burns it down?
I am happy I don't live in the US, but can you explain how is it a good thing not to pay attention to the real cost of these so called services and also if someone doesn't want to use some of these 'services' but is forced to pay for them, should (s)he then care about the cost?
Just had a lunch in Zurich at Movenpick today. The VAT was explicitly printed on the bill, so it was clear how much of the price the tax was. However when I ordered the salad and coffee the prices on the menu were final.
You firmly believe your government is out there helping you right now?:) You believe it was helping you, when it took bribes from JP Morgan and the Rockefellers to set up the federal reserve to loan large sums of money to this corporations at artificially lowered interest rates so that they could have an unfair monopolistic advantage against small business and private individuals?:)
Don't 'fix' what I say: government must be forced to be accountable, that is the root of the evil - unaccountable government that runs policies that are profitable to big money and that spit on the private citizens who have elected them. I don't really much care what happens to the USA, as far as I am concerned it's economics is destroyed, the dollar is devalued and its government is cornering the country into bankruptcy, I only don't want to see it start more wars the same way, that many other countries did (and wink, wink, a couple of huge ones that just happened under very similar circumstances in the beginning and middle of the last century).
Keep your government, keep your corporations, you deserve them all.
The PIN keyspace is so small (10000 possibility) that hashing it or doing nothing is nearly the same. You can hash all the 10000 possibility and then do a reverse lookup.
there shouldn't be a need to decrypt PIN if a correct hash function is used
- isn't this what I wrote?
Shouldn't there be extra salt added at some point to the PIN before final hash is created?
In any case, I said 'correct hash function'. I don't mean to solve this problem for the banks for free right now, if they want to, they can contact me, then I'll deal with it, wouldn't be the first time.
According to the payment-card industry, or PCI, standards for credit card transaction security, PIN numbers are supposed to be encrypted in transit, which should theoretically protect them if someone intercepts the data. The problem, however, is that a PIN must pass through multiple HSMs (hardware security module) across multiple bank networks en route to the customer's bank. These HSMs are configured and managed differently, some by contractors not directly related to the bank. At every switching point, the PIN must be decrypted, then re-encrypted with the proper key for the next leg in its journey, which is itself encrypted under a master key that is generally stored in the module or in the module's application programming interface, or API.
"Essentially, the thief tricks the HSM into providing the encryption key," says Sartin. "This is possible due to poor configuration of the HSM or vulnerabilities created from having bloated functions on the device."
Sartin says HSMs need to be able to serve many types of customers in many countries where processing standards may be different from the U.S. As a result, the devices come with enabled functions that aren't needed and can be exploited by an intruder into working to defeat the device's security measures. Once a thief captures and decrypts one PIN block, it becomes trivial to decrypt others on a network.
- seems that one part of a problem is the requirement itself to decrypt/re-encrypt PINs in every HSM.
Other kinds of attacks occur against PINs after they arrive at the card-issuing bank Once encrypted PINs arrive at the HSM at the issuing bank, the HSM communicates with the bank's mainframe system to decrypt the PIN and the customer's 16-digit account number for a brief period to authorize the transaction.
During that period, the data is briefly held in the system's memory in unencrypted form.
Sartin says some attackers have created malware that scrapes the memory to capture the data.
- this is another problem in itself, there shouldn't be a need to decrypt PIN if a correct hash function is used, compare the hash instead, this way PINs don't need to be unencrypted anywhere.
--
This shows that some banking systems are outdated when it comes to security. Another problem that is identified is that there are too many ways for thieves to access and install unauthorized software on these systems.
"Memory scrapers are in as much as a third of all cases we're seeing, or utilities that scrape data from unallocated space," Sartin says. "This is a huge vulnerability."
He says the stolen data is often stored in a file right on the hacked system.
"These victims don't see it," Sartin says. "They rely almost purely on anti-virus to detect things that show up on systems that aren't supposed to be there. But they're not looking for a 30-gig file growing on a system."
- it is not clear what exactly types of systems are mentioned here? If it's the mainframe, where unencoded PINs are compared, then what anti-virus is he talking about? So it's not mainframes, then what, the HMS? Why should a virus be able to cross from a machine that can be affected by a virus to such a device?
Does anyone here know whether these so called 'HMS' machines are in actuality windows 95 boxes connected to the web or something?
Seriously though, the banks need to retrofit.
Also it seems that holding money in a bank is becoming quite troublesome.
I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.
- and he should, government is the culprit of these problems in the first place.
No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation.
- exactly. Only it is the regulation that is supposed to be applied to the government officials in the first place that is too relaxed. If a government official is found accepting bribes, pushing any corporate propaganda ahead of the society who have elected him, this official must be dismissed and criminal charges must be applied (I personally would prefer capital punishment for more serious offenses at this level, like allowing private interests to manipulate the society by setting up private systems like the federal reserve, that undermines the currency and economy of the country to benefit the large monopolies.)
If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided.
- if government officials were shot for getting in bed with private money and destroying economy of the country and their work was undone (for example federal reserve shut down) then this entire economic fiasco could have been avoided.
If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem
- if banks were not regulated by corrupt government for their own profit/insured against moral hazard/money wasn't lent to them at costs much less than the market costs, they would always be requiring real collateral before loaning any money to anyone.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government accountability first.
Right. And would you like to provide an example of a purely capitalist society that has survived without subsidies and regulations?
Like it or not, you have to have rules to keep greed in check.
- except it's the wrong people that are targeted to be held in check.
Government officials who set up policies profitable for those, who have funds to buy off these officials, these are the people who destroy capitalism every time.
Keep the government officials in check - if one is bribed and it is discovered, shoot him/her in the head. That will help society much more than anything else.
Capitalism is not allowing any government intervention into the economics.
This means no federal reserve, which is setup by the richest who buy off government officials so that their corporations can have preferential treatment by getting extremely cheap loans. These corporations become monopolies and kill off small business. Obviously later on it is much more cost effective for the large monopolies to shift their manufacturing offshore where work-force is cheaper, something small business wouldn't be able to do. At this point economy of the country is fucked.
Where is capitalism in all of it? It never had a chance. Capitalism would start with people demanding that government officials are not allowed to be bribed and those who are caught pay severely ( I don't mind shooting a few myself.)
the student uses multiple names to log on to his computer;
- clearly a terrorist.
and the student uses two different operating systems, including one that is not the "regular B.C. operating system" but instead has "a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on."
Slashdot Mirror
an embryo becomes a human when it stops just asking questions but starts meaningfully answering them. ... ;)
for a Jewish mother though, an embryo becomes a human when it gets gets degree in law or medicine
Well, these guys have a nuclear bunker for a data-center, they probably think that even if the government comes and attacks them, they can just ride it out inside. They'll probably survive even if US decides to blast them with a nuke (I wonder what the rest of the world would think of the USA if that happened though - US blasting an entrance into a datacenter with a thermo-nuclear weapon in a populated Swedish area. Oh well, just pretend there are WMDs in there and anything would go...
No, I'm saying that if you don't like the artist, that you're being an intellectually dishonest, ethically twisted hypocrite for copying the work regardless.
- if one doesn't like the artist, but enjoys the art, but doesn't agree with the law of copyright and decides to get something free instead of paying to a legal distributor, well, it makes this person cheap and thieving, sure, but it doesn't go against the laws of nature (trying to maximize profit while minimizing energy spending). It just makes perfect sense from reality and nature point of view. Makes the person a survivor who is more likely to make it in nature than someone, who has 'principals' based on artificial ideals and morals. Of-course sometimes morals are expected by society and those, not following these morals will be punished, so it will only make sense from point of view of evolution to be this cheap thieving surviving son of nature if you don't get caught by the punishing society.
Moral of the story? Do what is least energetically demanding. So if it takes less energy to be a thief, do that, otherwise don't.
By the way, I am for copyright personally.
299 years is extremely recent compared with about 5 million years of human evolution.
oh, just follow my /. comments, if you are truly a fan and not being sarcastic, then I am sure I will not disappoint you ;) If you are on the other hand being sarcastic and are enjoying making various stark remarks, I will try not to disappoint you either with my timely replies.
it's the rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved.
- this is not true at all.
There is no such thing as a 'right' that can be preserved at all. You think you have a 'right' to live, but a group of hyenas will kill and eat you and nature will not step in with a moral objection.
The concept of 'right' is completely artificial from beginning to the end. Thus 'rights' cannot be preserved, they only can be established by a group of people who decide what these 'rights' actually are. Also these 'rights' are only as meaningful as the force that protects them from those, who don't care at all about your artificial constructs.
So no, there is no preserved 'right' of an author to anything. There are only facts and artificial constructs. Fact: an author creates some work (maybe very original, but most likely based on work of untold millions of individuals, but this is not pertinent to the discussion.) So an author creates something. By the mere fact of creation he is obviously a creator of the work. Now the society also says: well, we will recognize that as the originator of the work you have a 'right', a copyright, and this means that within the protection of our legal system you are the only one who can say how this work is to be distributed (if at all, if the author is not distributing his/her work, then this entire exercise is pointless) for a constrained period of time.
So if some other distributor wishes to distribute the work, he must acquire permission from the original author (a paid or a free license, this can be a limited license, this is really a contract between the author and the distributor.)
If you are not a distributor, but an end user, and you have no contract with the original author, really you are in the wrong where the legal system is concerned if you make a copy of the material. However the copyright doesn't have a say as to how the copy can be used. If you happen to find a copy of the material, nothing stops you from reading/using it. You just can't legally distribute it further.
If you don't like the fact that an artist or other creator wants to be in charge of their own work, then just walk away.
- well this, or you can still break the copyright if you do not agree with the legal system. Obviously if the legal system wishes so, it can come after you with legal penalties reserved for just such a case.
You obviously don't like that artist anyway, since you don't respect the decisions they've made about how and when they wish to publish what they've created.
- or you disagree with their legal stand and with the legal system and are willing to disobey the law in a civil manner.
--
By the way, I am pro-copyright, it didn't show in my reply to you, did it? I am pro-copyright for a limited amount of time at least, but I am not deluded to think that copyright is a 'preserved right' or that such natural real constructs as 'rights' are actually based in reality and not completely artificial.
You know, it's great that those people, who commit illegal acts because they are commercially driven, are always brought to justice, no matter what their country of origin is.
Of-course there is a small matter of agreeing what exactly it means for something to be 'illegal'. There also should be an exact description of what 'commercially driven' is, after all, if you download something instead of buying a paid version, you are commercially driven - you want to avoid paying money. There is also this small matter that a corporation based in one country, can force changes upon the law of that country, which seems to propagate itself almost magically to all these other countries, this seems odd.
It's great to see that politicians are not commercially driven at all, when they pass laws that somehow seem to benefit commercial entities much more than private individuals. Citizens they used to call them, now they are all consumers, not citizens. Term 'citizen' has an implication that you have obligations and rights at least within your country. Consumers have 'rights' but really it's mostly obligations, and it has nothing to do with countries. The obligations are to the commercial entities - large firms.
It is nice to see that those politicians, who are violating the trust of citizens to act in their best interest, those politicians that are really just fronts for commercial enterprise end up paying dearly for their transgressions. You know - jail sentences, fines...
It is nice to see that commercial enterprise and their leaders are always brought to justice when they are found in breach of any laws, especially when the breach is 'commercially driven'.
It is nice that governments don't start commercially driven wars and that if they do, they end up in jail.
It is nice that governments don't take bribes and don't change the rules, so that large commercial structures benefit and private citizens suffer. Like the US federal reserve that was created by government officials so that private commercial enterprises would benefit so much (the JP Morgan, the John D Rockefeller, who then can take cheap loans at lowered interest rates and which eventually lead to the current economic disaster after the monopolies built with these cheap money destroyed the small business and moved to the cheaper manufacturing lands), it is nice that Nelson Aldrich was found guilty of conspiring against the citizens of the US and was sent to jail for his role in devaluing the US currency.
It is nice that people responsible for profitable wars in Vietnam, African countries, Middle East, Asia, South and Central America, that all those people paid heavy prices for their crimes. .......
Wait, wait, are you telling me that all these things didn't really happen? So what is happening here then?
Note that this basic lesson is true on all incarnations of Mac OS X, Windows, Linux or any other network enabled operating system you can download pirated software for.
- actually this brought up an interesting point. There is much less software that can be pirated for GNU/Linux systems than for MS Windows / Apple Mac systems. In the world of Free (as in GPLed and compatible) software, pirating must be less of a practical problem than for closed source systems. Of-course this does not prevent rogue players in the Free software world, but even in this case, mitigation is much simpler once the problem is identified.
the moderators are so out for lunch on the parent post... The software that was installed by the users on Macs here didn't even have a 'virus'. Virus is something that will propagate itself from file to file, will inject itself into memory, into executable files, what we have here is a one off modification to the downloaded software, which did 2 things: broke the user protection to prevent get full features out of demo versions of the software AND it was changed to become part of the DoS attack. So in this case the only way to make sure that the software is not affected is not an 'antivirus' program, because if an antivirus simply compared the original hash or even the entire byte signature of the installed software to the official release, it would have marked the file as corrupt (possibly infected). But this is the point - the file is corrupt and the user knows it. The file is corrupt to brake usage protection of the demo.
Antivirus would be of no use to these particular Mac users, they already know they have something illegitimate on their machines, they just didn't know it had a few more 'features'.
'stupid troll' - now, that's something I can agree with you on, except it doesn't apply to me, it is your moniker.
Is it document you want, what kind of document should it be? Certainly it couldn't be an audio-tape, like at the Watergate, the tapes didn't exist yet. Nelson W. Aldrich, who introduced tariffs to 'protect' US factories from foreign imports. The guy, whose closest ally and 'business partner' in railroad stock was JP Morgan. The guy whose daughter married a John Rockefeller, the guy who was most instrumental in pushing through the idea of the federal reserve, to print currency, to set interest rates (at lowered levels obviously), the guy who became rich with 'successful investments' in railroad and banking (as well as some other smaller expensive items, how does a politician get those kinds of money on a government salary exactly?) The guy, whose son became a chairman of Chace National Bank - how very industrious).
It is documentation you want? Is that what they teach you at your schools? Maybe they should teach you to read in between the lines.
But I am just a troll, what do I know.
I asked someone before and I would like to continue with my questionnaire - I don't mean to be rude, but do you generally lack sense of humor, or was it this particular instance of it that caught you off guard somehow? Do you believe that sense of humor is a prerequisite for survival?
I believe you are wrong in this case though, it's not a Mac that caught a virus, it may or may not be a virus, but it was installed onto the computer by the participating user on purpose. Except the user got a bit more functionality than he 'paid' for.
I don't know whether it is a double standard or what, but I believe that the difference is that once you have a Windows machine compromised at this point you may just as well reformat the entire thing.
Here users installed software that does something illicit, users were tricked into installing the software, but the trick was social, not technical.
This is not an Active X that became part of the OS because a user visited a cracked web-page. This is a user downloading and installing an application that does a bunch of unadvertised stuff.
Of-course IF the user is running with Admin privileges, then he also might as well reinstall the OS, at this point all bets are off. To me the difference is that user installed something himself, he was not under impression that there was no installation - there was an installation with full user participation.
What documents do you have to back up this claim?
- you are quite unfamiliar with the history of your own country, it's owners have done wonders making sure that the history classes are replaced with MTV and American Idol. If the name Nelson W. Aldrich does not ring a bell, then I can't help you.
My suggestion is that the real culprits in the financial destruction of the US is its own government and that the private sector only has a role as far as the bribing goes. Sure, sure, bankers are bastards and will always try and game the system, but the problem is that the system can be gamed simply by corrupting the people elected to uphold it.
I would shoot politicians if they were shown to be corrupt because they are causing the devaluation of the hard work of the citizens of the country (hard work is evaluated in currency of the state) but how you force accountability upon your politicians is your business. In the mean time they will make sure that history is no longer something people care to learn about - bread and circuses to the uneducated, that's how they stay in power.
one of my properties is a condo. If the condo was ran by the corporation the same way the US government runs treats its economy two things would happen: the condo corporation would go bankrupt and the building would be shut down due to lack of maintenance and a number of lawsuits would start against the board.
So what's the US people's excuse for not taking care of their own house before the US government burns it down?
I am happy I don't live in the US, but can you explain how is it a good thing not to pay attention to the real cost of these so called services and also if someone doesn't want to use some of these 'services' but is forced to pay for them, should (s)he then care about the cost?
Just had a lunch in Zurich at Movenpick today. The VAT was explicitly printed on the bill, so it was clear how much of the price the tax was. However when I ordered the salad and coffee the prices on the menu were final.
You firmly believe your government is out there helping you right now? :) You believe it was helping you, when it took bribes from JP Morgan and the Rockefellers to set up the federal reserve to loan large sums of money to this corporations at artificially lowered interest rates so that they could have an unfair monopolistic advantage against small business and private individuals? :)
Don't 'fix' what I say: government must be forced to be accountable, that is the root of the evil - unaccountable government that runs policies that are profitable to big money and that spit on the private citizens who have elected them. I don't really much care what happens to the USA, as far as I am concerned it's economics is destroyed, the dollar is devalued and its government is cornering the country into bankruptcy, I only don't want to see it start more wars the same way, that many other countries did (and wink, wink, a couple of huge ones that just happened under very similar circumstances in the beginning and middle of the last century).
Keep your government, keep your corporations, you deserve them all.
The PIN keyspace is so small (10000 possibility) that hashing it or doing nothing is nearly the same. You can hash all the 10000 possibility and then do a reverse lookup.
- I already replied to this here.
These HMS are for the most part Win-NT machines
- aren't these HMSs older than that?
there shouldn't be a need to decrypt PIN if a correct hash function is used
- isn't this what I wrote?
Shouldn't there be extra salt added at some point to the PIN before final hash is created?
In any case, I said 'correct hash function'. I don't mean to solve this problem for the banks for free right now, if they want to, they can contact me, then I'll deal with it, wouldn't be the first time.
According to the payment-card industry, or PCI, standards for credit card transaction security, PIN numbers are supposed to be encrypted in transit, which should theoretically protect them if someone intercepts the data. The problem, however, is that a PIN must pass through multiple HSMs (hardware security module) across multiple bank networks en route to the customer's bank. These HSMs are configured and managed differently, some by contractors not directly related to the bank. At every switching point, the PIN must be decrypted, then re-encrypted with the proper key for the next leg in its journey, which is itself encrypted under a master key that is generally stored in the module or in the module's application programming interface, or API.
"Essentially, the thief tricks the HSM into providing the encryption key," says Sartin. "This is possible due to poor configuration of the HSM or vulnerabilities created from having bloated functions on the device."
Sartin says HSMs need to be able to serve many types of customers in many countries where processing standards may be different from the U.S. As a result, the devices come with enabled functions that aren't needed and can be exploited by an intruder into working to defeat the device's security measures. Once a thief captures and decrypts one PIN block, it becomes trivial to decrypt others on a network.
- seems that one part of a problem is the requirement itself to decrypt/re-encrypt PINs in every HSM.
Other kinds of attacks occur against PINs after they arrive at the card-issuing bank Once encrypted PINs arrive at the HSM at the issuing bank, the HSM communicates with the bank's mainframe system to decrypt the PIN and the customer's 16-digit account number for a brief period to authorize the transaction.
During that period, the data is briefly held in the system's memory in unencrypted form.
Sartin says some attackers have created malware that scrapes the memory to capture the data.
- this is another problem in itself, there shouldn't be a need to decrypt PIN if a correct hash function is used, compare the hash instead, this way PINs don't need to be unencrypted anywhere.
--
This shows that some banking systems are outdated when it comes to security. Another problem that is identified is that there are too many ways for thieves to access and install unauthorized software on these systems.
"Memory scrapers are in as much as a third of all cases we're seeing, or utilities that scrape data from unallocated space," Sartin says. "This is a huge vulnerability."
He says the stolen data is often stored in a file right on the hacked system.
"These victims don't see it," Sartin says. "They rely almost purely on anti-virus to detect things that show up on systems that aren't supposed to be there. But they're not looking for a 30-gig file growing on a system."
- it is not clear what exactly types of systems are mentioned here? If it's the mainframe, where unencoded PINs are compared, then what anti-virus is he talking about? So it's not mainframes, then what, the HMS? Why should a virus be able to cross from a machine that can be affected by a virus to such a device?
Does anyone here know whether these so called 'HMS' machines are in actuality windows 95 boxes connected to the web or something?
Seriously though, the banks need to retrofit.
Also it seems that holding money in a bank is becoming quite troublesome.
I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.
- and he should, government is the culprit of these problems in the first place.
No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation.
- exactly. Only it is the regulation that is supposed to be applied to the government officials in the first place that is too relaxed. If a government official is found accepting bribes, pushing any corporate propaganda ahead of the society who have elected him, this official must be dismissed and criminal charges must be applied (I personally would prefer capital punishment for more serious offenses at this level, like allowing private interests to manipulate the society by setting up private systems like the federal reserve, that undermines the currency and economy of the country to benefit the large monopolies.)
If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided.
- if government officials were shot for getting in bed with private money and destroying economy of the country and their work was undone (for example federal reserve shut down) then this entire economic fiasco could have been avoided.
If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem
- if banks were not regulated by corrupt government for their own profit/insured against moral hazard/money wasn't lent to them at costs much less than the market costs, they would always be requiring real collateral before loaning any money to anyone.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government accountability first.
Right. And would you like to provide an example of a purely capitalist society that has survived without subsidies and regulations?
Like it or not, you have to have rules to keep greed in check.
- except it's the wrong people that are targeted to be held in check.
Government officials who set up policies profitable for those, who have funds to buy off these officials, these are the people who destroy capitalism every time.
Keep the government officials in check - if one is bribed and it is discovered, shoot him/her in the head. That will help society much more than anything else.
Capitalism is not allowing any government intervention into the economics.
This means no federal reserve, which is setup by the richest who buy off government officials so that their corporations can have preferential treatment by getting extremely cheap loans. These corporations become monopolies and kill off small business. Obviously later on it is much more cost effective for the large monopolies to shift their manufacturing offshore where work-force is cheaper, something small business wouldn't be able to do. At this point economy of the country is fucked.
Where is capitalism in all of it? It never had a chance. Capitalism would start with people demanding that government officials are not allowed to be bribed and those who are caught pay severely ( I don't mind shooting a few myself.)
the student uses multiple names to log on to his computer;
- clearly a terrorist.
and the student uses two different operating systems, including one that is not the "regular B.C. operating system" but instead has "a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on."
- DOS?