Having been through a TrustWave audit, I have to agree.
Although the TrustWave person did manage to crack the systems using publicly available exploits and such. It was very much a "checklist compliance" process.
Management, as always, will take the advice of someone they just paid thousands of dollars when the exact same advice from the techs has been denied over and over.
The way I see it is that someone with a personal belief will try to get a measure of authority by earning a degree in a related field of science.
Remember that getting a degree does NOT mean that you agree with the material. Only that you have mastered the material.
Then they write books about their beliefs and make sure that their degree(s) are included in their author bio.
Maybe they'll find a job with some real research firm or something. But that is a bit difficult after their first book is published and anyone looks up their name on Google.
... I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues.
That makes sense because you already share the same beliefs as your "religious colleagues". So why would the "personal beliefs" be "offensive" to you?
Since you do not share the same beliefs as the "atheists" then their beliefs are more "offensive" to you when they interject them.
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage.
Are they being an asshole about it? Because those don't seem like work-related subjects.
Would that be offensive as well?
You don't seem to be understanding the situation.
It isn't the nature of the beliefs.
It is the asshole pushing them in an asshole'ish fashion and INSISTING that his "freedom" is more important than anyone else's freedom to NOT have his religious beliefs inflicted upon them AT WORK.
A bullet travels faster than sound. The question was whether we could have manned flight faster than the speed of sound. Not whether we could break it.
As far as we know, nothing travels faster than light.
The problem is that most people get their "information" from TV shows and movies that have a limited special effects budget. And a need to be exciting enough to keep the audience interested.
Any form of energy that you put out will be detectable by your opponents at ranges that give them minutes or hours or days or years of reaction time. There's no surprise there.
If you attempt to screen your energy output then you need perfect knowledge of the exact location of ALL of the the enemy sensors.
So you send out decoys. But that means that you're really building additional drives exactly like your drive. And the enemy will detect them with minutes or hours or days or years to prepare. So why not just put weapons on them and use them as part of your fleet?
And if this ever takes off you know that it will become a game of trying to submit/vote the most inappropriate responses to the questions. A never ending battle between the censors forbidding words and phrases and the people finding new ones.
ok so i guess we never should have done any research on tobacco than, everyone would still be smoking 2 packs a day, all because you want to not do research?
Yeah, reading with comprehension isn't your forte, is it?
The research on global warming has been done. New evidence pops up every year.
The same with research on tobacco and cancer. New cancer cases amongst smokers were popping up every year.
But let's not start doing anything to mitigate it because groups with vested interests in NOT finding a link could be doing MORE research. And still not finding any link.
It's much safer to try and make the incumbent look bad than to try and convince others that his own policies are any better.
How is it "safer?
The only votes you'll earn that way is from people voting AGAINST the other guy. And you were going to get those votes anyway.
So Romney is spending time and money chasing votes that he's already going to get. Hoping that he won't say anything that will make anyone in that segment skip voting (because they aren't going to vote for the other guy anyway).
Meanwhile, Obama can drum up positive news about his accomplishments whenever he wants to. Just by doing something that plays well in the media.
I think that this "safe" approach will mean Romney loses the election.
However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue â" on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk â" and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.
So... more "research" instead of doing anything?
But at least we know that we don't need more "research" to know that Obama is the problem:
Nowhere along the way has the President indicated what actual results his approach would achieve â" and with good reason.
Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.
The problem is that detecting infected computers invariably requires some level of privacy intrusion, and possibly committing numerous felonies to probe the machine.
That depends upon what the infection is.
In many cases, the infection is a worm that attempts to connect to other machines on known ports with known connection strings. This is how network-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) work.
Fewer MBAs, more engineers. You're supposed to be a tech company. Where are the tech advances? Where's the engineering? Why are your products almost indistinguishable from Dell's?
If you are an enterprise IT manager this is your dream come true.
Hardly. At the enterprise level there are multiple different ways of handling situations such as this. Which one(s) you choose depends upon how you've organized Active Directory and your network.
But a different point is that this is an OLD way of phishing. The phisher is publishing the IP addresses that need to be blocked. So, again, at the enterprise level this kind of phishing would not be an issue.
If a phisher really needed to redirect traffic like that he'd have an easier time just getting the information in the local machine's DNS cache. That way it would never show up in the hosts file which means that it would be that much harder to spot. Then just keep updating the DNS cache.
So this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem and it is implemented in the wrong way. And it will probably cause more issues in the future as 3rd party developers have to work around not having the hosts file as a reliable option any more.
Nice way to remove a useful tool that's been around for decades.
This seems like a very ineffective way of solving that problem, but at least it doesnâ(TM)t look like there is some evil malicious intent..
Considering that one of the sites they are unblocking is ad.doubleclick.net (which is often blocked because the user wants it blocked) then Microsoft is taking away an option from the user.
What will be interesting will be when someone compiles a list of the sites that will be unblocked... and finds how many BANKS will still be subject to phishing like this... but ad.doubleclick.net will be protected.
This is a stupid move by Microsoft done in a stupid fashion.
Hardly. We are not managing the economy very well at the moment but that is very different from "broke".
Eventually a welfare state drives out all other spending.
Nice use of a "dog whistle". What, exactly, is a "welfare state"?
Don't even talk about raising taxes, won't do anything for the deficit.
Actually, done correctly, it will do a LOT for the deficit.
And, done correctly, it will do a lot to get manufacturing jobs back in this country.
Which will do a lot to get the middle class growing again.
Which will further help with the deficit and the economy.
If you want to be a socialist and talk about 'economic justice' and crap like that, go ahead; just don't delude yourself into thinking it is going to raise any actual net revenue.
I think you've just revealed the limitations of your position. You use the word "socialist" and you don't know what it means.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why. "APT" really means "whatever we did not defend against".
If your defenses worked, it was not an APT.
If your defenses failed (or did not exist), it is okay because it was an APT.
100% marketing.
Having been through a TrustWave audit, I have to agree.
Although the TrustWave person did manage to crack the systems using publicly available exploits and such. It was very much a "checklist compliance" process.
Management, as always, will take the advice of someone they just paid thousands of dollars when the exact same advice from the techs has been denied over and over.
The only thing I could do was to log all the traffic to/from those boxes and save it in case anything happened in the future.
I blame whomever negotiated those contracts. There is no reason why those machines cannot be firewalled at the very least.
Then you'll see a huge difference.
The way I see it is that someone with a personal belief will try to get a measure of authority by earning a degree in a related field of science.
Remember that getting a degree does NOT mean that you agree with the material. Only that you have mastered the material.
Then they write books about their beliefs and make sure that their degree(s) are included in their author bio.
Maybe they'll find a job with some real research firm or something. But that is a bit difficult after their first book is published and anyone looks up their name on Google.
That makes sense because you already share the same beliefs as your "religious colleagues". So why would the "personal beliefs" be "offensive" to you?
Since you do not share the same beliefs as the "atheists" then their beliefs are more "offensive" to you when they interject them.
Are they being an asshole about it? Because those don't seem like work-related subjects.
You don't seem to be understanding the situation.
It isn't the nature of the beliefs.
It is the asshole pushing them in an asshole'ish fashion and INSISTING that his "freedom" is more important than anyone else's freedom to NOT have his religious beliefs inflicted upon them AT WORK.
A bullet travels faster than sound.
The question was whether we could have manned flight faster than the speed of sound. Not whether we could break it.
As far as we know, nothing travels faster than light.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth
The problem is that most people get their "information" from TV shows and movies that have a limited special effects budget. And a need to be exciting enough to keep the audience interested.
Any form of energy that you put out will be detectable by your opponents at ranges that give them minutes or hours or days or years of reaction time. There's no surprise there.
If you attempt to screen your energy output then you need perfect knowledge of the exact location of ALL of the the enemy sensors.
So you send out decoys. But that means that you're really building additional drives exactly like your drive. And the enemy will detect them with minutes or hours or days or years to prepare. So why not just put weapons on them and use them as part of your fleet?
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php
Space is 3 dimensional.
Space is FUCKING HUGE!
There is no stealth in space.
There are no quick course changes in space.
The trick to "multi-tasking" is to break the various tasks down into sub-tasks that can be completed in the time between interruptions.
The human brain is NOT good at focusing on two or more conscious tasks.
IGOR! I need a new brain for the robot!
The iPad is GREAT for CONSUMING content.
It suck for GENERATING content.
So anyone with an iPad has more status than anyone who does their work on a laptop (which has more status than someone with a desktop).
And they get to watch movies and stuff on it at home.
And if this ever takes off you know that it will become a game of trying to submit/vote the most inappropriate responses to the questions. A never ending battle between the censors forbidding words and phrases and the people finding new ones.
Yeah, reading with comprehension isn't your forte, is it?
The research on global warming has been done.
New evidence pops up every year.
The same with research on tobacco and cancer.
New cancer cases amongst smokers were popping up every year.
But let's not start doing anything to mitigate it because groups with vested interests in NOT finding a link could be doing MORE research. And still not finding any link.
Really? How many years of "research" did the tobacco companies fund to "research" if there was any correlation between smoking and cancer.
And always the results came back "inconclusive".
How is it "safer?
The only votes you'll earn that way is from people voting AGAINST the other guy. And you were going to get those votes anyway.
So Romney is spending time and money chasing votes that he's already going to get. Hoping that he won't say anything that will make anyone in that segment skip voting (because they aren't going to vote for the other guy anyway).
Meanwhile, Obama can drum up positive news about his accomplishments whenever he wants to. Just by doing something that plays well in the media.
I think that this "safe" approach will mean Romney loses the election.
From Romney:
So ... more "research" instead of doing anything?
But at least we know that we don't need more "research" to know that Obama is the problem:
Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.
That depends upon what the infection is.
In many cases, the infection is a worm that attempts to connect to other machines on known ports with known connection strings. This is how network-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) work.
In this example, they're saying that detecting the "body parts" would be too difficult because they'd be legit apps. And they're correct.
So the idea would be to look for the "Frankenstein" code which uses those "body parts". Because THAT is the malware code.
So I'm not seeing where the problem is.
Just because it is a bit buried in TFA.
Fewer MBAs, more engineers.
You're supposed to be a tech company. Where are the tech advances? Where's the engineering? Why are your products almost indistinguishable from Dell's?
Hardly. At the enterprise level there are multiple different ways of handling situations such as this. Which one(s) you choose depends upon how you've organized Active Directory and your network.
But a different point is that this is an OLD way of phishing. The phisher is publishing the IP addresses that need to be blocked. So, again, at the enterprise level this kind of phishing would not be an issue.
If a phisher really needed to redirect traffic like that he'd have an easier time just getting the information in the local machine's DNS cache. That way it would never show up in the hosts file which means that it would be that much harder to spot. Then just keep updating the DNS cache.
So this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem and it is implemented in the wrong way. And it will probably cause more issues in the future as 3rd party developers have to work around not having the hosts file as a reliable option any more.
Nice way to remove a useful tool that's been around for decades.
Considering that one of the sites they are unblocking is ad.doubleclick.net (which is often blocked because the user wants it blocked) then Microsoft is taking away an option from the user.
What will be interesting will be when someone compiles a list of the sites that will be unblocked ... and finds how many BANKS will still be subject to phishing like this ... but ad.doubleclick.net will be protected.
This is a stupid move by Microsoft done in a stupid fashion.
Hardly. We are not managing the economy very well at the moment but that is very different from "broke".
Nice use of a "dog whistle".
What, exactly, is a "welfare state"?
Actually, done correctly, it will do a LOT for the deficit.
And, done correctly, it will do a lot to get manufacturing jobs back in this country.
Which will do a lot to get the middle class growing again.
Which will further help with the deficit and the economy.
I think you've just revealed the limitations of your position. You use the word "socialist" and you don't know what it means.
Hire me. Just pay me 10% more than the rest of your team combined but I will deliver the code you need within 24 hours.
And I only have 2 requirements.
1. It does not have to work.
2. I do not have to maintain it.
WRITING code is easy.