From what I gather here, a user will have just enough time to get an ad delivered to them before the limo or eventual taxi moves away. The only way this would be feasible if there was some serious mesh network technology being used and a wireless client can hop transparently from limo to limo without interruption. 20000 eventual vehicles allows for some optimism, but that many transmitters introduces problems of its own. And the claimed 400 feet range is absurd and often difficult to achieve in even near-optimal conditions. Interference due to concrete buildings and other wireless clients and routers, and the general crappiness of wireless connectivity on many mobile computers (especially when power saving is enabled for battery use) lead me to believe this is just going to flop.
Morally? I agree you shouldn't be able to. Legally? Pretty sure you can collect a DNA sample from anything that has been discarded or anywhere that you're not illegally intruding.
Because people pursue things which hold interest to them.
Scenario 1: Obama shows leniency; McKinnon admits guilt and Obama pardons him. That shows weakness and would be ample fodder for his detractors.
Secnario 2: Obama gets up in arms about it and pursues extradition. It makes him look anti-British.
It's on the UK to fight extradition using whatever weapons are at their disposal, be it political capital or UK procedures of extradition. McKinnon's case couldn't really be more inconsequential to high-up US authorities.
Finding blank passwords doesn't exactly qualify one as 'skilled'. Though it doesn't really qualify him as a threat, either. I hope if he is extradited that he'll be returned to the UK to serve out a relatively light sentence, preferably something akin to probation.
I'm actually a CU-Boulder student and had a class with Han last semester. He's a great prof and really cares about the students' understanding. I was surprised to see that he put out research on something so common-knowledge; "Oh once you have a picture of someone you can look for another picture that looks like it and you know you've found your target". He's more of an operating systems/networking kind of guy. This just seems like fluff research to keep the department chair happy while he actually does his teaching and "real" research. Academia has this tendency to prioritize quality over quantity, and I think this provides an example of the pressures even good profs feel from the top re: publishing.
In contrasting this with the president's ability to declare a cyber attack and disable internet access in the United States, I'd say this seems like a reasoned approach that would hopefully be considered an alternative to the former where applicable.
My only real concern is that of privacy. How exactly do they go about telling you're a zombie? Well written malware isn't exactly going to advertise infection, and even hosts which may be participating in a denial of service attack can't definitively be proven to be infected unless they're obvious (like sending a TCP packet with an invalid combination of flags, for instance). Scarier would be using the 'zombie' excuse to monitor net traffic on a connection for 'investigative' purposes. So it may just turn out pointless or it may be a ruse for a different kind of control. Anyone have any articles as to the effects of this or some cases where it was actually used in AU?
Ah, I was talking in general. I don't think most VPN daemons would accept and transmit as expected an IP packet addressed from an incorrectly sourced IP, probably due to no entry in the ARP table and (from pure gut feeling) other reasons I might be unfamiliar with.
I think persistently sending a file over SSL over Tor to wikileaks might be somewhat suspicious to a malicious man in the middle listening for as much. Hiding who one is talking to is still as important as hiding what is said.
Definitely an interesting thought, though with a MITM attacker (presumably the person one is using Tor/VPN/whathaveyou to hide from) it would be pretty obvious that one isn't actually establishing true communication, as the TCP sequence numbers et al wouldn't make any sense, and the remote machine wouldn't be sending back any data packets. With UDP it might be less obvious, though it would be clear one is only sending and not receiving.
The Tor nodes themselves are actually quite identified, as you can see by the hostnames/IP's of the nodes themselves. The clients are the ones who are anonymous, as is intended.
Good point, anyone can host a Tor node, and I'm sure we can bet the bad guys are hosting just as many or more than the good guys. Web of trust for Tor, anyone?
MAC address sure, since your device's MAC address isn't used after your packets reach the ISP's border. However, I invite you to try to establish a full duplex connection using a spoofed IP. Sure, you can send packets using a spoofed IP provided your ISP allows you to send packets for IP's which they don't announce, but you're not getting the response to that packet back. This is actually the basis for DDoS reflection attacks.
I seriously doubt any reasonable level of donations will ever allow the Tor network to add the kind of capacity required to torrent. I think it has many more important needs than that anyway.
The zombies at the IT department's brains. And then the servers became self aware, and destroyed the news article in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the zombie apocalypse. Really not a good day for humanity so far.
Don't really know why someone modded you flamebait; you're completely right. It's like investigating someone for overhearing a conversation in public and remembering what the parties to the conversation said later on.
My guess is that it's not like Windows users would ever want to compile something manually when there's an installer out there for it, and the perpetrators probably didn't feel like going through all the effort to build the backdoored version for Windows when no one in their right mind hosts an IRCD on a Windows machine.
How's charging a reasonably low price for a phone call or two to resolve the issue with a support person who is knowledgeable as well as able to effect change? Say, charge someone's card $10 and then initiate the support call, and if they are found out to have been an erroneous ban, refund the $10. Keeps the spammers from appealing in a massive manner, while allowing the one-off mistakes relief.
I've always felt that it's in the best interest of entities like Google to add some sort of official, all-service-reaching appeals process to rectify erroneous enforcement actions, or at least give an answer as to how customers broke the Terms of Use so that they can correct such behavior in the future. Being that Google is so huge and that many people's livelihoods depend on it, even if many of these critical services are free, it's in their best interest, and having a department that makes getting the ear of such a huge entity straightforward would really increase customer loyalty as well as reduce apprehension of arbitrary lock-outs.
Hey, no need for your introduction paragraph or the "Sorry". People love facts/corrections with merit on/., even if sometimes they're hard to come by (especially in such topics). Next time head off bad comments such as mine at the pass and post your own rendition (and not as an AC so people will actually see it). It's not about who can prove who wrong or who has the best point by point argument.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I gather here, a user will have just enough time to get an ad delivered to them before the limo or eventual taxi moves away. The only way this would be feasible if there was some serious mesh network technology being used and a wireless client can hop transparently from limo to limo without interruption. 20000 eventual vehicles allows for some optimism, but that many transmitters introduces problems of its own. And the claimed 400 feet range is absurd and often difficult to achieve in even near-optimal conditions. Interference due to concrete buildings and other wireless clients and routers, and the general crappiness of wireless connectivity on many mobile computers (especially when power saving is enabled for battery use) lead me to believe this is just going to flop.
I too am curious.
Morally? I agree you shouldn't be able to. Legally? Pretty sure you can collect a DNA sample from anything that has been discarded or anywhere that you're not illegally intruding.
Because people pursue things which hold interest to them.
Scenario 1: Obama shows leniency; McKinnon admits guilt and Obama pardons him. That shows weakness and would be ample fodder for his detractors.
Secnario 2: Obama gets up in arms about it and pursues extradition. It makes him look anti-British.
It's on the UK to fight extradition using whatever weapons are at their disposal, be it political capital or UK procedures of extradition. McKinnon's case couldn't really be more inconsequential to high-up US authorities.
Finding blank passwords doesn't exactly qualify one as 'skilled'. Though it doesn't really qualify him as a threat, either. I hope if he is extradited that he'll be returned to the UK to serve out a relatively light sentence, preferably something akin to probation.
Well, according to Kevin, BP is screwed.
Now what's really going to get you later on is, would people have made Matrix jokes if you hadn't said anything?
I'm actually a CU-Boulder student and had a class with Han last semester. He's a great prof and really cares about the students' understanding. I was surprised to see that he put out research on something so common-knowledge; "Oh once you have a picture of someone you can look for another picture that looks like it and you know you've found your target". He's more of an operating systems/networking kind of guy. This just seems like fluff research to keep the department chair happy while he actually does his teaching and "real" research. Academia has this tendency to prioritize quality over quantity, and I think this provides an example of the pressures even good profs feel from the top re: publishing.
In contrasting this with the president's ability to declare a cyber attack and disable internet access in the United States, I'd say this seems like a reasoned approach that would hopefully be considered an alternative to the former where applicable.
My only real concern is that of privacy. How exactly do they go about telling you're a zombie? Well written malware isn't exactly going to advertise infection, and even hosts which may be participating in a denial of service attack can't definitively be proven to be infected unless they're obvious (like sending a TCP packet with an invalid combination of flags, for instance). Scarier would be using the 'zombie' excuse to monitor net traffic on a connection for 'investigative' purposes. So it may just turn out pointless or it may be a ruse for a different kind of control. Anyone have any articles as to the effects of this or some cases where it was actually used in AU?
Providing the signature would probably be helpful too ;)
Ah, I was talking in general. I don't think most VPN daemons would accept and transmit as expected an IP packet addressed from an incorrectly sourced IP, probably due to no entry in the ARP table and (from pure gut feeling) other reasons I might be unfamiliar with.
I think persistently sending a file over SSL over Tor to wikileaks might be somewhat suspicious to a malicious man in the middle listening for as much. Hiding who one is talking to is still as important as hiding what is said.
Definitely an interesting thought, though with a MITM attacker (presumably the person one is using Tor/VPN/whathaveyou to hide from) it would be pretty obvious that one isn't actually establishing true communication, as the TCP sequence numbers et al wouldn't make any sense, and the remote machine wouldn't be sending back any data packets. With UDP it might be less obvious, though it would be clear one is only sending and not receiving.
The Tor nodes themselves are actually quite identified, as you can see by the hostnames/IP's of the nodes themselves. The clients are the ones who are anonymous, as is intended.
Good point, anyone can host a Tor node, and I'm sure we can bet the bad guys are hosting just as many or more than the good guys. Web of trust for Tor, anyone?
MAC address sure, since your device's MAC address isn't used after your packets reach the ISP's border. However, I invite you to try to establish a full duplex connection using a spoofed IP. Sure, you can send packets using a spoofed IP provided your ISP allows you to send packets for IP's which they don't announce, but you're not getting the response to that packet back. This is actually the basis for DDoS reflection attacks.
I seriously doubt any reasonable level of donations will ever allow the Tor network to add the kind of capacity required to torrent. I think it has many more important needs than that anyway.
The zombies at the IT department's brains. And then the servers became self aware, and destroyed the news article in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of the zombie apocalypse. Really not a good day for humanity so far.
Don't really know why someone modded you flamebait; you're completely right. It's like investigating someone for overhearing a conversation in public and remembering what the parties to the conversation said later on.
My guess is that it's not like Windows users would ever want to compile something manually when there's an installer out there for it, and the perpetrators probably didn't feel like going through all the effort to build the backdoored version for Windows when no one in their right mind hosts an IRCD on a Windows machine.
I really hope no one tells Congress about WiGLE.
How's charging a reasonably low price for a phone call or two to resolve the issue with a support person who is knowledgeable as well as able to effect change? Say, charge someone's card $10 and then initiate the support call, and if they are found out to have been an erroneous ban, refund the $10. Keeps the spammers from appealing in a massive manner, while allowing the one-off mistakes relief.
I've always felt that it's in the best interest of entities like Google to add some sort of official, all-service-reaching appeals process to rectify erroneous enforcement actions, or at least give an answer as to how customers broke the Terms of Use so that they can correct such behavior in the future. Being that Google is so huge and that many people's livelihoods depend on it, even if many of these critical services are free, it's in their best interest, and having a department that makes getting the ear of such a huge entity straightforward would really increase customer loyalty as well as reduce apprehension of arbitrary lock-outs.
WiGLE
Hey, no need for your introduction paragraph or the "Sorry". People love facts/corrections with merit on /., even if sometimes they're hard to come by (especially in such topics). Next time head off bad comments such as mine at the pass and post your own rendition (and not as an AC so people will actually see it). It's not about who can prove who wrong or who has the best point by point argument.