There are easier ways for someone to get your 'secret' information than going through the trouble of buying these Logitech components and building this sort of limited intrusion device.
The average person using this sort of setup isn't a security conscious individual in the first place, so why go through the hassle?
Also, based on the nature of the devices, of course you can find a way to intercept the data they're transmitting. This is true for any device that transmits information through the airwares. The lack of encryption just makes everything a cake walk once you've got the detection device made.
I don't see anything on the product features for the wireless components on Logitech's website to suggest that the items in question are flashable, so you're stuck with the unencrypted traffic if you currently own one.
Actually, there are several reasons we don't build these.
The first is apparent right in the name. It uses LIQUID METAL (Liquid Sodium, actually)as a coolant. Really, really, really nasty stuff. Very corrosive, quite toxic, and
it has a tendency to react *ahem* poorly when it comes in contact with the cooling
water used everywhere else in the plant.
Other than that, the reaction in this reactor
creates more fissile material in the form of "weapons grade" plutonium than fissile uranium it starts with. Hence, you get more fuel out the longer it is running, so it "breeds" fuel.
As a political stance, here in the US we have decided not to pursue civilian technologies that create the stuff of nuclear weapons. And,
using plutonium for a fuel makes the reactor much more difficult to control, from a core design and operational standpoint, increasing the complexity
of the design and the chances of non-"the big one" type accidents.
Basically, the things are nightmares to run, the liquid sodium coolant is a tremendous problem, and the waste you have left can be turned into a bomb.
They do have the big benefit that you just have to dump in one load of natural uranium and the thing will keep running for much longer than a conventional reactor.
There is no free lunch, and here in the US we've decided that the problems associated with LMFBRs are not worth the benefit. That could change if uranium supplies start to dry up, however.
I shudder to think of the purchase I almost made in terms of a hard drive almost 15 years ago. Hell, I shudder to think that I can think of things 15 years ago. =)
Cool Wayne's World-ish music into faded past
I had the cash in hand, and was preparing to buy a hard drive, a whopping, mind-boggling, 20 MB, for my Commodore 64, at the low and reasonable price of $800.00. I would be ever closer to obtaining my dream of running that BBS I was currently operating from my 1541, with the single house phone line and my 1200 baud modem...I just called people when the line was free and told them the BBS was up and available. =D Those were the days...
Fade back to -now-
...which would currently be collecting dust in the box with the other C64 components. My damned watch has more processing power than it does.
I suppose that's the way of it, though. We'll all probably be saying the same things about the computers we're using as we read and write these messages in the not-too-distant future, let alone 15 years from now. If we're not, we're probably going to be hunting for food and painting on caves instead.
That's just it; I don't think the average Outlook user knows about its weakenesses. Also, I also know it's safe to say that the average Outlook user doesn't have a choice as to whether or not the use Outlook. Large corporations usually have software standards that are used throughout the company. My company uses Lotus Notes ubiquitously, so Outlook isn't a problem even if someone wanted to use it. You're not allowed. Period. The MIS police come and remove it and break your mouse fingers or something. If it happened to be Outlook (which it was at one point) then the whole company is wide-open when this sort of threat happens.
As for home users with Outlook, well, ignorance is the only excuse I can find for them. I cannot believe the average net-user is aware that they're using an 'unsafe vehicle' for their email transportation and those that might know don't necessarily know of an alternative (my ISP distributes Eudora Lite to new members, thank God). [Good poll idea: what email software comes bundled from your ISP, if any?]
So again it comes back to accountability. Let's enjoy the car-analogy a bit more. If the drivers can rightly claim ignorance as a defense (which most can I believe)and we don't want to go after the manufacturer, can the distributor be responsible? If I know I'm selling you a dangerous vehicle, am I accountable? I'd think so. Hrm. Any lawyers care to bite at this one?
having a computer is a responsibility just like having a car. if you use your computer carelessly, and by doing so your system gets compromised and used to attack other systems, are YOU not responsible for that? Just as if you failed to pay attention at the wheel and killed someone with your car?
Good start to a bad analogy. You are responsible if you leave your car running, up on a wobbly jack, in front of a playground and someone gets hurt. You aren't responsible when someone steals your car and then commits a hit-and-run with it.
The computers, and users (for the majority), involved in spreading this type of virus aren't being negligent. It's a fair analogy to describe the average net-user as the average drivers because they are likely the same people these days. They don't know the risks involved in just double-clicking attachments and launching them any more than they know the risks of getting into a friend's car and driving it around. "If it's my friend's car, it must be safe.", unless someone has sabotaged your friend's car, or car-jacked it that is...
A better question might be to ask if the car manufacturer is to be held accountable when they don't install doorlocks and the car theft/hit-and-run occurs, or when they fail to make modifications that would prevent future events of this sort from occuring again in the future. The responses to-date from companies like M$ have been less-than-acceptable; the equivalent of (if I can continue to over-use the car analogy) like plating over the windows and welding the doors shut on the car to prevent future thefts.
I am probably one of the many who would like to voice our concern to Buena Vista over not including the Japanese language track (with subtitles I imagine) on the DVD. Unfortunately, it's too late to provide a response to michj@nausicaa.net to have it relayed to Mr. David Jessen at Buena Vista. Does anyone know of a way to contact Mr. Jessen (or someone who'll listen and can do something) directly to voice our concern? I've asked michj@nausicaa.net if he knows.
Slashdot Mirror
The average person using this sort of setup isn't a security conscious individual in the first place, so why go through the hassle?
Also, based on the nature of the devices, of course you can find a way to intercept the data they're transmitting. This is true for any device that transmits information through the airwares. The lack of encryption just makes everything a cake walk once you've got the detection device made.
I don't see anything on the product features for the wireless components on Logitech's website to suggest that the items in question are flashable, so you're stuck with the unencrypted traffic if you currently own one.
(from a friend that's a nuke)
Actually, there are several reasons we don't build these.
The first is apparent right in the name. It uses LIQUID METAL (Liquid Sodium, actually)as a coolant. Really, really, really nasty stuff. Very corrosive, quite toxic, and it has a tendency to react *ahem* poorly when it comes in contact with the cooling water used everywhere else in the plant.
Other than that, the reaction in this reactor creates more fissile material in the form of "weapons grade" plutonium than fissile uranium it starts with. Hence, you get more fuel out the longer it is running, so it "breeds" fuel.
As a political stance, here in the US we have decided not to pursue civilian technologies that create the stuff of nuclear weapons. And, using plutonium for a fuel makes the reactor much more difficult to control, from a core design and operational standpoint, increasing the complexity of the design and the chances of non-"the big one" type accidents.
Basically, the things are nightmares to run, the liquid sodium coolant is a tremendous problem, and the waste you have left can be turned into a bomb.
They do have the big benefit that you just have to dump in one load of natural uranium and the thing will keep running for much longer than a conventional reactor.
There is no free lunch, and here in the US we've decided that the problems associated with LMFBRs are not worth the benefit. That could change if uranium supplies start to dry up, however.
ba-dum-DUM!
Shy
Cool Wayne's World-ish music into faded past
I had the cash in hand, and was preparing to buy a hard drive, a whopping, mind-boggling, 20 MB, for my Commodore 64, at the low and reasonable price of $800.00. I would be ever closer to obtaining my dream of running that BBS I was currently operating from my 1541, with the single house phone line and my 1200 baud modem...I just called people when the line was free and told them the BBS was up and available. =D Those were the days...
Fade back to -now-
I suppose that's the way of it, though. We'll all probably be saying the same things about the computers we're using as we read and write these messages in the not-too-distant future, let alone 15 years from now. If we're not, we're probably going to be hunting for food and painting on caves instead.
Good hunting boys!
-Shy
As for home users with Outlook, well, ignorance is the only excuse I can find for them. I cannot believe the average net-user is aware that they're using an 'unsafe vehicle' for their email transportation and those that might know don't necessarily know of an alternative (my ISP distributes Eudora Lite to new members, thank God). [Good poll idea: what email software comes bundled from your ISP, if any?]
So again it comes back to accountability. Let's enjoy the car-analogy a bit more. If the drivers can rightly claim ignorance as a defense (which most can I believe)and we don't want to go after the manufacturer, can the distributor be responsible? If I know I'm selling you a dangerous vehicle, am I accountable? I'd think so. Hrm. Any lawyers care to bite at this one?
Good start to a bad analogy. You are responsible if you leave your car running, up on a wobbly jack, in front of a playground and someone gets hurt. You aren't responsible when someone steals your car and then commits a hit-and-run with it.
The computers, and users (for the majority), involved in spreading this type of virus aren't being negligent. It's a fair analogy to describe the average net-user as the average drivers because they are likely the same people these days. They don't know the risks involved in just double-clicking attachments and launching them any more than they know the risks of getting into a friend's car and driving it around. "If it's my friend's car, it must be safe.", unless someone has sabotaged your friend's car, or car-jacked it that is...
A better question might be to ask if the car manufacturer is to be held accountable when they don't install doorlocks and the car theft/hit-and-run occurs, or when they fail to make modifications that would prevent future events of this sort from occuring again in the future. The responses to-date from companies like M$ have been less-than-acceptable; the equivalent of (if I can continue to over-use the car analogy) like plating over the windows and welding the doors shut on the car to prevent future thefts.
I am probably one of the many who would like to voice our concern to Buena Vista over not including the Japanese language track (with subtitles I imagine) on the DVD. Unfortunately, it's too late to provide a response to michj@nausicaa.net to have it relayed to Mr. David Jessen at Buena Vista. Does anyone know of a way to contact Mr. Jessen (or someone who'll listen and can do something) directly to voice our concern? I've asked michj@nausicaa.net if he knows.