When I was 13-16 I had the ability to create viruses with the capabilities as any major virus. And I am sure many slashdotters also had/have these ability.
So, given that, you are obviously quite intelligent. Certainly more so than the average 6 year old who knows the difference between right and wrong. Given that you DIDN'T release a virus/worm such as you were able to create, I'd say that YOU did in fact "get" the difference between right and wrong at that point.
I honestly do not think for most of these kids the punshiments should be that extreme especially since most of those kids probably only copied and pasted some code, or changed a few lines of code. The punishment should fit the crime, if you can cause millions of dollars worth of damages in under and hours worth of work, then something is not right. I do not see any other way of doing something that bad on a massive scale other then blowing up a building or running around with a gun.
I do. If the kids aren't legally responsible for their actions, the punishment should rest with the parents.
Where were they during all of this?
I just hope these kids still get a chance to have a life, and they are only held partially responsible. If someone built a bridge that could be destroyed by walking over and pulling out a nail, and the hole thing would come down. There would be two people to blame. The designer and the person that actually did it. Lets just hope its handled carefully in this case.
Conversely, if someone built an aircraft that could be destroyed in flight by merely placing an easily constructed explosive charge next to one of its critical systems (Avionics, fuel cells, etc) - who is to blame? The terrorist, or the aircraft designer?
Society as a whole needs to get back into the mindset of taking responsibility for one's actions. If the kid is not legally responsible, society needs to get back into the mindset of taking responsiblity for minors under your care.
If you can't deal with that, then don't have kids. We have plenty in the world as it is.
One thing that scares me, is consider the following:
As far as I've been able to ascertain, from JANES military reading, in the 1970s, fighter planes avionics systems were capable of running in the order of 100-200+ MIPS.
Consumer grade hardware could not achieve that performance (486-pentium level) until the early 90s, 20 years later
Given that, it would be reasonable to presume that government processing capacity for "top secret" projects would maintain a 20 year lead on consumer grade equipment, at least. Given that their gear is not necessarily required to fit within the confines of a fighter plane, probably more advanced...
Now.... "consumer grade" equipment, when used in server farms, is capable of rendering stuff like Shrek, Final Fantasy, etc.
Consider 20 years worth of processing advancement (and therefore, rendering capacity). Keep in mind the advancement made in rendering between say, 1994 and 2004.
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe there there's NOT the capcity for computer generated footage purpose built to suit a particular government's cause?
You're assuming that Windows users are a mutually exclusive group to Linux/BSD/etc users.
Fact is, thats not always the case.
I use the most convenient tool for the job...
Mail serving? FreeBSD. Firewalling? FreeBSD. Desktop? Windows XP. Remote applications? Win2k terminal services + citrix. Etcetera...
Blindly limiting yourself to once choice of OS seriously compromises your options - diversity in the server room is a good thing... both from a security/operational standpoing, and also for resume building:)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if this just places restrictions on outbound connections, does this mean that now if I become infected with one of these malicious programs, it will not only spread (more slowly, of course), but now it will also stop me from using some of my network software? Does this actually help?
It would be cool if there were "signatures" of malicious software that you could download from MS and insert in your Firewall settings. That way, your firewall could do packet inspection and close down the source of the evil packets instead of just shutting down/limiting the entire stack because one thing goes wrong.
Yes, it does help. You're pretty certain something is wrong with the PC when it no longer enables you to do your work - and you'll likely do something to fix it.
As to the second idea - thats going back to the "insecure by default" design that microsoft has been slammed for so many times in the past.
The "correct" way to firewall is to deny anything you are not sure of - not the other way around.
The solution as I see it is to increase the max connections to a more reasonable figure, or enable increasing the limit for certain applications (so yes, you can enable your p2p software to open up as many as it likes) in a similar way to how the "Exceptions" list currently works in Windows Firewall.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an "sp2a" released in the next couple of months that fix a few minor issues (from the coding a fix point of view)...
I hate microsoft as much as most people here - but at least in SP2 they're making an effort to secure things, even if they don't totally hit the mark.
As I see it, SP2 is closer to what XP should have been upon release...
I have had ZERO issues with SP2, been running it since RC1....
Either way - its a good idea to upgrade in any case, simply for the firewall during bootup... and sooner or later you know that things are going to require SP2 to run/install... may as well sort things out now.
Unlike previous service packs from microsoft, Win2k SP2 makes several changes that *will* break things. No "maybes" or unintentional incompatability issues here - these are core design changes that will likely require configuration changes to work in most environments.
This is why its getting so much hype - it marks a change in direction from Microsoft from "works by default" to "secure by default".
Personally, I think SP2 is a good move by Microsoft on the whole.
Sure, there will be a short term amount of pain getting it installed everywhere (currently working on a strategy here myself), but it will definately help prevent worms getting onto corporate networks via road warrior notebooks with the built in firewall...
Given the abysmal state of security in an unpatched Windows XP installation, I reckon they should be sending it out AOL-CD style so that it actually gets deployed by everyone though - 270megs is a bit steep to download... even 1/4 of that is too big for a casual dialup user really... and those are the people who don't care about security enough...
Actually, they wouldn't - as you say, a pc is only as secure as you make it.
That applies in the windows world, where the rationale is "works with everything by default, but insecure". In most other OS', the philosphy is "Secure by default".
The machine is only as "insecure" as you make it...
Yeah, Linux is pretty good--far better than the last time that I tried it (Red Hat, five or six years ago). It's Free. But Windows works better for me, and with less hassle.
Define "less hassle".
Once you set up a linux box for a desktop user, most of the work is done. Most desktop distros do NOT run a heap of services out in the open by default, to be exploited (ditto for os/x).
Windows either requires constant maintenance downloading/installing patches, and backing them out when they conflict with one of your apps, OR a regular rebuild/cleanup to remove the various bits of spyware that get installed.
Linux/other is a case of short term pain, for long term saving in "hassle", in my opinion, and experience, over the last 8 years of running both.
Problem is, you've still got a Windows machine running on the network...
Kinda defeats the purpose of ditching windows to increase security? You are in fact only increasing your exposure, by running 2 machines. Like it or not, Linux/whatever else does have vulnerabilties from time to time as well.
Its going to be hard, yes - but really the only way to go (if you're trying to increase security by removing windows) is ditch your windows machine completely.
If you're likely to find it that difficult to migrate, I would suggest MacOS X.
Whilst i agree with your sentiments regarding television and mass media - keep in mind that laws made to regulate such content will likely be extrapolated to other media, such as the internet, etc - hence, we should oppose them NOW before any precedents get set.
I say fuck the FCC.
If people don't want to watch something on TV, don't watch it. If you're that emotionally unstable that moving pictures can offend people to the point where they feel you need to complain, I suggest they:
Get a life (surely you have better things to do)
Alternatively, dig yourself a nice secure little bunker and hide yourselve from the opinions and events of the world. You clealy can't deal with it
I mean, are we trying to breed a race of people who just can't cope with anything, or what?
I see your point, however to exploit this, its a windows exe that will be overflown, etc - not firefox.
This bug does not exist if you run firefox on anything else.
And... its fixed before an exploit is in the wild for it.
There's unfixed security holes still in IE that have been first mentioned on mailing lists years ago.
Try the "see! ie isn't that bad!" thing all you like, but Mozilla's security record is no-where near as bad as IE's is - and won't get that bad, ever, due to different design decisions - whether its as popular as IE is, or not.
The difference is, this firefox hole was patched immediately - and the public was notified - where's the exploit?
MS try to keep security updates very hush-hush until the latest worm has spread enough for them to be unable to deny it any longer...
Think i'm being harsh? Try reading some security mailing lists... ms policy is to deny the existance of the problem claiming its not exploitable so they won't fix it, until there's a proof of concept or actual exploit in the wild...
Perhaps Redhat, and the other linux distros need to take a leaf out of FreeBSD's (and, i am guessing, open and net, as well) book, and ship their distros in 2 parts.
CD1 - core system. Kernel, command line tools, perhaps X11 with a *MINIMAL* install of KDE/GNOME.
CD2, CD3, etc - apps. Don't call these "Redhat Linux". Call them "Redhat Applications".
Then we'll get a little better representation as to which OS is more secure.
It IS however a second layer of protection, for when undetected email virus X comes into your network (or, for argument's sake, employee X takes his laptop home and gets infected, then plugs into your corporate network on monday).
These days, perimeter firewalls are not enough. No they're not obsolete, but relying on them to be a cure-all is misguided.
Well, for those who AREN'T behind a hardware/other machine type firewall, it will perhaps stop them getting 0wn3d by Windows exploit of the week as soon as they dial up...
You never see any bad traffic, because you have a firewall already - others aren't so fortunate.
Slashdot Mirror
Where were they during all of this?
Conversely, if someone built an aircraft that could be destroyed in flight by merely placing an easily constructed explosive charge next to one of its critical systems (Avionics, fuel cells, etc) - who is to blame? The terrorist, or the aircraft designer?Society as a whole needs to get back into the mindset of taking responsibility for one's actions. If the kid is not legally responsible, society needs to get back into the mindset of taking responsiblity for minors under your care.
If you can't deal with that, then don't have kids. We have plenty in the world as it is.
smash.
Now.... "consumer grade" equipment, when used in server farms, is capable of rendering stuff like Shrek, Final Fantasy, etc.
Consider 20 years worth of processing advancement (and therefore, rendering capacity). Keep in mind the advancement made in rendering between say, 1994 and 2004.
Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe there there's NOT the capcity for computer generated footage purpose built to suit a particular government's cause?
smash
Fact is, thats not always the case.
I use the most convenient tool for the job...
Mail serving? FreeBSD. Firewalling? FreeBSD. Desktop? Windows XP. Remote applications? Win2k terminal services + citrix. Etcetera...
Blindly limiting yourself to once choice of OS seriously compromises your options - diversity in the server room is a good thing... both from a security/operational standpoing, and also for resume building :)
smash.
As to the second idea - thats going back to the "insecure by default" design that microsoft has been slammed for so many times in the past.
The "correct" way to firewall is to deny anything you are not sure of - not the other way around.
The solution as I see it is to increase the max connections to a more reasonable figure, or enable increasing the limit for certain applications (so yes, you can enable your p2p software to open up as many as it likes) in a similar way to how the "Exceptions" list currently works in Windows Firewall.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an "sp2a" released in the next couple of months that fix a few minor issues (from the coding a fix point of view)...
I hate microsoft as much as most people here - but at least in SP2 they're making an effort to secure things, even if they don't totally hit the mark.
As I see it, SP2 is closer to what XP should have been upon release...
smash.
I have had ZERO issues with SP2, been running it since RC1....
Either way - its a good idea to upgrade in any case, simply for the firewall during bootup... and sooner or later you know that things are going to require SP2 to run/install... may as well sort things out now.
smash.
This is why its getting so much hype - it marks a change in direction from Microsoft from "works by default" to "secure by default".
Personally, I think SP2 is a good move by Microsoft on the whole.
Sure, there will be a short term amount of pain getting it installed everywhere (currently working on a strategy here myself), but it will definately help prevent worms getting onto corporate networks via road warrior notebooks with the built in firewall...
Given the abysmal state of security in an unpatched Windows XP installation, I reckon they should be sending it out AOL-CD style so that it actually gets deployed by everyone though - 270megs is a bit steep to download... even 1/4 of that is too big for a casual dialup user really... and those are the people who don't care about security enough...
smash.
smash.
Who could dispute such a clearly worded and concise argument :)
Ermm... actually - this particular auditor suggested changes that the previous auditor did not.
Zero effect to their financial position. Its nothing to do with Redhat's financial practices at all.
Yes, you're just being a troll, but come on now, at least try a little harder...
smash.
On *nix, you can actually USE the box without root access.
smash(Windows user since 1991, Linux user since 1996, FreeBSD user since 1999)
That applies in the windows world, where the rationale is "works with everything by default, but insecure". In most other OS', the philosphy is "Secure by default".
The machine is only as "insecure" as you make it...
smash
Once you set up a linux box for a desktop user, most of the work is done. Most desktop distros do NOT run a heap of services out in the open by default, to be exploited (ditto for os/x).
Windows either requires constant maintenance downloading/installing patches, and backing them out when they conflict with one of your apps, OR a regular rebuild/cleanup to remove the various bits of spyware that get installed.
Linux/other is a case of short term pain, for long term saving in "hassle", in my opinion, and experience, over the last 8 years of running both.
smash.
Kinda defeats the purpose of ditching windows to increase security? You are in fact only increasing your exposure, by running 2 machines. Like it or not, Linux/whatever else does have vulnerabilties from time to time as well.
Its going to be hard, yes - but really the only way to go (if you're trying to increase security by removing windows) is ditch your windows machine completely.
If you're likely to find it that difficult to migrate, I would suggest MacOS X.
smash.
Don't laugh, i think you'll find thats the reason :D
smash.
I say fuck the FCC.
If people don't want to watch something on TV, don't watch it. If you're that emotionally unstable that moving pictures can offend people to the point where they feel you need to complain, I suggest they:
- Get a life (surely you have better things to do)
- Alternatively, dig yourself a nice secure little bunker and hide yourselve from the opinions and events of the world. You clealy can't deal with it
I mean, are we trying to breed a race of people who just can't cope with anything, or what?smash.
This bug does not exist if you run firefox on anything else.
And... its fixed before an exploit is in the wild for it.
There's unfixed security holes still in IE that have been first mentioned on mailing lists years ago.
Try the "see! ie isn't that bad!" thing all you like, but Mozilla's security record is no-where near as bad as IE's is - and won't get that bad, ever, due to different design decisions - whether its as popular as IE is, or not.
smash.
MS try to keep security updates very hush-hush until the latest worm has spread enough for them to be unable to deny it any longer...
Think i'm being harsh? Try reading some security mailing lists... ms policy is to deny the existance of the problem claiming its not exploitable so they won't fix it, until there's a proof of concept or actual exploit in the wild...
smash.
Also, if you RTFA, you'd realise this was supposed to have been fixed in a Windows service pack, but isn't.
So yes, I blame microsoft :)
Problem doesn't exist on any other OS running firefox...
smash.
CD1 - core system. Kernel, command line tools, perhaps X11 with a *MINIMAL* install of KDE/GNOME.
CD2, CD3, etc - apps. Don't call these "Redhat Linux". Call them "Redhat Applications".
Then we'll get a little better representation as to which OS is more secure.
smash.
It IS however a second layer of protection, for when undetected email virus X comes into your network (or, for argument's sake, employee X takes his laptop home and gets infected, then plugs into your corporate network on monday).
These days, perimeter firewalls are not enough. No they're not obsolete, but relying on them to be a cure-all is misguided.
smash.
You never see any bad traffic, because you have a firewall already - others aren't so fortunate.
smash.
I've been running SP2 RC1 for a couple of months at work, and its a welcome improvement. I really had no major problems with RC1...
smash.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure gamma radiation doesn't get spewed out by the sun, at least not to that distance...
smash.
I had a heap of "dotfiles" owned by root in my home directory...
I can hear the experienced sysadmins chuckling already... but for those less experienced...
smash.
He was banning any program that uses the microsoft html engine.
There's a difference.
smash.
You have a license to run it, but no ownership is transferred.
Open source, is owned by everyone.
But then, he meant owned as in cracked...
smash.