Except that they don't need your password, all they need is access to any user account on your WPA(2) network to sniff the Wi-Fi traffic of any other user.
Under GPLv2, you would have been correct, as the term "distribute" has specific meaning in copyright law, a definition that would generally exclude moving copies of copyrighted material around within a company (so long as you do not give it to contractors or other companies working with you, IIRC, but my memory of those aspects of copyright law are kind of vague, so take that with a grain of salt).
For example, OE can set HTML to execute in Restricted Zone, and I think it has been the default since 2002. And it not only disables JS, but also other nasty stuff too like I think ActiveX controls.
The fact that it works on "any operating system you've ever installed" is a testament not to the virtues of Realtek, but the skill and dedication of a few people who undertook the monumental task of creating drivers.
Not to mention how old this chip is (it is so old that drivers shipped inbox as part of Windows 2000!).
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention reducing the rekey timeout and disabling QoS (basically it opened a loophole in TKIP's replay protection) fixes most of them.
I found this Agner Fog article: http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
Are you talking about the WEP security holes found over the last few years? That was not what I am talking about.
This seems like a packet injection attack to me.
Of course, if you really want to limit it to visitors, you could use WPA(2)-Personal for the visitor network.
Or just create separate open wireless networks outside the firewall for visitors along with the WPA(2) wireless networks.
Yep, WEP stood for Wired Equivalent Privacy, which was all it and it's successor WPA(2) was intended to provide, nothing more.
Yep, WEP stood for Wired Equivalent Privacy, which was all it and WPA(2) was intended to provide, nothing more.
Only if something like people connecting to the wired network and running packet sniffers is a concern.
Except that they don't need your password, all they need is access to any user account on your WPA(2) network to sniff the Wi-Fi traffic of any other user.
Unfortunately, I have read that the SAR rating indeed can be quite misleading. Maybe we need a new rating.
Yes, but it is NOT the same thing.
Not the only time, BTW:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/15/1832258/Developer-Exposes-Copyright-Infringers-On-Twitter
Any other examples you can think of?
And well, see this: http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-in-thesis/
Under GPLv2, you would have been correct, as the term "distribute" has specific meaning in copyright law, a definition that would generally exclude moving copies of copyrighted material around within a company (so long as you do not give it to contractors or other companies working with you, IIRC, but my memory of those aspects of copyright law are kind of vague, so take that with a grain of salt).
Which is exactly why they changed the terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyPropagateAndConvey
Not to mention running 1024x768 VMs. The laptop I am typing this on has a 1280x800 screen, and yes I actually tried once to run VMs on it.
Nope, don't confuse 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9. They are different, period.
Posting anonymously as I work for an airline and wrote a fair bit of the code which keeps ITA's software in realtime.
Personally, I would post non-anonymously whatever possible, even in situations like this. But posting anonymously is still OK.
For example, OE can set HTML to execute in Restricted Zone, and I think it has been the default since 2002. And it not only disables JS, but also other nasty stuff too like I think ActiveX controls.
Not the "safe harbor" provisions, which is actually quite good and is the law in question.
No, even on 64-bit Windows, if the driver had not undergo WHQL certification, the drivers are signed by Realtek, just in a different way than usual.
Well, why do you think they signed the rootkit with a certificate?
The fact that it works on "any operating system you've ever installed" is a testament not to the virtues of Realtek, but the skill and dedication of a few people who undertook the monumental task of creating drivers.
Not to mention how old this chip is (it is so old that drivers shipped inbox as part of Windows 2000!).
Not to mention that the RTL8029 was themselves NE2000 compatible!
This is way too incomplete. For one thing, you forgot NT and 2000.