Only an ass would assume the average employee is going to assess their environment like a network engineer.
And I don't care what your anti-malware excuses are. You can have your security measures, but should expect lawsuits if you pull a bait-and-switch which is what you're doing if you keep the standard PKI UI elements while changing the nature of the underlying encryption. Those indicators operate in the end-to-end paradigm only!!!
There is also a significant body of law that does, in fact, state an employee has some expectation of privacy for communication that is personal/private. I have worker at places that provided separate phones and computers for just such a reason.
The very fact that you're trying to use ownership as the end-all blanket excuse for taking abusive shortcuts with your implementation does itself have a whiff of nefarious intent, because then your motives come under the motive of greed (one that expects their mark to trust them utterly in return).
Users don't lose their individuality when they come to work. They may not be entitled to end-to-end security on the corporate network, but you tricked them into thinking they had it.
You have rationalized an attack on Internet protocols because you considered the end users' right to know insignificant. You're a hack and a charlatan.
None of the serious distros use Wayland yet. I would not call it widely-adopted.
And the chances of that changing are poor, given that Ubuntu and its spinoffs are the only popular distros that are even capable of handling multi-monitor setups correctly.
Apple (actually, NeXT) taught us long ago that if there is one area where you should second-guess and buck the Unix herd, its in graphics architecture. IMO, Canonical are trying to copy some of Jobs'/Apple's engineering decisions.
RedHat/Fedora is way outclassed by Ubuntu in terms of supported hardware. Just check out their respective HCL pages.... I dare any RedHat "workstation" lover to find out if they can stomach the difference and RedHat's obvious neglect.
The RedHat ken only makes *noises* about supporting desktops. There is no commitment or vision. Fedora is a only testbed distro for haphazardly plopping misc desktop components onto a base server OS.
X11 should be dustbinned just for the lack of multi-target network transparency. You know, the limitation that says while OSX and Windows users can efficiently share apps and desktops in a teleconference, Linux systems have to use VNC to toss around bitmap deltas instead. Its like getting a shot of Novocaine in the mouth everytime you head out to a party.
Oooooh, wait! Did I just attack X11 on its hallowed territory... Network transparency?! Well, indeed I have and its true that X11 has not gotten any overhauls to support this very important and common use case.
Security also stinks to high heaven on X11, and it took an OS like Qubes completely re-worked around a VM security model to address that architectural flaw (regular hypervisors like VMware won't even protect you). The priestly developers of X11 implementations do not appear to give a rats ass.
This stack (and its anachronistic neckbeard clique) has run its course and should have been on its way out 10 years ago. I think you're wrong about developing replacements for X11; Apple users never regretted it for an instant.
BTW, I don't know about you but I'm tired of my Linux UI's being interspersed with character-mode upchuck, screens flickering and popping momentarily in an out of existence whenever something different happens in the runlevel or login status or number of displays.
You allowed the user to think end-to-end security was in place, so the hack you implemented was a MITM attack. If the UI had changed to clearly indicate your proxy was in place then it might be different.
"Our network, our traffic." -- No... PKI was created because the user can't control intermediary networks, and that's what the app-level Ui signals are geared for.
The browser is indicating to the user that end-to-end security is in effect, when its actually been subverted. That, more than anything, puts it in the MITM attack category.
I kind of disagree. At this point they can only be theoretically better than humans because mischief directed at complex automated systems is usually invisible until its too late. Computers hide too much at this stage in their development.
A big part of the problem is that computers have been engineered to be sleek and hide as many details as possible. One of my favorite security researchers named her company, Invisible Things Labs, in recognition of this as a problem. We only see a very highly-abstracted tip of the iceberg on our screens.
ITL's Qubes OS project enforces the presentation of an app's security context on the screen. The GUI is tightly secured, the security domains use color-coded window frames, and there's no way an attacker can break out. Complexity, in this case, is managed by keeping the attack surface down to a bare minimum-- the complexity exists in the system (people need functionality) but is isolated into relatively harmless pockets.
So there is security by simplicity+correctness, but if you need complex features then security by isolation can give you simplicity where it counts, on the attack surface. I think this paradigm works well for personal computers, but the automated cars you mention may just be an example of irreducible/unmanageable complexity.
Its ironic you mentioned externalization, but then neglected to list emissions/environment in your assessment of Bitcoin costs and downsides. Pollution and other environmental degradation is the most vexing externalization problem economics has ever faced.
8 years after Glass-Steagal was repealed in an era of deregulation, opening most banking institutions and practices up to speculation, the market 'crashed' and the investor class held a gun to our collective heads. The government had to treat Wall St. banks as 'too big to fail' and threw tons of money at them to keep them willing to do business with the rest of us.
Sometimes, even the government isn't big enough to fix our problems.
That's just precious coming from the quadrant of/. that preaches government should be small enough (for bankers, apparently) to drown it in a bathtub.
Its called I2P-Bote, a messaging system based on DHT. Its a part of I2P which is included in the TAILS distro along with Tor.
Once the I2P bittorrent clients experimented with DHT and succeeded, some people figured they could pull off a messenger that was truly decentralized.
And speaking of decentralization, Tor's underlying protocol and topology may not have enough of it to remain viable for too long. OTOH, I2P users contribute to routing bandwidth by default, and nodes recognize each others' contribution to bandwidth... Its a general-purpose P2P networking protocol for real.
LOL! I2P literally calls their protocol "garlic routing".
You could certainly call it "TOR 2.0" IF you assume a general trend to using darknets for most networking. This is because even while I2P can handle full bittorrent and comes with a decentralized messenger, exit nodes (outproxies) are the exception... I2P is designed to be used mainly between I2P users.
GNU actually did the footwork with Hurd, and I've seen people run Hurd-based stuff off and on since the 90s. It just didn't catch on, I think because people were afraid of sluggish performance from a microkernel.
Nowadays, VMs are almost mandatory for secure environments so an even higher performance penalty is paid.
I agree to some extent. But today's mass-market PC hardware may not be the platform for a microkernel revival.
And as Rutkowska points out, an OS like Qubes can play both hypervisor and microkernel roles, and throw in extras such as isolating you from compromised hardware devices.
Do you see more interest in open hardware now that large corporations have been shown to secretly cooperate with mass surveillance? Do you think that projects like Fairphone and Qubes OS will lead to a trend of pushing openness down through the software stack and into the hardware?
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes oscillations in the warming pattern as well. It doesn't change the overall picture for global warming: The oceans were assumed to heat up somehow, and now we have details about that process and how it affects surface temps.
Would actually be a general strike and/or a general boycott. You seem to be in denial, thinking the abuse of wealth and power is limited somehow to airports when it has worked its way into every aspect of life.
What came across to me is that you appear to think toxicity can go out of fashion like polyester leisure suits. You gave no rational basis or examples for unneeded regulation, either. Instead we were supposed to swoon at the word "innovation" and be aghast at 1970s legislation.
I hesitated to respond to this, since it really doesn't matter whether I'm a lobbyist or not... it comes across to me as an ad hominem attack.
Sorry, but the affiliation of posters does begin to matter when they take stances that are consistent with astroturfing.
My department adminstered RCRA regulations (Resource Recovery and Conservation Act), which was passed in 1976, and was written by Nixon appointees, for crying out loud.
For whom? Mississippi? Louisiana? Some Reagan-wannabe governor?
Slashdot Mirror
Only an ass would assume the average employee is going to assess their environment like a network engineer.
And I don't care what your anti-malware excuses are. You can have your security measures, but should expect lawsuits if you pull a bait-and-switch which is what you're doing if you keep the standard PKI UI elements while changing the nature of the underlying encryption. Those indicators operate in the end-to-end paradigm only!!!
There is also a significant body of law that does, in fact, state an employee has some expectation of privacy for communication that is personal/private. I have worker at places that provided separate phones and computers for just such a reason.
The very fact that you're trying to use ownership as the end-all blanket excuse for taking abusive shortcuts with your implementation does itself have a whiff of nefarious intent, because then your motives come under the motive of greed (one that expects their mark to trust them utterly in return).
Users don't lose their individuality when they come to work. They may not be entitled to end-to-end security on the corporate network, but you tricked them into thinking they had it.
You have rationalized an attack on Internet protocols because you considered the end users' right to know insignificant. You're a hack and a charlatan.
Another "Liberty" kneejerk corporatist!
None of the serious distros use Wayland yet. I would not call it widely-adopted.
And the chances of that changing are poor, given that Ubuntu and its spinoffs are the only popular distros that are even capable of handling multi-monitor setups correctly.
Apple (actually, NeXT) taught us long ago that if there is one area where you should second-guess and buck the Unix herd, its in graphics architecture. IMO, Canonical are trying to copy some of Jobs'/Apple's engineering decisions.
RedHat/Fedora is way outclassed by Ubuntu in terms of supported hardware. Just check out their respective HCL pages.... I dare any RedHat "workstation" lover to find out if they can stomach the difference and RedHat's obvious neglect.
The RedHat ken only makes *noises* about supporting desktops. There is no commitment or vision. Fedora is a only testbed distro for haphazardly plopping misc desktop components onto a base server OS.
X11 should be dustbinned just for the lack of multi-target network transparency. You know, the limitation that says while OSX and Windows users can efficiently share apps and desktops in a teleconference, Linux systems have to use VNC to toss around bitmap deltas instead. Its like getting a shot of Novocaine in the mouth everytime you head out to a party.
Oooooh, wait! Did I just attack X11 on its hallowed territory... Network transparency?! Well, indeed I have and its true that X11 has not gotten any overhauls to support this very important and common use case.
Security also stinks to high heaven on X11, and it took an OS like Qubes completely re-worked around a VM security model to address that architectural flaw (regular hypervisors like VMware won't even protect you). The priestly developers of X11 implementations do not appear to give a rats ass.
This stack (and its anachronistic neckbeard clique) has run its course and should have been on its way out 10 years ago. I think you're wrong about developing replacements for X11; Apple users never regretted it for an instant.
BTW, I don't know about you but I'm tired of my Linux UI's being interspersed with character-mode upchuck, screens flickering and popping momentarily in an out of existence whenever something different happens in the runlevel or login status or number of displays.
You allowed the user to think end-to-end security was in place, so the hack you implemented was a MITM attack. If the UI had changed to clearly indicate your proxy was in place then it might be different.
"Our network, our traffic." -- No... PKI was created because the user can't control intermediary networks, and that's what the app-level Ui signals are geared for.
The browser is indicating to the user that end-to-end security is in effect, when its actually been subverted. That, more than anything, puts it in the MITM attack category.
Seems pretty clear that GnuTLS has too few eyes. Most everything uses OpenSSL instead, and that's where the eyes are concentrated.
You may find this interesting if you haven't seen it already-- http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bi...
Its worrying that mining becomes exponentially harder as time goes on. But it appears to already be something of an environmental disaster.
I kind of disagree. At this point they can only be theoretically better than humans because mischief directed at complex automated systems is usually invisible until its too late. Computers hide too much at this stage in their development.
A big part of the problem is that computers have been engineered to be sleek and hide as many details as possible. One of my favorite security researchers named her company, Invisible Things Labs, in recognition of this as a problem. We only see a very highly-abstracted tip of the iceberg on our screens.
ITL's Qubes OS project enforces the presentation of an app's security context on the screen. The GUI is tightly secured, the security domains use color-coded window frames, and there's no way an attacker can break out. Complexity, in this case, is managed by keeping the attack surface down to a bare minimum-- the complexity exists in the system (people need functionality) but is isolated into relatively harmless pockets.
So there is security by simplicity+correctness, but if you need complex features then security by isolation can give you simplicity where it counts, on the attack surface. I think this paradigm works well for personal computers, but the automated cars you mention may just be an example of irreducible/unmanageable complexity.
Its ironic you mentioned externalization, but then neglected to list emissions/environment in your assessment of Bitcoin costs and downsides. Pollution and other environmental degradation is the most vexing externalization problem economics has ever faced.
8 years after Glass-Steagal was repealed in an era of deregulation, opening most banking institutions and practices up to speculation, the market 'crashed' and the investor class held a gun to our collective heads. The government had to treat Wall St. banks as 'too big to fail' and threw tons of money at them to keep them willing to do business with the rest of us.
Sometimes, even the government isn't big enough to fix our problems.
That's just precious coming from the quadrant of /. that preaches government should be small enough (for bankers, apparently) to drown it in a bathtub.
Its called I2P-Bote, a messaging system based on DHT. Its a part of I2P which is included in the TAILS distro along with Tor.
Once the I2P bittorrent clients experimented with DHT and succeeded, some people figured they could pull off a messenger that was truly decentralized.
And speaking of decentralization, Tor's underlying protocol and topology may not have enough of it to remain viable for too long. OTOH, I2P users contribute to routing bandwidth by default, and nodes recognize each others' contribution to bandwidth... Its a general-purpose P2P networking protocol for real.
LOL! I2P literally calls their protocol "garlic routing".
You could certainly call it "TOR 2.0" IF you assume a general trend to using darknets for most networking. This is because even while I2P can handle full bittorrent and comes with a decentralized messenger, exit nodes (outproxies) are the exception... I2P is designed to be used mainly between I2P users.
That's what it sounds like: Playing both sides.
GNU actually did the footwork with Hurd, and I've seen people run Hurd-based stuff off and on since the 90s. It just didn't catch on, I think because people were afraid of sluggish performance from a microkernel.
Nowadays, VMs are almost mandatory for secure environments so an even higher performance penalty is paid.
I agree to some extent. But today's mass-market PC hardware may not be the platform for a microkernel revival.
And as Rutkowska points out, an OS like Qubes can play both hypervisor and microkernel roles, and throw in extras such as isolating you from compromised hardware devices.
Do you see more interest in open hardware now that large corporations have been shown to secretly cooperate with mass surveillance? Do you think that projects like Fairphone and Qubes OS will lead to a trend of pushing openness down through the software stack and into the hardware?
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes oscillations in the warming pattern as well. It doesn't change the overall picture for global warming: The oceans were assumed to heat up somehow, and now we have details about that process and how it affects surface temps.
http://www.droidreport.com/bla...
I think I'll throw my hat in the ring with SilentCircle instead of the company that decided privacy is passe.
RedPhone and TextSecure can do voice and text: https://whispersystems.org/
Use these instead... https://whispersystems.org/
Would actually be a general strike and/or a general boycott. You seem to be in denial, thinking the abuse of wealth and power is limited somehow to airports when it has worked its way into every aspect of life.
This country needs broad democratic reforms.
What came across to me is that you appear to think toxicity can go out of fashion like polyester leisure suits. You gave no rational basis or examples for unneeded regulation, either. Instead we were supposed to swoon at the word "innovation" and be aghast at 1970s legislation.
I hesitated to respond to this, since it really doesn't matter whether I'm a lobbyist or not... it comes across to me as an ad hominem attack.
Sorry, but the affiliation of posters does begin to matter when they take stances that are consistent with astroturfing.
My department adminstered RCRA regulations (Resource Recovery and Conservation Act), which was passed in 1976, and was written by Nixon appointees, for crying out loud.
For whom? Mississippi? Louisiana? Some Reagan-wannabe governor?