This is a good opportunity for Apple from a streaming media perspective. One must not forget though, that Apple has always used their distinctiveness in software as a means to sell their hardware. I think they will want to keep QuickTime for OS X, and leave us penguins out in the cold, so to speak. Am I the only one who still calls it OS X instead of OS-ten?
I'll bet he did something like that or similar, just encrypted some data that really bears no relevance at all to anything he may have done (e.g. a phone book:). Just a trail of breadcrumbs that leads to nowhere - a way to distract those who would attempt to apprehend him.
The Amazon.com patent...let 'em have it. Who wants their cookies getting harvested by some bo2k user and replayed to one-click orders right onto their credit card.
It's crap like this patent, that really bugs me. This innovation basically amounts to nothing more than an old-fashioned mailmerge. Output device is changed from printer to socket w/client connected to it. This is a real threat to freedom.
I like the defensive patent idea, but what is to keep the holding company that keeps the patents in "trust" from getting gobbled up by one of the big fish? I mean, big fish could abuse legal process to bankrupt holding company, then buy the holding company off the auction block. This kind of thing has happened before.
Here's a variation on the idea: How's about some opensource projects to infringe these flimsy patents, with easily demonstrable prior art, and some kind of defense fund to test it in court and get it tossed? This will truly free us to write our code. Thing is, it will be very expensive.
I guess it's just the wirehead in me (and maybe I'm paranoid, too), but I prefer to filter them out at the router, rather than trust an http proxy to block the traffic.
That must be what their "staff of 15" people to study security issues is for. What a crock. The very statement shows that Microsoft has no interest in security. Any market segment worth >$10M, that has emerged in the past 5 years, has been met with a response by M$ to start a product group of at least, well, more than 15 drones to make a product in that same segment.
Throwing 15 guys at reviewing the code is a total joke. This, coupled with the statement that "we simply cannot trust these matters the the end users" illustrates M$ utter contempt for the masses that compose their client-state.
Besides, how effective can 15 guys possibly be? "Here, go find the security leaks, do nothing but look for leaks. When you're tired, go sleep on the couch and have a few cans of coke when you wake up." Sounds like a death march to me...
No shell makes it harder maybe, but not impossible. If one discovered a buffer overflow on a Mac, instead of modifying return address on stack to return to shell, return to code injected with overflowing packet. Injected code could then, say, ftp another program into the target machine and start execution. Granted this exceeds the skill level of your average script kiddie, but it's certainly not rocket science either.
I believe not too many people are interested in expending that kind of effort to get into a mac, what with there being such a greater percentage of unix/linux and nt out there. Also, note most exploits against Windows do not use the shell, instead injecting code, or employing social engineering and/or scripting exploits. I don't see any reason why these techniques are any less applicable to Mac. Maybe, just maybe, it's the relative obscurity Mac enjoys that motivates hackers to look elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good opportunity for Apple from a streaming media perspective. One must not forget though, that Apple has always used their distinctiveness in software as a means to sell their hardware. I think they will want to keep QuickTime for OS X, and leave us penguins out in the cold, so to speak. Am I the only one who still calls it OS X instead of OS-ten?
I'll bet he did something like that or similar, just encrypted some data that really bears no relevance at all to anything he may have done (e.g. a phone book :). Just a trail of breadcrumbs that leads to nowhere - a way to distract those who would attempt to apprehend him.
Like you can climb in and out of it as easy as a window on somebody's house.
Oops! Should have read the entire thread before posting... =)
It's crap like this patent, that really bugs me. This innovation basically amounts to nothing more than an old-fashioned mailmerge. Output device is changed from printer to socket w/client connected to it. This is a real threat to freedom.
I like the defensive patent idea, but what is to keep the holding company that keeps the patents in "trust" from getting gobbled up by one of the big fish? I mean, big fish could abuse legal process to bankrupt holding company, then buy the holding company off the auction block. This kind of thing has happened before.
Here's a variation on the idea: How's about some opensource projects to infringe these flimsy patents, with easily demonstrable prior art, and some kind of defense fund to test it in court and get it tossed? This will truly free us to write our code. Thing is, it will be very expensive.
I guess it's just the wirehead in me (and maybe I'm paranoid, too), but I prefer to filter them out at the router, rather than trust an http proxy to block the traffic.
the guest book page was inaccessible. However, the overall system didn't crash and the attackers didn't seize control, said Keith White,
Yeah, and a DOS attack isn't a security issue either. =)
Throwing 15 guys at reviewing the code is a total joke. This, coupled with the statement that "we simply cannot trust these matters the the end users" illustrates M$ utter contempt for the masses that compose their client-state.
Besides, how effective can 15 guys possibly be? "Here, go find the security leaks, do nothing but look for leaks. When you're tired, go sleep on the couch and have a few cans of coke when you wake up." Sounds like a death march to me...
I believe not too many people are interested in expending that kind of effort to get into a mac, what with there being such a greater percentage of unix/linux and nt out there. Also, note most exploits against Windows do not use the shell, instead injecting code, or employing social engineering and/or scripting exploits. I don't see any reason why these techniques are any less applicable to Mac. Maybe, just maybe, it's the relative obscurity Mac enjoys that motivates hackers to look elsewhere.
BTW Not to push your professor under the bus, but I beleive he is repeating what he read here.