This attack could be used by an attacker to figure out your Facebook username for example. Should Facebook avoid sending your username in pages to you? And then sometimes you actually need to tell the client a secret they have to know, like an anti-CSRF token.
Firefox 17 is Mozilla's Extended Support Release. I believe the 17.0.x branch still gets minor updates. The articles are vague about the zeroday and whether they affect the latest of that line (17.0.7, which is in the Tor Browser Bundle).
I don't see how this affects Bitcoin at all. It's not an exploit of Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't dependent on any onion sites, "Freedom Hosting", or Tor. The Silk Road are not the only users of Bitcoin.
Are these issues with Android itself? How is this issue not showing up in other phones then? Or did Samsung go out of their way to "customize" Android on this phone, and shit up everything they touch? Why do carriers and manufacturers go out of their way to do this? Are they retarded?
STUXNET had some impressive zerodays, including an MD5 collision that still isn't well understood publicly. That sounds to me like something the NSA probably helped with.
I feel like I'm missing something; this was dirt-simple for me.
I used to have a computer with an Nvidia card. I had Ubuntu on it. I had the Nvidia drivers installed. I had the nvidia-settings utility installed (which for some reason wasn't included by default). I plugged in the extra monitors. I opened nvidia-settings. I clicked "Detect Monitors". I enabled them. Suddenly I had several monitors without having to touch a single config file.
nginx seems to default to this at least on my servers. No idea about Apache. Most of the documentation I've seen barely ever mentions forward secrecy. This needs some work.
The good news is that if the web servers use forward secrecy in the SSL encryption ( https://community.qualys.com/blogs/securitylabs/2013/06/25/ssl-labs-deploying-forward-secrecy ), then an attacker who has the private key is not able to decrypt a connection he has passively eavesdropped on. An active man-in-the-middle attack is required in order to listen in on the connection.
One of the things I've liked about open source is that it makes vulnerabilities more accessible. I mean that I like that from a user's point of view. If vulnerabilities are easier to discover, then it's easier for them to become publicized and fixed, especially if many vulnerabilities are discovered coincidentally by many groups. If vulnerabilities are hard to discover, then only someone spending all their time searching for vulnerabilities is likely to find it (as opposed to users or system administrators that only do quicker searches since they're more busy just keeping things working), and then it's easier for them to keep it secret so they can use it themselves for years.
The only time my machine ever uses swap is when a program has a memory leak and takes much more memory than it needs. Usually this is garbage data and I want the program killed. Without swap, the out-of-memory killer would do exactly that for me. With swap, my machine desperately tries to keep it running by swapping out everything I'm trying to use, and wasting 5 minutes of my time.
If a digital copy of you is made, and the copy can't figure out any reason its consciousness isn't valid and wouldn't even know if it's a copy if it wasn't told, and still had the same mental faculties of the original, what's the issue? If you can't even notice losing the real consciousness then I don't think the "real consciousness" matters all that much.
What is doing that test? Do you really think there's something in reality that will evaluate those statements, and then cause something different to happen depending on how it turned out?
Slashdot Mirror
This attack could be used by an attacker to figure out your Facebook username for example. Should Facebook avoid sending your username in pages to you? And then sometimes you actually need to tell the client a secret they have to know, like an anti-CSRF token.
Firefox 17 is Mozilla's Extended Support Release. I believe the 17.0.x branch still gets minor updates. The articles are vague about the zeroday and whether they affect the latest of that line (17.0.7, which is in the Tor Browser Bundle).
I don't see how this affects Bitcoin at all. It's not an exploit of Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't dependent on any onion sites, "Freedom Hosting", or Tor. The Silk Road are not the only users of Bitcoin.
Are these issues with Android itself? How is this issue not showing up in other phones then? Or did Samsung go out of their way to "customize" Android on this phone, and shit up everything they touch? Why do carriers and manufacturers go out of their way to do this? Are they retarded?
STUXNET had some impressive zerodays, including an MD5 collision that still isn't well understood publicly. That sounds to me like something the NSA probably helped with.
Aren't NSA blackhats too? Didn't we figure out that they had a hand in STUXNET?
(Please don't tell me it's arbitrarily defined as "whitehat" if you do it for the government.)
Your packets will be treated the same, once you sign up for the proper type of connection.
And if you don't sign up for that type of connection?
Isn't the point of net neutrality that you don't have to pay more (or jump through hoops) to do what you want with your connection?
And assuming that your phone does something with that signal useful to the retail store. I'm at a complete loss at what they're going at there.
I feel like I'm missing something; this was dirt-simple for me.
I used to have a computer with an Nvidia card. I had Ubuntu on it. I had the Nvidia drivers installed. I had the nvidia-settings utility installed (which for some reason wasn't included by default). I plugged in the extra monitors. I opened nvidia-settings. I clicked "Detect Monitors". I enabled them. Suddenly I had several monitors without having to touch a single config file.
nginx seems to default to this at least on my servers. No idea about Apache. Most of the documentation I've seen barely ever mentions forward secrecy. This needs some work.
The good news is that if the web servers use forward secrecy in the SSL encryption ( https://community.qualys.com/blogs/securitylabs/2013/06/25/ssl-labs-deploying-forward-secrecy ), then an attacker who has the private key is not able to decrypt a connection he has passively eavesdropped on. An active man-in-the-middle attack is required in order to listen in on the connection.
If you're so into tolerance, why don't you tolerate my intolerance? GOTCHA QED /s
Huawei ... rumors
Am I the only one that remembers the actual holes? https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229785/Hackers_reveal_critical_vulnerabilities_in_Huawei_routers_at_Defcon
(Sure it might not have been an intentional backdoor but still works as one. I don't see why we shouldn't treat security issues like this.)
One of the things I've liked about open source is that it makes vulnerabilities more accessible. I mean that I like that from a user's point of view. If vulnerabilities are easier to discover, then it's easier for them to become publicized and fixed, especially if many vulnerabilities are discovered coincidentally by many groups. If vulnerabilities are hard to discover, then only someone spending all their time searching for vulnerabilities is likely to find it (as opposed to users or system administrators that only do quicker searches since they're more busy just keeping things working), and then it's easier for them to keep it secret so they can use it themselves for years.
The only time my machine ever uses swap is when a program has a memory leak and takes much more memory than it needs. Usually this is garbage data and I want the program killed. Without swap, the out-of-memory killer would do exactly that for me. With swap, my machine desperately tries to keep it running by swapping out everything I'm trying to use, and wasting 5 minutes of my time.
Indie games are a popular thing at least.
Huawei is good enough at compromising their own security though. I feel like I'm the only one that remembers this. https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229785/Hackers_reveal_critical_vulnerabilities_in_Huawei_routers_at_Defcon
I like how the recent movie Oblivion handled it. You are your memories and personality.
If the copy isn't even told it's a copy and doesn't know, then it will be completely convinced too.
If a digital copy of you is made, and the copy can't figure out any reason its consciousness isn't valid and wouldn't even know if it's a copy if it wasn't told, and still had the same mental faculties of the original, what's the issue? If you can't even notice losing the real consciousness then I don't think the "real consciousness" matters all that much.
What is doing that test? Do you really think there's something in reality that will evaluate those statements, and then cause something different to happen depending on how it turned out?
The molecules that make up the cells and neurons still swap out regularly.
This just in: Windows is even hackable by really really stupid morons!
What is the difference between this and Litecoin, besides a few seemingly minor parameter tweaks?