This is awesome. So now I'll be able to walk around licking every hot girl I see without being charged with harassment. They can't blame it on me, I'm just trying to "see" them!
So instead of upgrading infrastructure and offering more bandwidth to customers like other civilized nations, comcast punishes customers by limiting throughput. As long as customers keep paying for their service, comcast can afford to do this. Customers need to stop acting like sheep and speak out against such ba-a-a-a-a-d service!
In the interest of a good argument, I will assert that all that have replied to this post are not entirely correct.
The idea of "rigorous unbreakability" is correct. This is what gives a cryptographic algorithm strength (or reliability). No one should trust the security of a crypto algorithm without its creators first explaining the details of how it works. If it is truly a strong algorithm, then it won't matter that the masses understand the process in its entirety (AES, for instance).
Further, security through obscurity is nonsense, unless I'm an immature script kiddie that only looks for ports on which a known service is running (i.e. ssh=TCP22). For realistic security implementations, one should always assume protection against the most aggressive techniques of penetration. Hence, that is why obscuring ports is worthless.
Finally, the priorities of an attacker once they have gained access will more than likely not be data destruction. The point of the attack will likely be to remain undetected so they can gather as much information from a victim's infrastructure or data as possible. If I'm a bad guy, the last thing that I want you to know is that I've gained access to your system. Then you'll only patch the hole I used and make it more difficult for me to get back in.
Bush should be tried in a similar manner as Saddam. Let the courts decide what to do with him and his god decide where to send him after they've ruled.
Slashdot Mirror
This is awesome. So now I'll be able to walk around licking every hot girl I see without being charged with harassment. They can't blame it on me, I'm just trying to "see" them!
So instead of upgrading infrastructure and offering more bandwidth to customers like other civilized nations, comcast punishes customers by limiting throughput. As long as customers keep paying for their service, comcast can afford to do this. Customers need to stop acting like sheep and speak out against such ba-a-a-a-a-d service!
We should start banning humans from boarding aircraft as well since they could be another potential fire hazard.
In the interest of a good argument, I will assert that all that have replied to this post are not entirely correct. The idea of "rigorous unbreakability" is correct. This is what gives a cryptographic algorithm strength (or reliability). No one should trust the security of a crypto algorithm without its creators first explaining the details of how it works. If it is truly a strong algorithm, then it won't matter that the masses understand the process in its entirety (AES, for instance). Further, security through obscurity is nonsense, unless I'm an immature script kiddie that only looks for ports on which a known service is running (i.e. ssh=TCP22). For realistic security implementations, one should always assume protection against the most aggressive techniques of penetration. Hence, that is why obscuring ports is worthless. Finally, the priorities of an attacker once they have gained access will more than likely not be data destruction. The point of the attack will likely be to remain undetected so they can gather as much information from a victim's infrastructure or data as possible. If I'm a bad guy, the last thing that I want you to know is that I've gained access to your system. Then you'll only patch the hole I used and make it more difficult for me to get back in.
dude...read the 4th amendment.
Bush should be tried in a similar manner as Saddam. Let the courts decide what to do with him and his god decide where to send him after they've ruled.