No. Becouse in the stated situation, ONLY root can compile aplications and mark them as 'signed'.
And this isn't a DRM. This is more.. Hrm..
What would you term it. It has nothing to do with the data itself, it has to do with what the kernel acknoledges to be a valid 'approved' application..
*blink* That's HORRIBLE. I was expecting something that didn't SOUND like a bunch of 7th graders who have been practicing in a half an hour music class..
If that's the future of music.
Oh gawd. PLEASe invent the time machine BEFORE that gets popular so I can go hurl myself into some large lizards mouth..
The crunching of my bones will be a welcome relief to that crap..
In general, ssystems should be pattched as soon as possible. Most of the patches are realeased becouse there is something out there, in the wild..
Anything that is accesible from the net should be able to be taken down anyway, at least when properly planned.
Servers should be redudant, at swappable.. One of the reasons for this is, quite simply, so that you CAN do this sort of thing, without interupting customers..
Not customer wants to hear that the entire system is FUBARED, and you have to build a new system..
shesh, doesnt anyone PLAN for this sort of thing? lol
Sure. If they call you up and say 'Dear Mister or Miss Dumbass, please goto your linux box and type this.'. Go ahead on any standard linux box whos routing, and type route print. Note that there is an ADAPTER there..
Imagine if a computer at your ISP had a route added to its routing table which causes 192.168.0.0/16 to be routed to your external IP address
Ok, I will. Here, lemme go look at my NAT box setup now..
Ok, it's public IP is 66.32.64.0, netmask on that interface is 255.255.248.0. (Yes, I changed a number or two to hide the real IP)
It's internal adapter is setup for 192.168.0.1, with a netmask of 255.255.255.0.
Lets follow this. Packet comes is recieved by the ethernet adapter. The driver gets it, and for some magical reweason, it's transmitted directly to my MAC address.
Software gets it. Software says 'Oh wow, look, someone elses packet, I wont process it becouse it doesnt match my '1 simply rule' to be 'mine'. *software promptly tosses the packet over it's shoulder, into the pile of ever other packet that it found wasnt addressed specfifically to it*
As they say in grade school, read a book, learning is fun..
Actually, you are ASSUMING as your basis that the NAT rules will just blindly let any trafic in that doesnt meet any of it's NAT rules.
And as I said before, this would only work if you don't support any sort of netmasks.
The packets would, even if they are somehow managed to magically manage to get routed IN from a netmask the interface wouldnt support, just get routed BACK out to the NAT boxs default host, as it doesnt match ANY of the netmask rules for transmital to the internal address..
- Connections that must initiate from inside the network.
This is easily achieved with a normal firewall and routable addresses as well.
They think they get it with NAT, and they do. You stated it as if they don't get it when they think they do.
No, your addresses are perfectly routable, just the internet at large does not route them by agreement. Your ISP could easily configure it's routers to get traffic in to your network on those addresses.
Have you never heard of a netmask? Try it sometime.
Not really... or more accurately, to an outside attacker, those addresses dont mean anyhting anyway. Whether they are known or not is not relevant. A firewall in front of a network of routable addresses could hide things equally well.
Again, your stating something you could get another way, but NOT stating something NAT doesnt provide. Aka, where's the Myths your trying to clear up?
The ISP could route to their internal network, no problem, making connections to whatever they want.
I sense you speak from a lack of knowledge. Netmasks are there for a reason, and every NAT box I've EVER seen uses netmasks to specifically NOT allow the sort of thing you speak of. And as far as an interface routing packets for the wrong interface, you'd have a busted IP stack if it'd pickup stuff transmitted to it that don't fit it's netmask..
This should include the worms and every other attack that hits Windows boxes.
Why it would NOT consider a worm a compromise, I'll never know.
The only difference between the Windows worms and a script kiddie compromise is that the worm is working autotonomously on its own. come to think of it, alot of the script kiddie tools do too..
I dunno. I did give up muds. The only thing I miss is really is them being run by individuals, and being able to come up with cool things as code patches to pass along..
And the pocketbooks of many speak for itself. We've forked out 10+ dollars a month for over 3 years just to be able to play it.
In the game, there's a command/played. It tells you exactly HOW long you've physically been sitting in front of the computer playing that particular character..
Most people that are reasonably high level have been playing for 2+ years. In that time, most high level characters/played time is IN EXCESS of 100 DAYS. Mines at 101 days, at lvl 60. Thats over 3 years.
That means, in the last 3 years, I've spent a month every year, JUST PLAYING THE GAME. And many, MANY people have this sort of/played times..
Your looking at thge short term. I can promise you that in the long run, people always pay off over timer.
What happens when suddenly your expensive machines munges your database? When suddenly, that one engineer that wasn't very good, but wrote a fairly important, yet archaic past of your backend, leaves?
Code cannot really be picked up out of the blue. People need to pass that on. Yes, indeed. Expensive people.
I have YET to see a compiler that accepts a buisness drawing in Powerpoint and turns it into a stable, scalable solution to generate revenue. I have, on the other hand, seen those expensive people your saying are replacable with machines, do it.
Not really. I've seen several line apps that aren't maintanable specifically becouse they rely on functionality provided by the platform, so when things change, as they quite often have in the J2EE world, keeping up to date pretty much requires scratch rewrites..
Think email for IM. Any of the publically available servers can communicate with ANy of the other servers. The namespace includes the use of a domain. Becouse of the entire idea of a domain, a domain can frontend another external namespace, say, AIM. Since AIM has a single namespace, representing it within a single domain is simple. From there, all you need is the 'glue' to basically serve as a gobetween for AIM, MSN, etc, and Jabber.
Next time, actually read the law. The DMCA is VERY broad. Sounds to me like your extent of reading on it was the name, and not the contents of the act itself.
The DMCA makes it illegal to publish any sort of information that provides data relating to any sort of bug that could be potentially exploited. This was, IMHO, added to prevent people from writing applications that would allow individuals to circumvent applications that where protecting copywrited materials, but it's all in the wording.
Tell me your make, model, and licence plate number..;-) We'll find you. After all, it's all your fault that the hole took years to dig. Shesh. They scooping dirt, and what are YOU doing? READING./? How DARE you!
Actually, it says NOTHING about p2p. It speaks of the fact that IRC wasn't designed to DO this. Even the RFC states, 'This WILL not scale'. All traffic within IRC is distributed to all servers. Couple that with the fact that it uses a simple tree setup for server, aka, you can only have one route to a given server, thru other servers.
And then there was the whopping 1k user mark if I recall about a year and a half later? Thats about the point when some of the servers started to drop off becouse the bandwidth had gone from miniscule to a bit excessive..
Slashdot Mirror
No. Becouse in the stated situation, ONLY root can compile aplications and mark them as 'signed'.
And this isn't a DRM. This is more.. Hrm..
What would you term it. It has nothing to do with the data itself, it has to do with what the kernel acknoledges to be a valid 'approved' application..
Check again.
iChat uses XMPP. SIP is used to negotiate audio and video streaming..
*blink* That's HORRIBLE. I was expecting something that didn't SOUND like a bunch of 7th graders who have been practicing in a half an hour music class..
If that's the future of music.
Oh gawd. PLEASe invent the time machine BEFORE that gets popular so I can go hurl myself into some large lizards mouth..
The crunching of my bones will be a welcome relief to that crap..
In general, ssystems should be pattched as soon as possible. Most of the patches are realeased becouse there is something out there, in the wild..
Anything that is accesible from the net should be able to be taken down anyway, at least when properly planned.
Servers should be redudant, at swappable.. One of the reasons for this is, quite simply, so that you CAN do this sort of thing, without interupting customers..
Not customer wants to hear that the entire system is FUBARED, and you have to build a new system..
shesh, doesnt anyone PLAN for this sort of thing? lol
Sure. If they call you up and say 'Dear Mister or Miss Dumbass, please goto your linux box and type this.'. Go ahead on any standard linux box whos routing, and type route print. Note that there is an ADAPTER there..
Imagine if a computer at your ISP had a route added to its routing table which causes 192.168.0.0/16 to be routed to your external IP address
Ok, I will. Here, lemme go look at my NAT box setup now..
Ok, it's public IP is 66.32.64.0, netmask on that interface is 255.255.248.0. (Yes, I changed a number or two to hide the real IP)
It's internal adapter is setup for 192.168.0.1, with a netmask of 255.255.255.0.
Lets follow this. Packet comes is recieved by the ethernet adapter. The driver gets it, and for some magical reweason, it's transmitted directly to my MAC address.
Software gets it. Software says 'Oh wow, look, someone elses packet, I wont process it becouse it doesnt match my '1 simply rule' to be 'mine'.
*software promptly tosses the packet over it's shoulder, into the pile of ever other packet that it found wasnt addressed specfifically to it*
As they say in grade school, read a book, learning is fun..
Actually, you are ASSUMING as your basis that the NAT rules will just blindly let any trafic in that doesnt meet any of it's NAT rules.
And as I said before, this would only work if you don't support any sort of netmasks.
The packets would, even if they are somehow managed to magically manage to get routed IN from a netmask the interface wouldnt support, just get routed BACK out to the NAT boxs default host, as it doesnt match ANY of the netmask rules for transmital to the internal address..
- Connections that must initiate from inside the network. This is easily achieved with a normal firewall and routable addresses as well.
They think they get it with NAT, and they do. You stated it as if they don't get it when they think they do.
No, your addresses are perfectly routable, just the internet at large does not route them by agreement. Your ISP could easily configure it's routers to get traffic in to your network on those addresses.
Have you never heard of a netmask? Try it sometime.
Not really... or more accurately, to an outside attacker, those addresses dont mean anyhting anyway. Whether they are known or not is not relevant. A firewall in front of a network of routable addresses could hide things equally well.
Again, your stating something you could get another way, but NOT stating something NAT doesnt provide. Aka, where's the Myths your trying to clear up?
The ISP could route to their internal network, no problem, making connections to whatever they want.
I sense you speak from a lack of knowledge. Netmasks are there for a reason, and every NAT box I've EVER seen uses netmasks to specifically NOT allow the sort of thing you speak of. And as far as an interface routing packets for the wrong interface, you'd have a busted IP stack if it'd pickup stuff transmitted to it that don't fit it's netmask..
This should include the worms and every other attack that hits Windows boxes.
Why it would NOT consider a worm a compromise, I'll never know.
The only difference between the Windows worms and a script kiddie compromise is that the worm is working autotonomously on its own. come to think of it, alot of the script kiddie tools do too..
And they're going to do this from location that they are safe..
Guess where that is? Someones little web or battlenet server..
And how would this type of thing be enforced for general aviation? Not all planes in the air are huge 777s with fly by wire controls.
Are you going to force every plane to have an electronic guidence system?
Heck. Hypothetically, there are planes up there with no radios still.
It's not the game. Anyone can get addicted to anything. It's like gambling. It's the whole 'what you can get' factor..
I dunno. I did give up muds. The only thing I miss is really is them being run by individuals, and being able to come up with cool things as code patches to pass along..
It has to be Everquest, hands down.
/played. It tells you exactly HOW long you've physically been sitting in front of the computer playing that particular character..
/played time is IN EXCESS of 100 DAYS. Mines at 101 days, at lvl 60. Thats over 3 years.
/played times..
And the pocketbooks of many speak for itself. We've forked out 10+ dollars a month for over 3 years just to be able to play it.
In the game, there's a command
Most people that are reasonably high level have been playing for 2+ years. In that time, most high level characters
That means, in the last 3 years, I've spent a month every year, JUST PLAYING THE GAME. And many, MANY people have this sort of
The largest eCommerce site, yet doesn't handle the traffic of amazon or yahoo?
Ok, I'm confused now..
Your facts do not make sense.
Your looking at thge short term. I can promise you that in the long run, people always pay off over timer.
What happens when suddenly your expensive machines munges your database? When suddenly, that one engineer that wasn't very good, but wrote a fairly important, yet archaic past of your backend, leaves?
Code cannot really be picked up out of the blue. People need to pass that on. Yes, indeed. Expensive people.
I have YET to see a compiler that accepts a buisness drawing in Powerpoint and turns it into a stable, scalable solution to generate revenue. I have, on the other hand, seen those expensive people your saying are replacable with machines, do it.
Not really. I've seen several line apps that aren't maintanable specifically becouse they rely on functionality provided by the platform, so when things change, as they quite often have in the J2EE world, keeping up to date pretty much requires scratch rewrites..
Lines of code has nothing to do with ease of use, reliability, or scalability.
;-)
This isn't some sort of a 'I can do that task in *3* lines of code, Jack!' contest..
Think email for IM. Any of the publically available servers can communicate with ANy of the other servers. The namespace includes the use of a domain. Becouse of the entire idea of a domain, a domain can frontend another external namespace, say, AIM. Since AIM has a single namespace, representing it within a single domain is simple. From there, all you need is the 'glue' to basically serve as a gobetween for AIM, MSN, etc, and Jabber.
iChat actually *IS* using Jabber. For it's iChatiChat user communications. ;-) The iChat servers are.. *drumroll please* Jabber servers.
Next time, actually read the law. The DMCA is VERY broad. Sounds to me like your extent of reading on it was the name, and not the contents of the act itself.
The DMCA makes it illegal to publish any sort of information that provides data relating to any sort of bug that could be potentially exploited. This was, IMHO, added to prevent people from writing applications that would allow individuals to circumvent applications that where protecting copywrited materials, but it's all in the wording.
Tell me your make, model, and licence plate number.. ;-) We'll find you. After all, it's all your fault that the hole took years to dig. Shesh. They scooping dirt, and what are YOU doing? READING ./? How DARE you!
Well, as someone who drives around Boston from time to time, I can say..
If you can multitask, then you can be doing twice as much work..
*Whipping sound.. Drum beats..*
Actually, it says NOTHING about p2p. It speaks of the fact that IRC wasn't designed to DO this. Even the RFC states, 'This WILL not scale'. All traffic within IRC is distributed to all servers. Couple that with the fact that it uses a simple tree setup for server, aka, you can only have one route to a given server, thru other servers.
WOOT! I'm NOT alone! ;-)
And then there was the whopping 1k user mark if I recall about a year and a half later? Thats about the point when some of the servers started to drop off becouse the bandwidth had gone from miniscule to a bit excessive..