I'll have to strongly disagree with you about naturopathy. Herbs are effective medicine; in fact I *guarantee* that you've heard about the efficacy of at least one herbal medicine, if not experienced it yourself -- willow bark.
You probably know it by another name: acetylsalicylic acid, AKA aspirin.
Only if there is an appropriately vulnerable window with higher privileges that already exists on the same desktop.
Actually, *any* running process with higher priveleges will do (even windowless ones or ones on a different desktop). Further, most admin-level processes are broken in this regard. When I say most, I mean most of the ones that are supplied directly by MS.
> 1. MS doesn't take security seriously. Has broken permissions.
False.
Your false statement is wrong. Ever heard of a shatter attack? This is where a program can use the published Windows API to cause a privilege-escalation attack. This means that any process, run at any privlege level, can escalate itself to having administrator-level privleges. (Don't believe me? Google on "shatter attack" -- with quotes -- and read.)
You keep using that word. I donna think it means what you think it means.
The "World Wide Web" was the popular name coined to refer to documents offered over the HTTP protocol (and more specifically HTML documents). Why? Because HTML is a hyperlinking technology -- meaning that HTML document can theoretically refer to any other, thus creating a "web" of inter-connection between various computers. No, HTTP+HTML is not the only hyperlinking tech, nor were they even the first. However, they are the most popular (for several very good reasons, the biggest of which is that you can encode references to *other* protocols in HTML). www.* came to be used because it was the acronym for the World Wide Web, AKA HTML over HTTP.
Now for the other part -- the Internet refers to a plethora of local networks connected via TCP/IP (which is the most popular networking protocol today.) HTTP is a protocol that uses TCP/IP to function. So, the web we know and love is an application on top of the Internet -- but it is no more the Internet than FTP (file transfer), SMTP (email), or even my favorite, SSH (Secure [remote] SHell) are. They are all applications that run on top of the Internet, but none *are* the Internet.
Thus ends today's episode of "De-confusing Terminology For Non-Experts".
Except that Washington law isn't really clear on this. At least some parts of the state government strongly believe that non-competes aren't legal. (e.g. unemployment.)
This should be an interesting case to see how it unfolds.
I haven't followed the literature lately, but there was speculation a few years ago that DES is actually a group. Which would mean that 3DES is equivilent to DES -- and therefore be practically no security at all.
If you are not willing to accept technical quoting, I doubt that you are making any money anywhere remotely connected with the technical industry. Further, I doubt that you are making money in any publishing related industry.
All Chicago says is that this style of quoting has been seen in certain contexts. That doesn't make it acceptable. In fact, it is quite unacceptable. Associated Press agrees on this point.
Your copy of Chicago must read different than mine (technically my wife's). [BTW, 14th ed. not 19th ed. My mistake.] With a great deal of apologetic undertone, Chicago says that:
1) It is of utmost importance that you are understood: If the placement of the period or comma inside quotes will create confusion, don't do it!
2) There are some American language experts who strongly advocate the British quoting style. (emphasis mine. BTW, British quoting style is what Chicago calls technical quoting.)
3) Chicago continues to recommend the American Style of quoting, with some substantial reservations. (Emphasis mine. I placed emphasis there because they are not saying British is incorrect for publishing.)
Translation: The "Ultimate" authority says that while British Quoting Style may not be preferred, it is OK!
BTW, Associated Press may say British Style is wrong, but AP is not known for their long or overly detailed or technical discussions. That is, AP style is not appropriate in a technical medium.
Now that I've gone completely offtopic, have a good night, and remember that Slashdot as a whole is not a medium known for their great grammar or spelling. (Although it has been interesting reading what Chicago Manual of Style has to say on the issue of Technical Quoting.)
"The European style?" That's a load of crap.... These are the rules. You either follow them, or you're wrong.
You, Sir, are wrong. Do yourself a favor. Pick up a modern copy of the Chicago Manual of Style sometime (19th ed or later) - it's also called technical quoting.
If you don't know what the Chicago Manual of Style is, shut up and go away. (For the rest of you, it is the reference book that the publishing companies use to make sure that everything published has a consistent and understandable look and feel.)
Now go away, and let the adults here continue their conversation.
(BTW, generalization of this is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Your public / private keys depend upon the factorization of the composite number and something called the phi function. The rules for this function are somewhat complex, but in the case of a series of factors consisting of unique primes it's pretty simple.
Taking the case of a number with three unique prime factors: N = p * q * r. [p != q, q != r, r != p. p, q and r are all prime.]
Then, phi(N) = (p - 1) * (q - 1) * (r - 1).
Fine, you say, but what does this mean? The reason RSA works is due to a generalization of theorem of Fermat's (from Euler):
When a is not a multiple of p, q, or r (the prime factors of N), you can choose a number g such that 1 + g * N = a ^ phi(N). Or, to use modular arithmetic terms, a ^ phi(N) = 1 mod N.
That in turn means that a ^ ((k * phi(N)) + 1)= a mod N, for *any* integer k. Note that for a given a, other powers may work as well -- but you are garunteed that any power equal to ((k * phi(N)) + 1) will work for any a that is coprime to N. (a coprime to N means that a is not divisable by any of the factors of N.)
Let's say you have a private key (e) that you want to use. Then there may exist a decryption key (d). If d exists, d * e = k * phi(N) + 1. That is: d * e = 1 mod phi(N). Note that given d and e that work, then *any* number of the form d + k * phi(N) will work! The trick with RSA is that phi(N) for a very large number tends to be very large, hence these extra keys are very far apart.
Therefore, for a given RSA encryption key, there are an infinity of decryption keys! Having extra factors has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what I thought. Now we need to be careful not to let the researchers inject the modified cells back into themselves.
I'll have to strongly disagree with you about naturopathy. Herbs are effective medicine; in fact I *guarantee* that you've heard about the efficacy of at least one herbal medicine, if not experienced it yourself -- willow bark.
You probably know it by another name: acetylsalicylic acid, AKA aspirin.
Remember that the singular of data is "anecdote".
Actually, this sort of situation is what *copyright* is for. No need for a patent at all.
You know what? I'm apparently not going to convice you, you're not going to convince me. Good day.
Only if there is an appropriately vulnerable window with higher privileges that already exists on the same desktop.
Actually, *any* running process with higher priveleges will do (even windowless ones or ones on a different desktop). Further, most admin-level processes are broken in this regard. When I say most, I mean most of the ones that are supplied directly by MS.
> 1. MS doesn't take security seriously. Has broken permissions.
False.
Your false statement is wrong. Ever heard of a shatter attack? This is where a program can use the published Windows API to cause a privilege-escalation attack. This means that any process, run at any privlege level, can escalate itself to having administrator-level privleges. (Don't believe me? Google on "shatter attack" -- with quotes -- and read.)
I'd call that pretty broken permissions.
That reminds me of an old joke:
Q: Can you name one French Military Victory?
A: The American Revolution.
Snicker. You're such a troll, you are actually funny. I forgot the first cardinal rule: Don't feed the trolls.
BTW, the inventor of the web disagrees with you about what the web and the net are.
The Internet, often refered to the World Wide Web
You keep using that word. I donna think it means what you think it means.
The "World Wide Web" was the popular name coined to refer to documents offered over the HTTP protocol (and more specifically HTML documents). Why? Because HTML is a hyperlinking technology -- meaning that HTML document can theoretically refer to any other, thus creating a "web" of inter-connection between various computers. No, HTTP+HTML is not the only hyperlinking tech, nor were they even the first. However, they are the most popular (for several very good reasons, the biggest of which is that you can encode references to *other* protocols in HTML). www.* came to be used because it was the acronym for the World Wide Web, AKA HTML over HTTP.
Now for the other part -- the Internet refers to a plethora of local networks connected via TCP/IP (which is the most popular networking protocol today.) HTTP is a protocol that uses TCP/IP to function. So, the web we know and love is an application on top of the Internet -- but it is no more the Internet than FTP (file transfer), SMTP (email), or even my favorite, SSH (Secure [remote] SHell) are. They are all applications that run on top of the Internet, but none *are* the Internet.
Thus ends today's episode of "De-confusing Terminology For Non-Experts".
Imagining a whole new meaning of "the Blue Screen of Death".
*Bad mental movie*!
Except that Washington law isn't really clear on this. At least some parts of the state government strongly believe that non-competes aren't legal. (e.g. unemployment.)
This should be an interesting case to see how it unfolds.
I haven't followed the literature lately, but there was speculation a few years ago that DES is actually a group. Which would mean that 3DES is equivilent to DES -- and therefore be practically no security at all.
I give up.
If you are not willing to accept technical quoting, I doubt that you are making any money anywhere remotely connected with the technical industry. Further, I doubt that you are making money in any publishing related industry.
Goodbye.
*plonk*
All Chicago says is that this style of quoting has been seen in certain contexts. That doesn't make it acceptable. In fact, it is quite unacceptable. Associated Press agrees on this point.
Your copy of Chicago must read different than mine (technically my wife's). [BTW, 14th ed. not 19th ed. My mistake.] With a great deal of apologetic undertone, Chicago says that:
1) It is of utmost importance that you are understood: If the placement of the period or comma inside quotes will create confusion, don't do it!
2) There are some American language experts who strongly advocate the British quoting style. (emphasis mine. BTW, British quoting style is what Chicago calls technical quoting.)
3) Chicago continues to recommend the American Style of quoting, with some substantial reservations. (Emphasis mine. I placed emphasis there because they are not saying British is incorrect for publishing.)
Translation: The "Ultimate" authority says that while British Quoting Style may not be preferred, it is OK!
BTW, Associated Press may say British Style is wrong, but AP is not known for their long or overly detailed or technical discussions. That is, AP style is not appropriate in a technical medium.
Now that I've gone completely offtopic, have a good night, and remember that Slashdot as a whole is not a medium known for their great grammar or spelling. (Although it has been interesting reading what Chicago Manual of Style has to say on the issue of Technical Quoting.)
"The European style?" That's a load of crap. ... These are the rules. You either follow them, or you're wrong.
You, Sir, are wrong. Do yourself a favor. Pick up a modern copy of the Chicago Manual of Style sometime (19th ed or later) - it's also called technical quoting.
If you don't know what the Chicago Manual of Style is, shut up and go away. (For the rest of you, it is the reference book that the publishing companies use to make sure that everything published has a consistent and understandable look and feel.)
Now go away, and let the adults here continue their conversation.
(BTW, generalization of this is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Your public / private keys depend upon the factorization of the composite number and something called the phi function. The rules for this function are somewhat complex, but in the case of a series of factors consisting of unique primes it's pretty simple.
Taking the case of a number with three unique prime factors: N = p * q * r. [p != q, q != r, r != p. p, q and r are all prime.]
Then, phi(N) = (p - 1) * (q - 1) * (r - 1).
Fine, you say, but what does this mean? The reason RSA works is due to a generalization of theorem of Fermat's (from Euler):
When a is not a multiple of p, q, or r (the prime factors of N), you can choose a number g such that 1 + g * N = a ^ phi(N). Or, to use modular arithmetic terms, a ^ phi(N) = 1 mod N.
That in turn means that a ^ ((k * phi(N)) + 1)= a mod N, for *any* integer k. Note that for a given a, other powers may work as well -- but you are garunteed that any power equal to ((k * phi(N)) + 1) will work for any a that is coprime to N. (a coprime to N means that a is not divisable by any of the factors of N.)
Let's say you have a private key (e) that you want to use. Then there may exist a decryption key (d). If d exists, d * e = k * phi(N) + 1. That is: d * e = 1 mod phi(N). Note that given d and e that work, then *any* number of the form d + k * phi(N) will work! The trick with RSA is that phi(N) for a very large number tends to be very large, hence these extra keys are very far apart.
Therefore, for a given RSA encryption key, there are an infinity of decryption keys! Having extra factors has absolutely nothing to do with it.