Secure, anonymous access to the web via Tor on Android is now a reality
People should really stop using the word secure with Tor. Anonymous, sure, but you actually forfeit some of your security and privacy when using Tor. Anyone can snoop your outgoing connections from Exit node, or if you're using https or other secure connection, change the certificates. On top of that there's a change the exit node changes your http pages in addition to stealing or just snooping for information. Implying "secure" in news likes this gives lots of false sense of security to users, like has been seen many times before.
Eavesdropping by exit nodes
In September 2007, Dan Egerstad, a Swedish security consultant, revealed that by operating and monitoring Tor exit nodes he had intercepted usernames and passwords for a large number of email accounts.[15] As Tor does not, and by design cannot, encrypt the traffic between an exit node and the target server, any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption, e.g. SSL. While this does not inherently violate the anonymity of the source, it affords added opportunities for data interception by self-selected third parties, greatly increasing the risk of exposure of sensitive data by users who are careless or who mistake Tor's anonymity for security.[16]
Another thing is that you are still usually leaking DNS queries to your ISP, which may even return false results if you're being censored in China or something and they still see what sites you're visiting.
The summary also quickly mentions geo-aware phones. If you happen to be using that bad exit node, now your geo-location updates will be transmitted via it too. And goverments should be able to set up a lot different exit nodes all around the world easily.
So no, it's not secure. It's maybe anonymous, if you use it correctly and don't login to your banking, slashdot account or whatever with it.
Both of those things can be accomplished on your own code too, so thats not really a reason. Maybe you / your coders don't have to do as much work, but then it will limit you to that CMS's features, limitations and ways to do things.
I've never understood the need to use some kind of CMS behind websites. It just adds unnecessary weight and complicates things, and always limits what you can do or how you should do it. Why not just code the website completely to begin with?
It's a lot better way to go, even more so for large websites.
They already have, and lots of people on slashdot probably are familiar with the situation when a friend/family member/neighbor calls you because "something is wrong with the computer" and as a "computer guy" you can fix it. for free, of course.
I've never liked the default file explorer in Windows, from 95->XP I used Turbo Navigator, but it's a little bit outdated now and bugs with admin/user access.
I suggest you try xplorer2 tho, it's *a lot* better file explorer with tabs support and a lot more. The default file explorer arguably isn't really good in Windows.
Too bad The IT Crowd is Channel 4's. It's the only UK series I've followed (apart from The Office, but UK version was so short). Otherwise I haven't really found good shows from there.
mirc has always had it's creators face in the registration screen (was even updated to a more recent one in the new versions, he's a lot older now:) - it certainly made it more personal, but as it was easy enough to just continue using free version (just wait a few second on the startup) I've never registered it, and I suspect lots of other people have done the same way too. But as his still developing it, I guess lots of people have registered too.
But some games tend to have pictures of the development team in about screens or similar, even more in older games. First games in Tony Hawk series also had lots of funny videos of the development team that you unlocked along the game (messing around in the offices and programmers trying to skate and so on)
Now a days you don't really get automated viruses on Windows either, I haven't got any since something like Windows 98. Most of automated infections usually come from a websites exploiting Flash or PDF too, and that's not really Windows fault.
(* excluding whatever it was that Conficker was exploiting an year ago, but that too was patched many months before)
And even more so, malware doesn't even need administrator access in majority of cases. Keylogging, sending spam and so on work just fine without admin too (and so it would on Linux aswell)
So you're blaming Vista as a OS when the problem clearly was other program, AVG?
And yes, it would happen in Linux too. Linux antiviruses would go as deeply in the OS as in Windows too, and same kind of bugs would appear (as they have intercept downloads).
Exactly. And theres lots of random issues like that. Once I installed Ubuntu some text we're randomly either really, really small and some we're huge. All the font sizes we're still normal and it was a fresh install. While I, who run linux servers daily, even couldn't solve the issue, how will a normal user do it?
Haven't it always been pretty clear that Wine could run Windows viruses, as long as they don't use some weird low-level tricks (which admittedly many do)?
But for that matter, Linux doesn't have malware only because it's desktop share is next to nothing (not the same amount atleast, there are Linux viruses out too). Mac OSX has been getting more and more viruses lately as it's marketshare has been growing. So would Linux aswell if it ever gained more users.
As long as the OS isn't completely locked down from the user, there will be malware. Windows, Mac, or Linux cant defend you from that. But none of us really want a locked down OS. And as long as the users are stupid their computers will get infected.
Linux has a lots of other problems (on desktop usage) than just Windows compatibility. User still needs to go into shell lots of times to actually do something when things go wrong and the UI design isn't exactly average user friendly. Windows programs dont work on Mac either, but they've atleast made the user experience easy and just straight-forward. That's why Mac OS X has some marketshare too.
It does a lot more than Vista. I dont even remember when my Vista has crashed, and I run it 24/7.
For another it doesn't take 2 minutes to open my external USB: drive and get a listing of files (I exaggerate but there is a noticeable difference).
Never had such a problem with Vista, and I dont even understand why there would be such a difference.
For a third, I don't have a stupid popup telling me, "You must type your administrator password to install Firefox.exe" and then after I type the password..... nothing happens.*
You can disable UAC and get stuff to work exactly the same way as in XP, if you want to.
Microsoft Vodka? When do they learn to use Russian Standard Vodka (worth checking out btw, some style for the Saturday night).
But for that matter, haven't it been established for long already that Win7 is basically Vista with the quirks removed and improved features. Vista was more like a transition, while actually still being a good OS.
The good thing however is that courts are usually quite sensible (well here atleast, probably not in USA) and look in to the purposes too. They would most likely laugh off a company that sues a person for randomly watching a video from YouTube that contained copyrighted music track. You'd have more ground when you bring in a case where the person had downloaded 100,000+ music tracks from P2P networks, knowing well that they were copyrighted.
That being said, even the antipiracy companies here have never went after people for downloading, even if its in law illegal. They've just went for the uploaders (where they obviously also have a better case against them)
Slashdot Mirror
Secure, anonymous access to the web via Tor on Android is now a reality
People should really stop using the word secure with Tor. Anonymous, sure, but you actually forfeit some of your security and privacy when using Tor. Anyone can snoop your outgoing connections from Exit node, or if you're using https or other secure connection, change the certificates. On top of that there's a change the exit node changes your http pages in addition to stealing or just snooping for information. Implying "secure" in news likes this gives lots of false sense of security to users, like has been seen many times before.
Eavesdropping by exit nodes
In September 2007, Dan Egerstad, a Swedish security consultant, revealed that by operating and monitoring Tor exit nodes he had intercepted usernames and passwords for a large number of email accounts.[15] As Tor does not, and by design cannot, encrypt the traffic between an exit node and the target server, any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption, e.g. SSL. While this does not inherently violate the anonymity of the source, it affords added opportunities for data interception by self-selected third parties, greatly increasing the risk of exposure of sensitive data by users who are careless or who mistake Tor's anonymity for security.[16]
Another thing is that you are still usually leaking DNS queries to your ISP, which may even return false results if you're being censored in China or something and they still see what sites you're visiting.
The summary also quickly mentions geo-aware phones. If you happen to be using that bad exit node, now your geo-location updates will be transmitted via it too. And goverments should be able to set up a lot different exit nodes all around the world easily.
So no, it's not secure. It's maybe anonymous, if you use it correctly and don't login to your banking, slashdot account or whatever with it.
Yeah, they should code it with Assembly.
Both of those things can be accomplished on your own code too, so thats not really a reason. Maybe you / your coders don't have to do as much work, but then it will limit you to that CMS's features, limitations and ways to do things.
I've never understood the need to use some kind of CMS behind websites. It just adds unnecessary weight and complicates things, and always limits what you can do or how you should do it. Why not just code the website completely to begin with?
It's a lot better way to go, even more so for large websites.
But we'd have no more lost carrier jokes, so it might balance out.
You would think so. Whole world would be filled with nerds running all around yelling LOST CARRIER, LOST CARRIER!!
Sad thing is that this story *is not* in idle, but entertainment.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2686/kimjongslashdot.jpg
They already have, and lots of people on slashdot probably are familiar with the situation when a friend/family member/neighbor calls you because "something is wrong with the computer" and as a "computer guy" you can fix it. for free, of course.
I've never liked the default file explorer in Windows, from 95->XP I used Turbo Navigator, but it's a little bit outdated now and bugs with admin/user access.
I suggest you try xplorer2 tho, it's *a lot* better file explorer with tabs support and a lot more. The default file explorer arguably isn't really good in Windows.
Too bad The IT Crowd is Channel 4's. It's the only UK series I've followed (apart from The Office, but UK version was so short). Otherwise I haven't really found good shows from there.
mirc has always had it's creators face in the registration screen (was even updated to a more recent one in the new versions, he's a lot older now :) - it certainly made it more personal, but as it was easy enough to just continue using free version (just wait a few second on the startup) I've never registered it, and I suspect lots of other people have done the same way too. But as his still developing it, I guess lots of people have registered too.
But some games tend to have pictures of the development team in about screens or similar, even more in older games. First games in Tony Hawk series also had lots of funny videos of the development team that you unlocked along the game (messing around in the offices and programmers trying to skate and so on)
It says in the article it does asks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
There's quite a few viruses and worms too.
Now a days you don't really get automated viruses on Windows either, I haven't got any since something like Windows 98. Most of automated infections usually come from a websites exploiting Flash or PDF too, and that's not really Windows fault.
(* excluding whatever it was that Conficker was exploiting an year ago, but that too was patched many months before)
Google query
And even more so, malware doesn't even need administrator access in majority of cases. Keylogging, sending spam and so on work just fine without admin too (and so it would on Linux aswell)
If you're running Vista/Win7 as administrator, UAC just asks you to OK/Cancel. If you're running as user account, you have to type admin password too.
So you're blaming Vista as a OS when the problem clearly was other program, AVG?
And yes, it would happen in Linux too. Linux antiviruses would go as deeply in the OS as in Windows too, and same kind of bugs would appear (as they have intercept downloads).
Exactly. And theres lots of random issues like that. Once I installed Ubuntu some text we're randomly either really, really small and some we're huge. All the font sizes we're still normal and it was a fresh install. While I, who run linux servers daily, even couldn't solve the issue, how will a normal user do it?
Haven't it always been pretty clear that Wine could run Windows viruses, as long as they don't use some weird low-level tricks (which admittedly many do)?
But for that matter, Linux doesn't have malware only because it's desktop share is next to nothing (not the same amount atleast, there are Linux viruses out too). Mac OSX has been getting more and more viruses lately as it's marketshare has been growing. So would Linux aswell if it ever gained more users.
As long as the OS isn't completely locked down from the user, there will be malware. Windows, Mac, or Linux cant defend you from that. But none of us really want a locked down OS. And as long as the users are stupid their computers will get infected.
It's just about the marketshare.
Linux has a lots of other problems (on desktop usage) than just Windows compatibility. User still needs to go into shell lots of times to actually do something when things go wrong and the UI design isn't exactly average user friendly. Windows programs dont work on Mac either, but they've atleast made the user experience easy and just straight-forward. That's why Mac OS X has some marketshare too.
Other problem with Linux is all the over-fanatic GPL geeks that make an uproar when something closed source *dare* to appear on their loved all-open OS. Companies aren't going to open up their drivers or libraries and even less so when the marketshare on linux desktop is like 0.1%. Just read what happened when Spotify decided to be nice for the small Linux community and released closed-source library for Linux.
For one thing XP doesn't crash.
It does a lot more than Vista. I dont even remember when my Vista has crashed, and I run it 24/7.
For another it doesn't take 2 minutes to open my external USB: drive and get a listing of files (I exaggerate but there is a noticeable difference).
Never had such a problem with Vista, and I dont even understand why there would be such a difference.
For a third, I don't have a stupid popup telling me, "You must type your administrator password to install Firefox.exe" and then after I type the password..... nothing happens.*
You can disable UAC and get stuff to work exactly the same way as in XP, if you want to.
Microsoft Vodka? When do they learn to use Russian Standard Vodka (worth checking out btw, some style for the Saturday night).
But for that matter, haven't it been established for long already that Win7 is basically Vista with the quirks removed and improved features. Vista was more like a transition, while actually still being a good OS.
Make a video where the user clicks "Run File" in Internet Explorer and then the building explodes.
The good thing however is that courts are usually quite sensible (well here atleast, probably not in USA) and look in to the purposes too. They would most likely laugh off a company that sues a person for randomly watching a video from YouTube that contained copyrighted music track. You'd have more ground when you bring in a case where the person had downloaded 100,000+ music tracks from P2P networks, knowing well that they were copyrighted.
That being said, even the antipiracy companies here have never went after people for downloading, even if its in law illegal. They've just went for the uploaders (where they obviously also have a better case against them)