Again, this is common knowledge and doesn't mean encryption doesn't work; it merely means things that have been successfully decrypted are no longer encrypted. No shit Sherlock.
Actually encryption does exactly that every day, all day. It is sad, but alas no longer uncommon, to see such a pathetically ignorant post on Slashdot.
Let's focus on the real issue they are obviously trying to distract us from. How many question marks does it take to appear sincerely inquisitive???????
I like your wording... we all know Trump didn't *win* the Presidency; what he did was take it. The thing is, like his wives and his freedom, he won't be able to hold on to them.
Again, nobody was arguing that password reuse was a good idea, and that is literally a different subject. You may be too new to the scene to understand how effective "John the Ripper" style offline cracking techniques were in general, and why they invented password shadowing to close the attack vector.
This says quite a bit about you. Sadly I believe it is true that most Trump supporters that will not want the truth to come to light when it finally does. I assure you those of us who are not fans want to know about *any* corruption regardless of the perpetrators political affiliation.
You just switched to a completely different subject. The discussion is about secure systems and system security in theory. Your argument amounts to "You can't create a secure system that way because there are insecure systems that exist"
That is not true. There are sites run by true security professionals, and my research indicates this is one of them. The fact that Mozilla is partnering up with them would tend to reinforce that conclusion. See also the EFF site. Surely you don't think the EFF is selling your data?
And those of us with an actual clue know that while much less likely than the layman's case we have no way to be 100% certain we *haven't* been owned. Yours is a mild case of Dunning Kruger I'm afraid.
It is a myth that you can usually brute force a login system. That hasn't been a thing since they invented password shadowing. Any decent online system will have methods to make it impossible as well.
Trump actually lost so presumably you mean he "lost the least"... but this is a classic example of correlation having nothing at all to do with causation.
There is some degree of truth to what you say, but most of your claims make it clear that your knowledge of marijuana is limited to the bullshit propoganda you have bought into.
That's correct. The use cases for blacklisting and whitelisting are different. The constitution is a use case where whitelisting was used as is appropriate. It limits power by saying the federal government shall have none but these from this *limited* set.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. It is useless.... Banks don't have online services. It could never work! Yes, you are a fucking moron.
Again, this is common knowledge and doesn't mean encryption doesn't work; it merely means things that have been successfully decrypted are no longer encrypted. No shit Sherlock.
Actually encryption does exactly that every day, all day. It is sad, but alas no longer uncommon, to see such a pathetically ignorant post on Slashdot.
If you ever owned a good phone *and used it* you would know that there is no comparison.
That is of course hilarious if you know Gentoo, and a complete WTF if you don't :-)
You misspelled insanity
Well, as they say, you learn something new every day.
Let's focus on the real issue they are obviously trying to distract us from. How many question marks does it take to appear sincerely inquisitive???????
I like your wording ... we all know Trump didn't *win* the Presidency; what he did was take it. The thing is, like his wives and his freedom, he won't be able to hold on to them.
That's great; now imagine what will really happen ...
So then we can agree the republicans have no chance :-)
Again, nobody was arguing that password reuse was a good idea, and that is literally a different subject. You may be too new to the scene to understand how effective "John the Ripper" style offline cracking techniques were in general, and why they invented password shadowing to close the attack vector.
This says quite a bit about you. Sadly I believe it is true that most Trump supporters that will not want the truth to come to light when it finally does. I assure you those of us who are not fans want to know about *any* corruption regardless of the perpetrators political affiliation.
You just switched to a completely different subject. The discussion is about secure systems and system security in theory. Your argument amounts to "You can't create a secure system that way because there are insecure systems that exist"
No, not "Bingo". If you have that kind of access you are already in and don't need passwords.
The sad thing is many people will read what you wrote without laughing.
Nope. I know many people who have used this site. You are wrong.
That is not true. There are sites run by true security professionals, and my research indicates this is one of them. The fact that Mozilla is partnering up with them would tend to reinforce that conclusion. See also the EFF site. Surely you don't think the EFF is selling your data?
And those of us with an actual clue know that while much less likely than the layman's case we have no way to be 100% certain we *haven't* been owned. Yours is a mild case of Dunning Kruger I'm afraid.
It is a myth that you can usually brute force a login system. That hasn't been a thing since they invented password shadowing. Any decent online system will have methods to make it impossible as well.
Trump actually lost so presumably you mean he "lost the least" ... but this is a classic example of correlation having nothing at all to do with causation.
There is some degree of truth to what you say, but most of your claims make it clear that your knowledge of marijuana is limited to the bullshit propoganda you have bought into.
You still haven't figured out that desirable targets running Linux far, far outnumber Windows ones and have for more than a decade. That is sad.
That's correct. The use cases for blacklisting and whitelisting are different. The constitution is a use case where whitelisting was used as is appropriate. It limits power by saying the federal government shall have none but these from this *limited* set.
Wow. Just wow. You read Slashdot but can't grasp the concept of whitelisting?