There are more Apache servers than IIS servers, but there are more IIS 'sploits than Apache exploits. Explain that:)
Ok - Apache is harder to admin than IIS, as you can't just point 'n' click your way through it, so Apache admins have to take the time to actually understand what they're doing. Linux admins tend (on average) to be more clued-up than Windows ones. [Disclaimer: I've known some truly awful Linux/Unix admins and some very, very good Windows ones, but *on average* I think this is true.] IIS offers more functionality out of the box, and so has more scope for vulnerabilities, making it an easier target for the bad guys. Some of the bad guys hate "M$" and so specifically target IIS.
Finally, with spyware and malware, we're almost exclusively talking about the user unwittingly installing something while running with admin privileges that then uses those privileges to harm the system in some way, while you're taking about remote exploits. What was your point again?
No app is going to mess with OS X system config files, no matter how much market share it has, because the user doesn't run as root.
So how does the user perform system administration tasks? Are they ever prompted to enter their root/admin password while installing something?
What's to stop spyware installers from doing the same thing on Mac OS X or Linux? Sure, under Linux they can only put "auto start" stuff in/etc/rc.d/... or/etc/profile or/etc/[shell]rc or ~/.[shell]rc or overwrite a system binary or... Not as bad as Windows perhaps, but not that far off it.
we would have major companies contributing open codes, instead of having them taking stuff and releasing slower, buggy, proprietary drivers
Slower? Please explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that NVidia's closed source drivers are slower than the open source ones, especially given that the open source ones don't support 3D acceleration at all?
they will be less expensive for the same reasons Winmodem are less expensive than hardware modem
Winmodems are less expensive than (fully) hardware modems because they leave some of the processing up to software. That means that they can skimp on the components, and so cost less to produce.
In contrast, these motherboards will have *extra* components on them, and so all other things being equal, will be *more* expensive than ones without.
(Note that I said "all other things being equal" - the manufacturers are free to take a loss by selling them cheaper, or skimp on other components/features, etc)
The only way to protect the trust chips is to obtain a federal injunction (from a judge) barring hardware hackers from circumventing the hardware anti-piracy chips.
THIS should have been posted with the story, not Michael's snarky, cluless little comment (note: how is this guy still an editor?)
You mean compared to the rest of them? Really, Michael's no better or worse than any of the other slashdot editors. This has never been the place to come for unbiased news; nowadays, it's barely even the place to come for biased news.
I don't see why this is necessary to lock down computers against worms, viruses, and spyware because those are an end product of bad software
Bullshit. Malware that exploits holes in the OS or other installed software to install without the user's knowledge is an end product of bad software, but most does not.
Remember Kazaa? It said right there in the EULA that they were going to install crap with it. Nothing exploited but the lack of care of the user. Same deal with a worrying amount of Windows software; malware gets installed with other stuff or as unwanted/unknown functionality of benign-appearing software, not just (or even mostly) through holes.
Viruses, at least in the old skool sense, modify executables, adding themselves to them and changing them to run their code first. Again, that's not exploiting anything but the open nature of the executable format and the writable nature of the storage medium. Sure, a lot of modern viruses "exploit" the scriptable nature of the Outlook/Outlook Express address book, and some even exploit holes in the software to get themselves run without the user's consent. On the other hand, the only viruses I've received by mail this year have been in zip file attachments. I'd have to open the zip file then manually run the virus to get infected; they exploit nothing but user stupidity. I've seen viruses get transmitted by software downloaded via p2p apps; just yesterday I downloaded a screensaver from softpaedia (a website) that was infected with a trojan.
Worms, now they do rely on holes to spread, but they're also relatively rare. For every blaster, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of "normal" viruses, that require user interaction to spread.
I know it's normal here to bemoan all the problems that insecure software cause, and a lot of that criticism is justified. It's by no means the only or even the worst cause of this sort of stuff though - lack of care and knowledge on the part of the user is, in my experience, by far the biggest cause. Whether or not trusted computing can do anything about that remains to be seen, of course. I'd like to think so, but then as the saying goes, you can't make anything foolproof.
Are the `Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions a good start for you?
Should they be? I've never heard of the author, or of you, "Cyclops". Since we're questioning issues of trust, why should I trust either of you any more than I trust the press release?
Because lots and lots and lots of people are now used to getting music for free. They don't care enough about the artists to pay for it now, why would that change?
I have never seen (retail) software where the full contents of the EULA were accessible without running the installer (or at least opening the package)
I've seen the EULA printed in the back of the manual of a number games - a quick check reveals Arx Fatalis to be one (but not UT2k4, my first pick).
True, you have to have opened the package, but you don't have to have run the installer. I'm not sure where the EULA would fit on the box, though.
Quote from the Microsoft Windows XP Professional EULA:
"By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA."
Emphasis mine.
This EULA says that if you use the software, you must agree to the terms of the EULA. This decision says that EULAs are binding. Therefore, whether you click the "I Agree" button or not, if you use XP, you're bound by the EULA, at least in the jurisdiction of the court that made this ruling.
Exchange "click the button" with "sign my name", and ask yourself if your idea still seems valid. If not, why should there be any difference between the two?
then whether I have 'title and ownership' of that item, is the same question, whether the item is a CDROM or a carton of milk
Yup. The similarities go on - you own the carton and the milk in it, but not the design of the carton (check it, it's probably patented) and while you're free to use and reuse that carton, chances are you're *not* free to make copies of it. Same with the software - you own the disk its on, but not the data itself. Sucks in a way, but that's the way it is. The various indutries are doing as companies do and pushing to maximise their profit potentials, and so copyright is being skewed more and more in their favour. However I believe that copright itself is essential; ymmv.
agreed to the terms of the EULA when they bought the software from their distributor
No, they did not. The EULA is the End User Licence Agreement - the store is just a reseller, not a user. By the same token if I never install a piece of software, I never have to agree to the EULA - I read all of them (you have to these days, after Kazaa et al started granting themselves rights to install malware along with their software), and I don't remember any that didn't contain a phrase to the effect that by "installing and using" the software, you agree to be bound by the licence. Ie, not by merely buying it.
No, I think that the real issue is that the vast majority of Free software is also available for free, which anyone can afford and everyone is prepared to pay, while most software for Windows is pay for only, which a lot of people either can't afford or just won't pay for.
*If* Linux becomes more widespread on the desktop, and *if* a significant amount of commercial, pay-for software appears for it, you'll start to see comparable levels of piracy in the Linux world too. I don't suppose many of the current users will join in, but then they'd not do it if they were using Windows, either.
Seems to me the choice is between getting as many nations as possible to sign up to and follow the Accord, or just forgetting about the whole thing.
In the first scenario, at least some difference is being made, assuming that the non-participants act as though the Accord does not exist. In the second, we have all the problems from the (orginal) non-participants, plus problems from the nations that were going to participate but now won't.
Seems to me that all things being equal, the first scenario can only be better in the long run than the second.
For some reason, they understand that in their own profession they have nothing to gain from monopolising general methods, but they generally seem to assume it's necessary everywhere else.
The lawyers argue for what they're told to argue for. Someone high enough up in a company says "argue for X", they do it - that's their job. So, the CEO says "defend our patent on $obviousThing", they do it. That doesn't mean that they agree with it, or think that patenting everything in sight is a good idea (other than that that's what everyone else is doing, so it's a good defence). Or do you really think that it's the lawyers telling the commpanies what to patent?
No you can't. I've had them disabled from the day of the announcement, yet I still see them.
The preferences don't work; They know, and are apparently working on it. Me, I'm cynical; I expect it to be fixed sometime in December. On the other hand, given the seemingly almost universal hatred for the colour schemes for the games and IT sections and yet the complete lack of any changes, maybe they'll never be fixed.
Either that, or they'll be fixed, in December, for paying subscribers only.
If the Internet had not been developed into what it is today and people were just using their computers locally then there would be as many concerns with the computer as their is with a toaster.
Viruses existed long before the Internet was a household name. I remember catching and quarantining a virus on my Amiga 500; must've been late '80s, possibly '90 or '91. Certainly a good few years before I first used the 'net ('94).
Sure, it was harder for them to spread and so consequently they spread much more slowly, but they did exist and they certainly did spread.
That said, sometimes I feel like I'm missing out. I've had maybe 3 emailed to me this year, and just today there was a trojan in a screensaver I downloaded from softpaedia; all were caught by my antivirus scanner (not that the emailed ones weren't obvious, as they were to accounts that don't get real mail). I also don't get my firewall logs filled with port scans and hack attempts like most people here seem to. Maybe I'm just on a quiet part of the 'net or something.
Not to mention that it should be "Happy 50th, CERN!" - I was wondering in what sense it was the 50th CERN, and wasn't until I read the summary that I realised that CERN was being wished a happy birthday...
Slashdot Mirror
There are more Apache servers than IIS servers, but there are more IIS 'sploits than Apache exploits. Explain that :)
Ok - Apache is harder to admin than IIS, as you can't just point 'n' click your way through it, so Apache admins have to take the time to actually understand what they're doing. Linux admins tend (on average) to be more clued-up than Windows ones. [Disclaimer: I've known some truly awful Linux/Unix admins and some very, very good Windows ones, but *on average* I think this is true.] IIS offers more functionality out of the box, and so has more scope for vulnerabilities, making it an easier target for the bad guys. Some of the bad guys hate "M$" and so specifically target IIS.
Finally, with spyware and malware, we're almost exclusively talking about the user unwittingly installing something while running with admin privileges that then uses those privileges to harm the system in some way, while you're taking about remote exploits. What was your point again?
No app is going to mess with OS X system config files, no matter how much market share it has, because the user doesn't run as root.
/etc/rc.d/... or /etc/profile or /etc/[shell]rc or ~/.[shell]rc or overwrite a system binary or ... Not as bad as Windows perhaps, but not that far off it.
So how does the user perform system administration tasks? Are they ever prompted to enter their root/admin password while installing something?
What's to stop spyware installers from doing the same thing on Mac OS X or Linux? Sure, under Linux they can only put "auto start" stuff in
we would have major companies contributing open codes, instead of having them taking stuff and releasing slower, buggy, proprietary drivers
Slower? Please explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that NVidia's closed source drivers are slower than the open source ones, especially given that the open source ones don't support 3D acceleration at all?
Every group should be self-policing. That includes the military.
So *that's* what the military police is for!
What more is it going to take?
Editors that care about what the site's readership thinks.
This site is theirs, to do with as they wish; the fact that you and I happen to read it is immaterial to them. Get used to it; we don't matter.
No, there's no way to hide stories based on the submitter, only the editor and topic (not that hiding based on topic works at the moment anyway).
Maybe someone'll write a Firefox extension or something; shouldn't be too hard...
they will be less expensive for the same reasons Winmodem are less expensive than hardware modem
Winmodems are less expensive than (fully) hardware modems because they leave some of the processing up to software. That means that they can skimp on the components, and so cost less to produce.
In contrast, these motherboards will have *extra* components on them, and so all other things being equal, will be *more* expensive than ones without.
(Note that I said "all other things being equal" - the manufacturers are free to take a loss by selling them cheaper, or skimp on other components/features, etc)
The only way to protect the trust chips is to obtain a federal injunction (from a judge) barring hardware hackers from circumventing the hardware anti-piracy chips.
Surely the DMCA makes that step unnecessary now?
THIS should have been posted with the story, not Michael's snarky, cluless little comment (note: how is this guy still an editor?)
You mean compared to the rest of them? Really, Michael's no better or worse than any of the other slashdot editors. This has never been the place to come for unbiased news; nowadays, it's barely even the place to come for biased news.
I don't see why this is necessary to lock down computers against worms, viruses, and spyware because those are an end product of bad software
Bullshit. Malware that exploits holes in the OS or other installed software to install without the user's knowledge is an end product of bad software, but most does not.
Remember Kazaa? It said right there in the EULA that they were going to install crap with it. Nothing exploited but the lack of care of the user. Same deal with a worrying amount of Windows software; malware gets installed with other stuff or as unwanted/unknown functionality of benign-appearing software, not just (or even mostly) through holes.
Viruses, at least in the old skool sense, modify executables, adding themselves to them and changing them to run their code first. Again, that's not exploiting anything but the open nature of the executable format and the writable nature of the storage medium. Sure, a lot of modern viruses "exploit" the scriptable nature of the Outlook/Outlook Express address book, and some even exploit holes in the software to get themselves run without the user's consent. On the other hand, the only viruses I've received by mail this year have been in zip file attachments. I'd have to open the zip file then manually run the virus to get infected; they exploit nothing but user stupidity. I've seen viruses get transmitted by software downloaded via p2p apps; just yesterday I downloaded a screensaver from softpaedia (a website) that was infected with a trojan.
Worms, now they do rely on holes to spread, but they're also relatively rare. For every blaster, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of "normal" viruses, that require user interaction to spread.
I know it's normal here to bemoan all the problems that insecure software cause, and a lot of that criticism is justified. It's by no means the only or even the worst cause of this sort of stuff though - lack of care and knowledge on the part of the user is, in my experience, by far the biggest cause. Whether or not trusted computing can do anything about that remains to be seen, of course. I'd like to think so, but then as the saying goes, you can't make anything foolproof.
Are the `Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions a good start for you?
Should they be? I've never heard of the author, or of you, "Cyclops". Since we're questioning issues of trust, why should I trust either of you any more than I trust the press release?
Because lots and lots and lots of people are now used to getting music for free. They don't care enough about the artists to pay for it now, why would that change?
I have never seen (retail) software where the full contents of the EULA were accessible without running the installer (or at least opening the package)
I've seen the EULA printed in the back of the manual of a number games - a quick check reveals Arx Fatalis to be one (but not UT2k4, my first pick).
True, you have to have opened the package, but you don't have to have run the installer. I'm not sure where the EULA would fit on the box, though.
Quote from the Microsoft Windows XP Professional EULA:
"By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA."
Emphasis mine.
This EULA says that if you use the software, you must agree to the terms of the EULA. This decision says that EULAs are binding. Therefore, whether you click the "I Agree" button or not, if you use XP, you're bound by the EULA, at least in the jurisdiction of the court that made this ruling.
Exchange "click the button" with "sign my name", and ask yourself if your idea still seems valid. If not, why should there be any difference between the two?
then whether I have 'title and ownership' of that item, is the same question, whether the item is a CDROM or a carton of milk
Yup. The similarities go on - you own the carton and the milk in it, but not the design of the carton (check it, it's probably patented) and while you're free to use and reuse that carton, chances are you're *not* free to make copies of it. Same with the software - you own the disk its on, but not the data itself. Sucks in a way, but that's the way it is. The various indutries are doing as companies do and pushing to maximise their profit potentials, and so copyright is being skewed more and more in their favour. However I believe that copright itself is essential; ymmv.
agreed to the terms of the EULA when they bought the software from their distributor
No, they did not. The EULA is the End User Licence Agreement - the store is just a reseller, not a user. By the same token if I never install a piece of software, I never have to agree to the EULA - I read all of them (you have to these days, after Kazaa et al started granting themselves rights to install malware along with their software), and I don't remember any that didn't contain a phrase to the effect that by "installing and using" the software, you agree to be bound by the licence. Ie, not by merely buying it.
Not every Linux user *wants* to build a computer, either.
No, I think that the real issue is that the vast majority of Free software is also available for free, which anyone can afford and everyone is prepared to pay, while most software for Windows is pay for only, which a lot of people either can't afford or just won't pay for.
*If* Linux becomes more widespread on the desktop, and *if* a significant amount of commercial, pay-for software appears for it, you'll start to see comparable levels of piracy in the Linux world too. I don't suppose many of the current users will join in, but then they'd not do it if they were using Windows, either.
Seems to me the choice is between getting as many nations as possible to sign up to and follow the Accord, or just forgetting about the whole thing.
In the first scenario, at least some difference is being made, assuming that the non-participants act as though the Accord does not exist. In the second, we have all the problems from the (orginal) non-participants, plus problems from the nations that were going to participate but now won't.
Seems to me that all things being equal, the first scenario can only be better in the long run than the second.
For some reason, they understand that in their own profession they have nothing to gain from monopolising general methods, but they generally seem to assume it's necessary everywhere else.
The lawyers argue for what they're told to argue for. Someone high enough up in a company says "argue for X", they do it - that's their job. So, the CEO says "defend our patent on $obviousThing", they do it. That doesn't mean that they agree with it, or think that patenting everything in sight is a good idea (other than that that's what everyone else is doing, so it's a good defence). Or do you really think that it's the lawyers telling the commpanies what to patent?
No you can't. I've had them disabled from the day of the announcement, yet I still see them.
The preferences don't work; They know, and are apparently working on it. Me, I'm cynical; I expect it to be fixed sometime in December. On the other hand, given the seemingly almost universal hatred for the colour schemes for the games and IT sections and yet the complete lack of any changes, maybe they'll never be fixed.
Either that, or they'll be fixed, in December, for paying subscribers only.
If the Internet had not been developed into what it is today and people were just using their computers locally then there would be as many concerns with the computer as their is with a toaster.
Viruses existed long before the Internet was a household name. I remember catching and quarantining a virus on my Amiga 500; must've been late '80s, possibly '90 or '91. Certainly a good few years before I first used the 'net ('94).
Sure, it was harder for them to spread and so consequently they spread much more slowly, but they did exist and they certainly did spread.
That said, sometimes I feel like I'm missing out. I've had maybe 3 emailed to me this year, and just today there was a trojan in a screensaver I downloaded from softpaedia; all were caught by my antivirus scanner (not that the emailed ones weren't obvious, as they were to accounts that don't get real mail). I also don't get my firewall logs filled with port scans and hack attempts like most people here seem to. Maybe I'm just on a quiet part of the 'net or something.
Not to mention that it should be "Happy 50th, CERN!" - I was wondering in what sense it was the 50th CERN, and wasn't until I read the summary that I realised that CERN was being wished a happy birthday...
Speaking as a Brit, no it isn't. In my experience, we either capitalise things correctly (eg CD) or not at all.
Put a large mass at the top of the slope and let gravity do its work. [Note: mass may have to be very large.]