This are just questions. I'm not making any statement or judgment. Just writing some toughs. Is it possible that human nature doesn't evolve as fast technology? Species tend to spend millions of years in simple evolutions. How is the total unnatural world we live reflecting on the human Psyche? Is it possible that the human species is simple depressed because of the total unnatural world we live in. Many of us who live in big cities stay months without any kind of nature contact. Isn't this depressing. Isn't also depressing that many of us spend so much of our time looking on to a computer screen, either at work, either at home. Are we transporting big fights from the past between pragmatic and purists in to a new level of understanding? Can a specific position on this matter define us as purist or pragmatics? Is this black and white or can we be gray? Is this a live and death issue to anyone? Are we wrongly focusing our lives in matters that are relatively important compared with the real and severe problems of mankind? Or are we at such a stage of evolution that this is the most important stuff we can care about. What happen with the intellectuals from the past that really had to look up for their heads. Are heads rolling now?
Microsoft release of 2 GPL software denotes a completely change of strategy. They started with the Anti-American, and Communist comparison campaign, and now they are changing the curse of their actions. Open-source advocates have many reasons to be suspicions about Microsoft actions since a radical change of position about such a deeply touchy issue, is something that probably has some other hidden interests and secret strategy.
While we could take from this 2 specific examples many obvious elations like serving their own interests in making their software more friendly to multiplatform users(in the case of the drivers), or some other obvious conclusion about how much money Microsoft will make with Moodle open-sourced, I think there's "more, to it than meets the eye."
Let us not forget that the GPL was not yet truly tested in any court of any country, and that the final battle is yet to come.
I guess your reply to my comment is also to the article.
Let me see if I've get this strait. So what are you saying is that he might not worry about the data and that his post is useless, so no form of protection is needed because all thieves are drug addicts that just want some quick drug money.
While your suggestions may stop a consistent number of thief's from accessing data, they are pointless to a more determinated thief that want's to access data. BIOS passwords and simple Windows XP login passwords are just not good enough, as they are easily breakable.
While I'm answering this, I may also give a suggestion. Encrypt the drive, or if you are worried about performance, simple create a new partition for your documents, encrypt it, ad if you want seamless integration mount it as Documents And Settings Folder. Also I suggest changing your password to a strong password.
There are several programs with that use the bittorrent protocol that use UPNP, so no manual configuration is needed.
Also. You are comparing an HTTP service with a a program that uses a different protocol, so it's not really fair. It will be fair to compare with other another web service, but without the pay step.
As long as the complexity of downloading files trough a "legal" service is bigger than the complexity of the alternatives, people will always prefer the easiest choice.
The complexity of "legal" services will always be bigger than the alternatives, since you can always subtract at least one step: the pay step.
... the military seems to be getting on board with free and open source software.
Is this the end of the teenager on the basement that hacks the military, now that the military is going secure?
How will the future nerd teens entertain themselves???
The problem with today's copyright is something that as deep connections with the past and with our own society. There was a breaking point somewhere on the past that decided to use the technology, not for the good of mankind, but for the profit of some. I don't know were we could be if it wasn't for this breaking point somewhere on the past.
The problem is that copyright, patents, etc, have no moral stand besides not letting others to profit with someone's work. That problem only exist because of copyright, and patent laws on the first place, so there's really no point at all. While copyright and patents are two distinctive things on the eyes of the law, the principles and people who supports them are basically the same.
Every work today it's derivative work of someone, either were talking about music, software, art... Copyright and Patents are going to have many problems on the future, since the conflicts of interests will grow exponential over time. There will be some rupture on the future for sure. There are countries already that abolish patents, and almost copyright laws, because they realize that today's technology and free communication isn't compatible with this system. Knowledge and culture shouldn't be restricted, either because it's not fair for those who can't afford, either because it's something that slow us down in evolution.
We had things on the past that slowed us down 500 years in scientific evolution, like the Spanish inquisition. Let's us stop copyright and patents from doing the same.
I'm not sure much alerting needs to be done - pretty much anyone reading slashdot is going to know this already.
Of course, if someone doesn't feel qualified to assess the risk themselves, they should probably contract in a security consultant.
I just want to point out something before closing. I'm a developer with several Open-Source programs published from encryption to network, so I consider myself pretty enlighten about this issues, yet I never had nothing to do with wireless before, except configuring routers. Sure I knew WEP was insecure before, but I really didn't know how much insecure it was before doing this experiment, so I think even for the average tech Slashdot reader, this may prove useful information../'s are very above average on this issues, but none can know all about everything, so I think sharing this kind of experiences is what Slashdot is all about.
No it doesn't. 802.11 has a built in *specified* "public/private" flag (i.e. the absence/presence of encryption). Choosing to use some random proprietary method instead of the one specified by the standard, such as setting the SSID to some human readable "private" string, is an utterly stupid idea - not only does it now make it impossible to programmatically determine whether a network is public or private, but it means you no longer have a sensible SSID to identify your network. If your neighbour decides to set their SSID to the same value (e.g. your recommended "DO_NOT_TOUCH") then you are screwed.
Plenty of devices will automatically connect to any open network they see - if you choose to set your network to open and set the SSID to "DO_NOT_TOUCH" then these devices *will* quite legitimately connect to and use your network, and you have no reason to complain about this since you have chosen to use the specified method to advertise your network as public, even though it is private.
I can't believe you just took literally what I've said about leaving your network open with something like DO_NOT_TOUCH. I was talking figuratively. For someone who want's real security it shouldn't rely on WEP as their only security method. Period. Of course I can use every kind of parallel method's to make the network secure trough WEP, but that's not what I was talking about. I've tried to point out on my post how easy and fast is to crack WEP, and why you shouldn't use it if you really want security, unless you don't have an option.
If you are only listening to the traffic then there can be no "theft of service" anyway, so it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.
Well. "theft of service" is not the only unlegit use I can think about. I'm sure you will agree.
What makes you believe this? You said that this was a computer shop - it makes sense for their network to be configured so that they can easily connect customers' computers to it. In fact, many computer shops intentionally have a totally open network for connecting customers' computers to.
I already agreed with you, on the last response, but I will further develop my response. I didn't just talk about the shop over my street. I've talk about Social Security networks. And my experience comes from my job. I didn't mention more examples because I can't disclose sensitive information about the places I have profession contact, but what I get around here from people that uses WEP, is not for compatibility purposes. I hoped the examples I've made should alert people how WEP is insecure and why it shouldn't be used seriously. I can be wrong about the specific examples that I've made. They can be the most secure wireless for all that I know, but that still doesn't change my point.
Not true - locking with the most secure method takes more time. I certainly don't lock all the locks and bolts every time I lock a door - I make a quick risk assessment. If I'm going on holiday for a couple of weeks I'll make damn sure my house is secure, if I'm just popping down to the shops for 5 minutes I'm less bothered about making sure all the locks are secure (I'm not going to do up the 2 key-operated locks and the deadbolt on my front door, every window lock and all the locks on my back door every time I go out - that would just take far too long).
In the case of door locks it takes more time. On routers I don't think it takes more time to configure WEP or WPA.
You have good points about your post, but it seems that you have failed on identifying the purpose of mine. I'm alerting about how easy is to crack WEP networks, and how you should use other options if you can.
ep, I use WEP. I still own devices that won't do anything newer. I don't really see the insecurity as a big deal - an open AP is an advertisement that you don't mind random people using it, an AP with some kind of security (even if it's weak) tells people it isn't for public use. If you choose to break the WEP key then you're choosing to break the law.
Well. If you use WEP just to tell people they should be out of your wireless network, you might change it to OPEN and change the SSID to something like DO_NOT_TOUCH. It has the same effect for security reasons. If someone really want's to enter it's not WEP that will stop it. About the breaking the law issue. That's an old debate that I have with some about reverse engineering for learning purposes. I'm the kind that likes to dissassemble radios, and void warranties. Some people argue that there is no justification for reverse engineering, and some other argue the contrary. Also the line between breaking the law is fuzz. Take this example. Imagine that I'm not using any injection method whatsoever(so no interaction with the remote wireless router), and I only read the packets that are on the air of my room. Although I suspect we live in different countries with different laws, can you tell me if that's against the law?
Not really - they may require a WEP network in order to connect older devices that have no WPA/WPA2 support. Unless you've broken the law and actually cracked the key and investigated further then you have no idea what underlying security they have beneath the WEP - they might only allow ESP+AH traffic, in which case there is absolutely no security problem at all.
True. I agree, but my little survey leads me to suspect that many don't apply better security options on sensitive information, not for compatibility purposes, but because of ignorance.
Guess what - most people have door locks that are trivial to pick if you have the right knowledge and tools. There is only so much you can do to stop criminals. I'm sure you don't upgrade all your door locks to the latest greatest high security ones every time someone works out how to pick them, why should you expect people to replace all their wireless kit every time a compromise is found?
Yes, but they do lock their doors with the best method that the lock gives them. My personal experience is that many have the WPA option on their router, with NOT incompatible hardware, and they still use WEP. I've seen it "technicians" configuring Wep to their clients when there is available the option for WAP, with no conflict whatsoever.
Does the police specified that people should use WAP and Strong passwords, if they really wanted to protect their networks.
I've moved to a new apartment 3 months ago. My building is in a very dense populated area. Due to bureaucrat issues, I was over one month without an internet connection. Since I had over 25 available wireless networks on my house I gave the http://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=tutorial aircrack online tutorials a shot. It was amazing how easy it is to crack a WEP connection. On average I took less than 10 minutes to crack a WEP wireless. Over 40% of people(at least around here), still use this totally insecure encryption method.
I've started to get curious about who is Using Wep. So I've made a survey with my laptop, and my phone(it has wireless), to see who is using Wep. I have a HP shop on the other side of the street, that has a big splash symbol on the window "Microsoft Certified". They have IT consultants and they are using WEP. What a joke.
My local Social Security Center is using WEP possibily exposing the entire contry database(it's just a guess. I didn't really crack it). Also WAP is not difficult to crack with weak passwords, and most of the people don't have a clue about strong passwords.
I currently have my network open, only closing when I need full bandwidth, and my SSID is something like WEP_IS_LIKE_OPEN, but in my language.
I guess worst than having an open network is to wrongly think you are secure.
To a dog, the human owner is the pack leader, who should always be followed and obeyed. To a cat, the human owner is just a convenient source of food.
Not exactly. As an owner of 4 cats, I find that very hard to believe. At the moment that I'm writing this I have a cat struggling to come to my lap, and it isn't for food. It's very interesting to see all kinds of notable "scientific" theories about cats. I found many of them at least reductive of the real cat behavior.
I say companies are free to sell their products as they see fit.
That's were I respectfully disagree. One of the main arguments of Microsoft supporting people is that It's their OS, so they can bundle with IE, and Media Player, and make the life dificult to whoever tries to compet with them. You saw that with the dath of Netscape, and other fine companies that append to cross the way of Microsoft. Aparently, I'm not the only one to disagree since Microsoft was trialed several times about this issue, and lost.
I don't like to compare Apple with MS since Apple is a little distant from this practices, but what I asked 2 times already, and no one seems to answer me is what does prevent Apple from doing the same it this kind of polices.
I've saw this to much in the past to now reconize the pattern when I see it.
Microsoft and Apple aren't the only ones. For example at the time Sega saturn was launched, Sega didn't provide the programming Api's so that games from competition will suck. Fortunally, for the sake of the consumer, their move failed since everybody prefer to program to a better alternative at the time(Playstation).
The market will judge the decision. In this case you are in the minority. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Well I do have to come to a Apple Fanboy threat to see this kind of arguments. It's impressive how you people think you are sophisticated and then I see this kind of dumb arguments. "You are the minority, so move along.". Is this the best you can do or maybe you can ask a friend to mod me down once more.
I can't play a DVD without a licensed player.
I can't play Playstation games on my XBOX
I can't play Wii games on my XBOX
I can't use a Wii controller on my XBOX
I can't put a Honda water pump on my Ford
When will companies stop "renting" me their hardware and let me use it with whatever I want? There is a fine line and Apple skirts it. I feel they haven't crossed it. You do. Difference of opinion.
This tread it's sure full of Apple funboys, since this was mod up.
Please continue to mod me down because I have more different opinions.
Did you actuality read what I've wrote before your "Insightful" reply?
What the hell does that to do with what I said. I was talking about technology being able do able to do stuff, and companies simple castrate them for their own policy.
Let me be more clear:
PlayStation isn't hardware compatible with Xbox.
Xbox isn't hardware compatible with Playstation.
Wii isn't hardware compatible with Xbox.
Honda water pump isn't compatible wit Ford.
Are you getting now, or perhaps you want a picture.
The truth is. I already had, since normally my Apple Fanboy friends resort to me for that kind of stuff.What I'm saying is. It isn't good to resort to hacks to do things that are pretty normal. Of course they probably lost any support they had from Apple for doing this things.
iPhone is a pretty damn good product, but make no mistake. It isn't just a phone. It's computer more powerful than many computers 8 years ago. As a person who truly love computers for the unlimited possibilities that they offer, seeing that liberty downgraded is really a shame.
Also I'm a developer, and just to think what kind of prerequisites my software has to have before is authorized by apple, really discourage me from deploying anything for that platform.
Also, as I said, what does prevent them from eliminating competition with this kind of policy? This is the kind of thing we saw early on other monopoly enterprises, and one thing I've learned is. We should learn from the past. Having unauthorized applications is unfair and wrong from my kind of view.
...environment for you to use a THIRD PARTY application with their hardware?
You see. Yous just gave points to the post that you reply. The way you see it is THEIR HARDWARE, and not yours. I usually don't like to pay for things that will never be mine, but of course it's everyone's choice.
Besides, using technology to castrate other technology like jailbreak, reminds me to much of other castrating technologies used by some countries.
t's not evil, it's Apple creating an eco-system that is dead simple to use, and avoiding -- at all costs
You talk about the eco-system theory, but what does prevent them from eliminate competition with this kind of policy. Don't tell me is the high moral fiber, and sense of fair play of Apple.
Also, can you tell me what nightmare is there that you talk about Linux world?
Of course that's nothing simpler than having others choosing your software, but there are actually people out there that know better
Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing. What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?
Take the FUD surrounding DRM, take this crappy story, no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof. Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.
Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out. Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code? LOL.. turn in your geek cards...
You are totally right, but considering Microsoft past, I only say it's completely normal this kind of suspicion reaction.
Also If it's true, it probably means that Microsoft made their math about possible anti-trust lawsuits against the probable Bing revenues, and guess what are the results.
Microsoft had claims on the past that Linux violated several patents(before mono), and it didn't matter for many customers if they were right. Many were afraid of being sewed.
What kind of strategy do you think Microsoft will had if they really wanted to support those claims. Maybe something like letting Gnu/Linux use a technology that they have obscure patents is a good start, no?
Microsoft not doing anything yet doesn't make me any more confident.
Slashdot Mirror
This are just questions. I'm not making any statement or judgment. Just writing some toughs.
Is it possible that human nature doesn't evolve as fast technology?
Species tend to spend millions of years in simple evolutions. How is the total unnatural world we live reflecting on the human Psyche? Is it possible that the human species is simple depressed because of the total unnatural world we live in.
Many of us who live in big cities stay months without any kind of nature contact. Isn't this depressing. Isn't also depressing that many of us spend so much of our time looking on to a computer screen, either at work, either at home.
Are we transporting big fights from the past between pragmatic and purists in to a new level of understanding? Can a specific position on this matter define us as purist or pragmatics? Is this black and white or can we be gray?
Is this a live and death issue to anyone? Are we wrongly focusing our lives in matters that are relatively important compared with the real and severe problems of mankind? Or are we at such a stage of evolution that this is the most important stuff we can care about.
What happen with the intellectuals from the past that really had to look up for their heads. Are heads rolling now?
Microsoft release of 2 GPL software denotes a completely change of strategy. They started with the Anti-American, and Communist comparison campaign, and now they are changing the curse of their actions. Open-source advocates have many reasons to be suspicions about Microsoft actions since a radical change of position about such a deeply touchy issue, is something that probably has some other hidden interests and secret strategy.
While we could take from this 2 specific examples many obvious elations like serving their own interests in making their software more friendly to multiplatform users(in the case of the drivers), or some other obvious conclusion about how much money Microsoft will make with Moodle open-sourced, I think there's "more, to it than meets the eye."
Let us not forget that the GPL was not yet truly tested in any court of any country, and that the final battle is yet to come.
I guess your reply to my comment is also to the article.
Let me see if I've get this strait. So what are you saying is that he might not worry about the data and that his post is useless, so no form of protection is needed because all thieves are drug addicts that just want some quick drug money.
Really constructive and helpful you answer.
While your suggestions may stop a consistent number of thief's from accessing data, they are pointless to a more determinated thief that want's to access data. BIOS passwords and simple Windows XP login passwords are just not good enough, as they are easily breakable.
While I'm answering this, I may also give a suggestion. Encrypt the drive, or if you are worried about performance, simple create a new partition for your documents, encrypt it, ad if you want seamless integration mount it as Documents And Settings Folder. Also I suggest changing your password to a strong password.
Advertising: You can use a program that I've wrote for strong password generation.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kpgen/
There are several programs with that use the bittorrent protocol that use UPNP, so no manual configuration is needed.
Also. You are comparing an HTTP service with a a program that uses a different protocol, so it's not really fair. It will be fair to compare with other another web service, but without the pay step.
Why do they even bother?
Because they have plenty of money from the work of others to expend.
As long as the complexity of downloading files trough a "legal" service is bigger than the complexity of the alternatives, people will always prefer the easiest choice.
The complexity of "legal" services will always be bigger than the alternatives, since you can always subtract at least one step: the pay step.
... the military seems to be getting on board with free and open source software.
Is this the end of the teenager on the basement that hacks the military, now that the military is going secure?
How will the future nerd teens entertain themselves???
The problem with today's copyright is something that as deep connections with the past and with our own society. There was a breaking point somewhere on the past that decided to use the technology, not for the good of mankind, but for the profit of some. I don't know were we could be if it wasn't for this breaking point somewhere on the past.
The problem is that copyright, patents, etc, have no moral stand besides not letting others to profit with someone's work. That problem only exist because of copyright, and patent laws on the first place, so there's really no point at all. While copyright and patents are two distinctive things on the eyes of the law, the principles and people who supports them are basically the same.
Every work today it's derivative work of someone, either were talking about music, software, art... Copyright and Patents are going to have many problems on the future, since the conflicts of interests will grow exponential over time. There will be some rupture on the future for sure. There are countries already that abolish patents, and almost copyright laws, because they realize that today's technology and free communication isn't compatible with this system. Knowledge and culture shouldn't be restricted, either because it's not fair for those who can't afford, either because it's something that slow us down in evolution.
We had things on the past that slowed us down 500 years in scientific evolution, like the Spanish inquisition. Let's us stop copyright and patents from doing the same.
A solution for your problem as been developed for a long time now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
There's a very old Portuguese proverb about this:
"Diz-me com quem andas, que eu digo-te quem tu és"
Tell me about your friends, and I will tell you who you are.
I'm not sure much alerting needs to be done - pretty much anyone reading slashdot is going to know this already. Of course, if someone doesn't feel qualified to assess the risk themselves, they should probably contract in a security consultant.
I just want to point out something before closing. I'm a developer with several Open-Source programs published from encryption to network, so I consider myself pretty enlighten about this issues, yet I never had nothing to do with wireless before, except configuring routers. Sure I knew WEP was insecure before, but I really didn't know how much insecure it was before doing this experiment, so I think even for the average tech Slashdot reader, this may prove useful information. ./'s are very above average on this issues, but none can know all about everything, so I think sharing this kind of experiences is what Slashdot is all about.
No it doesn't. 802.11 has a built in *specified* "public/private" flag (i.e. the absence/presence of encryption). Choosing to use some random proprietary method instead of the one specified by the standard, such as setting the SSID to some human readable "private" string, is an utterly stupid idea - not only does it now make it impossible to programmatically determine whether a network is public or private, but it means you no longer have a sensible SSID to identify your network. If your neighbour decides to set their SSID to the same value (e.g. your recommended "DO_NOT_TOUCH") then you are screwed. Plenty of devices will automatically connect to any open network they see - if you choose to set your network to open and set the SSID to "DO_NOT_TOUCH" then these devices *will* quite legitimately connect to and use your network, and you have no reason to complain about this since you have chosen to use the specified method to advertise your network as public, even though it is private.
I can't believe you just took literally what I've said about leaving your network open with something like DO_NOT_TOUCH. I was talking figuratively. For someone who want's real security it shouldn't rely on WEP as their only security method. Period. Of course I can use every kind of parallel method's to make the network secure trough WEP, but that's not what I was talking about. I've tried to point out on my post how easy and fast is to crack WEP, and why you shouldn't use it if you really want security, unless you don't have an option.
If you are only listening to the traffic then there can be no "theft of service" anyway, so it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.
Well. "theft of service" is not the only unlegit use I can think about. I'm sure you will agree.
What makes you believe this? You said that this was a computer shop - it makes sense for their network to be configured so that they can easily connect customers' computers to it. In fact, many computer shops intentionally have a totally open network for connecting customers' computers to.
I already agreed with you, on the last response, but I will further develop my response. I didn't just talk about the shop over my street. I've talk about Social Security networks. And my experience comes from my job. I didn't mention more examples because I can't disclose sensitive information about the places I have profession contact, but what I get around here from people that uses WEP, is not for compatibility purposes. I hoped the examples I've made should alert people how WEP is insecure and why it shouldn't be used seriously. I can be wrong about the specific examples that I've made. They can be the most secure wireless for all that I know, but that still doesn't change my point.
Not true - locking with the most secure method takes more time. I certainly don't lock all the locks and bolts every time I lock a door - I make a quick risk assessment. If I'm going on holiday for a couple of weeks I'll make damn sure my house is secure, if I'm just popping down to the shops for 5 minutes I'm less bothered about making sure all the locks are secure (I'm not going to do up the 2 key-operated locks and the deadbolt on my front door, every window lock and all the locks on my back door every time I go out - that would just take far too long).
In the case of door locks it takes more time. On routers I don't think it takes more time to configure WEP or WPA. You have good points about your post, but it seems that you have failed on identifying the purpose of mine. I'm alerting about how easy is to crack WEP networks, and how you should use other options if you can.
ep, I use WEP. I still own devices that won't do anything newer. I don't really see the insecurity as a big deal - an open AP is an advertisement that you don't mind random people using it, an AP with some kind of security (even if it's weak) tells people it isn't for public use. If you choose to break the WEP key then you're choosing to break the law.
Well. If you use WEP just to tell people they should be out of your wireless network, you might change it to OPEN and change the SSID to something like DO_NOT_TOUCH. It has the same effect for security reasons. If someone really want's to enter it's not WEP that will stop it. About the breaking the law issue. That's an old debate that I have with some about reverse engineering for learning purposes. I'm the kind that likes to dissassemble radios, and void warranties. Some people argue that there is no justification for reverse engineering, and some other argue the contrary. Also the line between breaking the law is fuzz. Take this example. Imagine that I'm not using any injection method whatsoever(so no interaction with the remote wireless router), and I only read the packets that are on the air of my room. Although I suspect we live in different countries with different laws, can you tell me if that's against the law?
Not really - they may require a WEP network in order to connect older devices that have no WPA/WPA2 support. Unless you've broken the law and actually cracked the key and investigated further then you have no idea what underlying security they have beneath the WEP - they might only allow ESP+AH traffic, in which case there is absolutely no security problem at all.
True. I agree, but my little survey leads me to suspect that many don't apply better security options on sensitive information, not for compatibility purposes, but because of ignorance.
Guess what - most people have door locks that are trivial to pick if you have the right knowledge and tools. There is only so much you can do to stop criminals. I'm sure you don't upgrade all your door locks to the latest greatest high security ones every time someone works out how to pick them, why should you expect people to replace all their wireless kit every time a compromise is found?
Yes, but they do lock their doors with the best method that the lock gives them. My personal experience is that many have the WPA option on their router, with NOT incompatible hardware, and they still use WEP. I've seen it "technicians" configuring Wep to their clients when there is available the option for WAP, with no conflict whatsoever.
Does the police specified that people should use WAP and Strong passwords, if they really wanted to protect their networks.
I've moved to a new apartment 3 months ago. My building is in a very dense populated area. Due to bureaucrat issues, I was over one month without an internet connection. Since I had over 25 available wireless networks on my house I gave the http://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=tutorial aircrack online tutorials a shot. It was amazing how easy it is to crack a WEP connection. On average I took less than 10 minutes to crack a WEP wireless. Over 40% of people(at least around here), still use this totally insecure encryption method.
I've started to get curious about who is Using Wep. So I've made a survey with my laptop, and my phone(it has wireless), to see who is using Wep. I have a HP shop on the other side of the street, that has a big splash symbol on the window "Microsoft Certified". They have IT consultants and they are using WEP. What a joke.
My local Social Security Center is using WEP possibily exposing the entire contry database(it's just a guess. I didn't really crack it). Also WAP is not difficult to crack with weak passwords, and most of the people don't have a clue about strong passwords.
I currently have my network open, only closing when I need full bandwidth, and my SSID is something like WEP_IS_LIKE_OPEN, but in my language.
I guess worst than having an open network is to wrongly think you are secure.
To a dog, the human owner is the pack leader, who should always be followed and obeyed. To a cat, the human owner is just a convenient source of food.
Not exactly. As an owner of 4 cats, I find that very hard to believe. At the moment that I'm writing this I have a cat struggling to come to my lap, and it isn't for food. It's very interesting to see all kinds of notable "scientific" theories about cats. I found many of them at least reductive of the real cat behavior.
I say companies are free to sell their products as they see fit.
That's were I respectfully disagree. One of the main arguments of Microsoft supporting people is that It's their OS, so they can bundle with IE, and Media Player, and make the life dificult to whoever tries to compet with them. You saw that with the dath of Netscape, and other fine companies that append to cross the way of Microsoft. Aparently, I'm not the only one to disagree since Microsoft was trialed several times about this issue, and lost.
I don't like to compare Apple with MS since Apple is a little distant from this practices, but what I asked 2 times already, and no one seems to answer me is what does prevent Apple from doing the same it this kind of polices.
I've saw this to much in the past to now reconize the pattern when I see it.
Microsoft and Apple aren't the only ones. For example at the time Sega saturn was launched, Sega didn't provide the programming Api's so that games from competition will suck. Fortunally, for the sake of the consumer, their move failed since everybody prefer to program to a better alternative at the time(Playstation).
The market will judge the decision. In this case you are in the minority. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Well I do have to come to a Apple Fanboy threat to see this kind of arguments. It's impressive how you people think you are sophisticated and then I see this kind of dumb arguments. "You are the minority, so move along.". Is this the best you can do or maybe you can ask a friend to mod me down once more.
... the system backed up...
And backups to external servers. Did you ever heard about?
I can't play a DVD without a licensed player. I can't play Playstation games on my XBOX I can't play Wii games on my XBOX I can't use a Wii controller on my XBOX I can't put a Honda water pump on my Ford When will companies stop "renting" me their hardware and let me use it with whatever I want? There is a fine line and Apple skirts it. I feel they haven't crossed it. You do. Difference of opinion.
This tread it's sure full of Apple funboys, since this was mod up.
Please continue to mod me down because I have more different opinions.
Did you actuality read what I've wrote before your "Insightful" reply?
What the hell does that to do with what I said. I was talking about technology being able do able to do stuff, and companies simple castrate them for their own policy.
Let me be more clear:
PlayStation isn't hardware compatible with Xbox.
Xbox isn't hardware compatible with Playstation.
Wii isn't hardware compatible with Xbox.
Honda water pump isn't compatible wit Ford.
Are you getting now, or perhaps you want a picture.
The truth is. I already had, since normally my Apple Fanboy friends resort to me for that kind of stuff.What I'm saying is. It isn't good to resort to hacks to do things that are pretty normal. Of course they probably lost any support they had from Apple for doing this things.
iPhone is a pretty damn good product, but make no mistake. It isn't just a phone. It's computer more powerful than many computers 8 years ago. As a person who truly love computers for the unlimited possibilities that they offer, seeing that liberty downgraded is really a shame.
Also I'm a developer, and just to think what kind of prerequisites my software has to have before is authorized by apple, really discourage me from deploying anything for that platform. Also, as I said, what does prevent them from eliminating competition with this kind of policy? This is the kind of thing we saw early on other monopoly enterprises, and one thing I've learned is. We should learn from the past. Having unauthorized applications is unfair and wrong from my kind of view.
...environment for you to use a THIRD PARTY application with their hardware?
You see. Yous just gave points to the post that you reply. The way you see it is THEIR HARDWARE, and not yours. I usually don't like to pay for things that will never be mine, but of course it's everyone's choice. Besides, using technology to castrate other technology like jailbreak, reminds me to much of other castrating technologies used by some countries.
t's not evil, it's Apple creating an eco-system that is dead simple to use, and avoiding -- at all costs
You talk about the eco-system theory, but what does prevent them from eliminate competition with this kind of policy. Don't tell me is the high moral fiber, and sense of fair play of Apple. Also, can you tell me what nightmare is there that you talk about Linux world? Of course that's nothing simpler than having others choosing your software, but there are actually people out there that know better
Funny how "geeks" here accept such crappy evidence as proof of any wrong doing. What happened to the geeks to could reverse engineer executables and actually point to the specific CPU instruction that actually did it?
Take the FUD surrounding DRM, take this crappy story, no geek has ever been able to point to that level of proof. Seems like the virus and malware authors being crappy programmers are happily able to reverse engineer windows binaries and find bugs.
Seems like F/OSS world is filled with wussies who need source code to figure things out. Ever heard of a game crack author crying about not having source code? LOL.. turn in your geek cards...
You are totally right, but considering Microsoft past, I only say it's completely normal this kind of suspicion reaction.
Also If it's true, it probably means that Microsoft made their math about possible anti-trust lawsuits against the probable Bing revenues, and guess what are the results.
Of course you haven't. âHow would you know how much your machine is a Trojan paradise without an antivirus.
Microsoft had claims on the past that Linux violated several patents(before mono), and it didn't matter for many customers if they were right. Many were afraid of being sewed. What kind of strategy do you think Microsoft will had if they really wanted to support those claims. Maybe something like letting Gnu/Linux use a technology that they have obscure patents is a good start, no? Microsoft not doing anything yet doesn't make me any more confident.
If he doesn't "have to", why does Debian included Mono?