Ban mathematics? What? You know this is just an iOS exploit being used to brute force a weak pin code right? IPhones actively trade security for user convenience so they're never going to be difficult to compromise. Assuming you have data that actually needs to be encrypted (you don't) use strong ciphers with strong passwords and you'll be fine. Apple products don't really give you a choice in how they're encrypted so I wouldn't use them if your data is actually important.
These articles really need to stop confusing "encryption" with password security. They've broken Apple's password security, probably an altogether trivial thing to do as security exploits in iPhones are fairly common. They can't "break [good] encryption" anymore than they can break gravity - it's math - it's fundamental laws of the universe. They can break software security measures designed to artificially bolster security of weak passwords though. Nothing to see here, use strong passwords folks, as always.
What you're seeing is a generation that is markedly lazier than previous ones. Lazy people make decisions with emotion, rather than critical thought. 10 years ago you couldn't bundle a browser with your operating system without being taken to court, and centralized standards, protocols, and systems were vilified. Today this is all commonplace. Imagine if this generation had designed email. We'd still be sending every email through IBM.
While of course I'm taking about the tech industry because it's what I'm most familiar with, I think the parallels are clear. You expect the iPhone, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp generation to apply critical objective thought to politics? Good luck.
I think what he's taking about is that there's no evidence "21st century energy" is worth more than making us feel good. I assume you mean solar, wind, etc. While it all sounds good I've yet to hear of a community being able to provide this without heavy subsidising and/or an increase in energy costs. In the area I grew up, the government subsidized a project to build hundreds of windmills. It's been about 15 years now and my parents electricity bill is much higher, the skyline looks like a scene from war of the worlds, and the local government is debating bankruptcy. Like many far left policies that Bernie subscribes to, they sounds wonderful, but lack substance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So we can run the world on renewables while everyone gets free college, and healthcare? Sounds amazing! What's your plan? Oh, you're pretty sure Norway does it? That's all you've got? Forgive me for being skeptical.
I have no idea how this website became so popular. The original interface was horrible and completely unintuitive. Years later it's one of the most popular websites on the internet and it's only slightly better. Their servers go down constantly - unable to handle even slight spikes in traffic. And their simplistic mod system has ruined the community by rewarding a lowest common denominator hive-mind.
In my mind, reddit is proof that there's no policy or formula to follow to have a successful website. Security, interface design, stability, community - none of it seems to matter. It seems to just be random what the world latches on to.
The torch and pitchfork parent is modded 4. The reasonable and level headed post you made is at 1. Seems about right for today's slashdot.
You store your data on this website people. You store at least a small part of yourself - and for many it's a critical part of their identity (think pro gamers, or anyone that makes their living online). If your bank was potentially keeping your personal information in a box behind an unlocked door, accessible to the public, wouldn't you be upset? While he might not be doing it the right way, this man is mostly doing a public service and causing no real lasting harm.
Precisely. We're all starting to see the house of cards around centralized security models fall down now. Of course, this was apparent to anyone experienced in the industry, but the thickest amongst us. I've had innumerable arguments with Apple fanboys and shills about how centralized security isn't better, it just creates one massive point of failure. We'll see more and more of this in the coming years. Apple devices will be the easiest to compromise due to their centralized control structure.
Interesting how Apple is the only one that can comply with an invasive and controlling question, because, well, they're the most invasive, centralized, and controlling among them. Your post implies this is a good thing. Any security researcher, administrator, developer, or technician worth their salary would disagree.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Replacing a 20 year old router with something faster, more efficient, quieter, and smaller is out of the question for your use-case? Therefore package maintainers are supposed to spend countless hours per year making sure the new version of iptables can be installed from the repos for you? That's just not a reasonable request. You'll simply have to build your own packages going forward.
While I prefer the way my lawn used to be as well, I can't really fault distributions dropping support for 20 year old hardware. Every year there's new hardware you have to support and developers and maintainers have to spend their time wisely. So, you have 20 year old hardware? You'll just have to use old packages, or fiddle with the source to build your own. Even the kernel as of 3.7 dropped i386. Why? Well, it was a massive pain to maintain, and people running 30 year old hardware are probably fine running old versions of the kernel. There's not much to see here. Most commercial developers have 10 year support cycles - were taking about 20 year old hardware here.
While I don't know what the slack package maintainers are doing, I'd assume most distributions are going to stop supporting older architectures in their repositories eventually. The solution is to use older versions of packages, compile from source, etc. Even the Linux kernel stopped supporting i386 after something like version 3.7. If you have a processor from 1985, you just have to use an old version of the kernel. Is it going to have security concerns? Probably. But you're not using a 30 year old system in production are you?
Likewise, if you're using hardware from 1995 (what they're talking about here) you're just going to have to use old software to fit it. There's nothing really to see here. No software supports hardware much beyond 10 years.
While it's still possible people would want to run Linux on hardware this old, it's unlikely you're going to be happy with the newest kernel/packages on hardware 20 years old. Finding a copy of an old centos (for example) and compiling old versions of programs manually should be acceptable for any hobbyist in this situation.
And they say Apple users have a Superiority Complex (rolls eyes)...
They do. More-so they have a very acute level of post purchase rationalisation. This is true with any expensive purchase where the added price is mostly due to brand though (ie. designer clothing). Case and point: your last comment. Your post purchase rationalisation is so high that you try to diffuse a difficult truth with adolescent dismissal. Judging from your username you've made this company a pretty big part of your identity though, so I'd imagine you have even more emotionally at stake than your run-of-the-mill fanboy.
When your parents make all your decisions for you and hold your hand every step of the way you might glean a false sense of security from this. Of course this is unfavorable to critical thinking adults as we realize the added security is mostly emotional, false, and only ever as good as the parent providing it.
Apple people like to endlessly brag that their babysat user experience comes with added security. Not only is this erroneous, but it relies on the ridiculous assumption that an American for-profit company will always have their customers best interest in mind - over their employees, their country, their shareholders, and their profits. Adorable, but not surprising - people that purchase Apple products aren't known for their intelligence, solid ideals, or proficiency with logic.
I never said it wasn't. The problem is there's also many instances where encrypting data is worth NOT doing, and on many of these mobile platforms there is no option for that. Forced encryption is bad design, likely intended to encourage users into using cloud services, not to protect them - of course that's how they'll sell it though.
Precisely. I imagine the OP wouldn't have the same opinion if he got up tomorrow and his car failed to start - even worse if it was caused by Ford sneaking into the garage at night and "fixing" something that wasn't broken (for him at least). This "I know what's best for you" mentality seems to have no limits. This should have been kept as an optional update if it had this serious of a problem - only an irresponsible, out of touch idiot would think otherwise.
There's been a very obvious decrease in proficiency of technicians and developers in this generation. Anyone that has been in the industry longer than 10 years can easily see this. Actually, the quality of the users on this site is direct evidence of this. Just today I encountered someone named "macs4all" *facepalm*... My beautiful lawn...
Of course I have discovered my own backup solutions that align to my ideals. I would still rather not have an encrypted device, that I don't need, just in case. Why am I supposed to be fine with something I don't need, or want? Data encryption should not be a default option simply because there are many real-world problems when using it, and few real-world cases where it's actually needed.The confusion likely arises with engineers trying to extend the ideals for default encrypted communications. There is no drawback to all communications being encrypted, it is just good sense. So the logical extension might go: what is the point of encrypted communication if the data storage isn't also? Well, passive remote snooping is the biggest concern, and communication logs can, and should be encrypted as needed (almost no need for average citizens). Encrypting the entire storage volume of a device to augment encrypted communication is unnecessary and reckless. It's a failure in design philosophy. One that needs to stop persisting when we already have so few choices in mobile platforms.
Yes I do. Now this will be the last response I'll give to someone that has chosen the name "macs4all" when talking about the inherent weakness of proprietary systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Ban mathematics? What? You know this is just an iOS exploit being used to brute force a weak pin code right? IPhones actively trade security for user convenience so they're never going to be difficult to compromise. Assuming you have data that actually needs to be encrypted (you don't) use strong ciphers with strong passwords and you'll be fine. Apple products don't really give you a choice in how they're encrypted so I wouldn't use them if your data is actually important.
These articles really need to stop confusing "encryption" with password security. They've broken Apple's password security, probably an altogether trivial thing to do as security exploits in iPhones are fairly common. They can't "break [good] encryption" anymore than they can break gravity - it's math - it's fundamental laws of the universe. They can break software security measures designed to artificially bolster security of weak passwords though. Nothing to see here, use strong passwords folks, as always.
What you're seeing is a generation that is markedly lazier than previous ones. Lazy people make decisions with emotion, rather than critical thought. 10 years ago you couldn't bundle a browser with your operating system without being taken to court, and centralized standards, protocols, and systems were vilified. Today this is all commonplace. Imagine if this generation had designed email. We'd still be sending every email through IBM.
While of course I'm taking about the tech industry because it's what I'm most familiar with, I think the parallels are clear. You expect the iPhone, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp generation to apply critical objective thought to politics? Good luck.
I think what he's taking about is that there's no evidence "21st century energy" is worth more than making us feel good. I assume you mean solar, wind, etc. While it all sounds good I've yet to hear of a community being able to provide this without heavy subsidising and/or an increase in energy costs. In the area I grew up, the government subsidized a project to build hundreds of windmills. It's been about 15 years now and my parents electricity bill is much higher, the skyline looks like a scene from war of the worlds, and the local government is debating bankruptcy. Like many far left policies that Bernie subscribes to, they sounds wonderful, but lack substance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So we can run the world on renewables while everyone gets free college, and healthcare? Sounds amazing! What's your plan? Oh, you're pretty sure Norway does it? That's all you've got? Forgive me for being skeptical.
I have no idea how this website became so popular. The original interface was horrible and completely unintuitive. Years later it's one of the most popular websites on the internet and it's only slightly better. Their servers go down constantly - unable to handle even slight spikes in traffic. And their simplistic mod system has ruined the community by rewarding a lowest common denominator hive-mind.
In my mind, reddit is proof that there's no policy or formula to follow to have a successful website. Security, interface design, stability, community - none of it seems to matter. It seems to just be random what the world latches on to.
The torch and pitchfork parent is modded 4. The reasonable and level headed post you made is at 1. Seems about right for today's slashdot.
You store your data on this website people. You store at least a small part of yourself - and for many it's a critical part of their identity (think pro gamers, or anyone that makes their living online). If your bank was potentially keeping your personal information in a box behind an unlocked door, accessible to the public, wouldn't you be upset? While he might not be doing it the right way, this man is mostly doing a public service and causing no real lasting harm.
Precisely. We're all starting to see the house of cards around centralized security models fall down now. Of course, this was apparent to anyone experienced in the industry, but the thickest amongst us. I've had innumerable arguments with Apple fanboys and shills about how centralized security isn't better, it just creates one massive point of failure. We'll see more and more of this in the coming years. Apple devices will be the easiest to compromise due to their centralized control structure.
Interesting how Apple is the only one that can comply with an invasive and controlling question, because, well, they're the most invasive, centralized, and controlling among them. Your post implies this is a good thing. Any security researcher, administrator, developer, or technician worth their salary would disagree.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Replacing a 20 year old router with something faster, more efficient, quieter, and smaller is out of the question for your use-case? Therefore package maintainers are supposed to spend countless hours per year making sure the new version of iptables can be installed from the repos for you? That's just not a reasonable request. You'll simply have to build your own packages going forward.
No kidding. Today's kernel is 75mb. That's larger than the entire capacity of IDE drives I had back then.
And it needs the newest Debian packages to run? That's what we're taking about here.
While I prefer the way my lawn used to be as well, I can't really fault distributions dropping support for 20 year old hardware. Every year there's new hardware you have to support and developers and maintainers have to spend their time wisely. So, you have 20 year old hardware? You'll just have to use old packages, or fiddle with the source to build your own. Even the kernel as of 3.7 dropped i386. Why? Well, it was a massive pain to maintain, and people running 30 year old hardware are probably fine running old versions of the kernel. There's not much to see here. Most commercial developers have 10 year support cycles - were taking about 20 year old hardware here.
While I don't know what the slack package maintainers are doing, I'd assume most distributions are going to stop supporting older architectures in their repositories eventually. The solution is to use older versions of packages, compile from source, etc. Even the Linux kernel stopped supporting i386 after something like version 3.7. If you have a processor from 1985, you just have to use an old version of the kernel. Is it going to have security concerns? Probably. But you're not using a 30 year old system in production are you?
Likewise, if you're using hardware from 1995 (what they're talking about here) you're just going to have to use old software to fit it. There's nothing really to see here. No software supports hardware much beyond 10 years.
While it's still possible people would want to run Linux on hardware this old, it's unlikely you're going to be happy with the newest kernel/packages on hardware 20 years old. Finding a copy of an old centos (for example) and compiling old versions of programs manually should be acceptable for any hobbyist in this situation.
Not to reply to my own post; but I meant to say "I am a Certified MS SQL Server Admin
It wasn't relevant anyways. Argument from authority, baseless insults with strong language, grammar attacks, arguing off point - I've already won.
And they say Apple users have a Superiority Complex (rolls eyes)...
They do. More-so they have a very acute level of post purchase rationalisation. This is true with any expensive purchase where the added price is mostly due to brand though (ie. designer clothing). Case and point: your last comment. Your post purchase rationalisation is so high that you try to diffuse a difficult truth with adolescent dismissal. Judging from your username you've made this company a pretty big part of your identity though, so I'd imagine you have even more emotionally at stake than your run-of-the-mill fanboy.
When your parents make all your decisions for you and hold your hand every step of the way you might glean a false sense of security from this. Of course this is unfavorable to critical thinking adults as we realize the added security is mostly emotional, false, and only ever as good as the parent providing it.
Apple people like to endlessly brag that their babysat user experience comes with added security. Not only is this erroneous, but it relies on the ridiculous assumption that an American for-profit company will always have their customers best interest in mind - over their employees, their country, their shareholders, and their profits. Adorable, but not surprising - people that purchase Apple products aren't known for their intelligence, solid ideals, or proficiency with logic.
I read about the cloud in Forbes so you have to be wrong. Now, put it on my iPad.
who would buy proprietary technology and drm 'protected' content, and voluntarily be at the mercy of decisions and mistakes of owners?
Most of the users on this website own Apple products so... them - and in all probability, you.
Or even better, don't buy an iPhone. Other added benefits are more user freedom, new technology earlier, and getting to keep more of your money.
so it's worth doing
I never said it wasn't. The problem is there's also many instances where encrypting data is worth NOT doing, and on many of these mobile platforms there is no option for that. Forced encryption is bad design, likely intended to encourage users into using cloud services, not to protect them - of course that's how they'll sell it though.
Precisely. I imagine the OP wouldn't have the same opinion if he got up tomorrow and his car failed to start - even worse if it was caused by Ford sneaking into the garage at night and "fixing" something that wasn't broken (for him at least). This "I know what's best for you" mentality seems to have no limits. This should have been kept as an optional update if it had this serious of a problem - only an irresponsible, out of touch idiot would think otherwise.
There's been a very obvious decrease in proficiency of technicians and developers in this generation. Anyone that has been in the industry longer than 10 years can easily see this. Actually, the quality of the users on this site is direct evidence of this. Just today I encountered someone named "macs4all" *facepalm*... My beautiful lawn...
Of course I have discovered my own backup solutions that align to my ideals. I would still rather not have an encrypted device, that I don't need, just in case. Why am I supposed to be fine with something I don't need, or want? Data encryption should not be a default option simply because there are many real-world problems when using it, and few real-world cases where it's actually needed.The confusion likely arises with engineers trying to extend the ideals for default encrypted communications. There is no drawback to all communications being encrypted, it is just good sense. So the logical extension might go: what is the point of encrypted communication if the data storage isn't also? Well, passive remote snooping is the biggest concern, and communication logs can, and should be encrypted as needed (almost no need for average citizens). Encrypting the entire storage volume of a device to augment encrypted communication is unnecessary and reckless. It's a failure in design philosophy. One that needs to stop persisting when we already have so few choices in mobile platforms.
Yes I do. Now this will be the last response I'll give to someone that has chosen the name "macs4all" when talking about the inherent weakness of proprietary systems.