Consider Bostonians who pronounce "Worchester" something like Elmer Fudd saying "rooster."
"Wooster" is the correct pronunciation of
"Worcester". That's how they say it in
England, and it's their word. Similarly,
"Worcestershire" is pronounced "Woostersher",
except that last "e" should be a schwa.
In the current economic environment, the MBA is not a good idea for a techie person. If you are both a savvy and knowledgeable executive and a good technician, how can you know which kind of work you are out of? When you send a resume for a management job, they will pitch it, because you are just a techie. When you send a resume for a tech job, they will pitch it because you couldn't cut it as a techie and you decided to become a manager. I've been there. This really happens.
So what you're saying is, you don't know how to
write a resume. If you're applying for a technical
job, don't mention the MBA. If you're applying for
a management job, don't mention the technical degree. You'd think they would have taught you
something about HR in that MBA.
1. Java is a fine development language, and it will help me as a programmer to learn it.
2. I'm right. Java is a fad, not worth much more than the Windows OS in terms of quality, and my CS faculty is doing me a disservice by cramming it down my throat.
3. There's a little truth in both the above statements."
You would probably be surprised at the number
of real-world applications that are developed in
Java. So, you need to learn Java, C, C++, and a
language like Perl or Python. You should also
learn shell scripting.
You need to learn these because if you get a
job, it will almost certainly require these
skills. You should also learn about databases
and SQL, and object databases too. Once you've
learned all that stuff, learn anything else that
you find interesting. The more languages you learn,
the better off you will be. This is because you
will learn a sort of "meta-language" which will
let you quickly learn a new language if required.
If I put a server on the 'net, I don't expect it to be broken into.
Well you should expect it, because judging by
the number of portscans I log every day, there
are thousands of people out there who are willing
to try to break into it.
Nor do I expect my car in a public parking lot to be. However, I do expect that if I park my car in a public parking lot, someone may *look* at it. Oh no! You looked at my car! You *must* be trying to break in. What other reason could you possibly have for looking at my car?
What does that have to do with portscanning?
Why are these people scanning hundreds of ports
on thousands of computers? Are they just helpfully
detecting security problems over vast areas of the
internet?
A few weeks ago, I reported a scan that came from
a very large university. One of the most well-known computer science universities in the
world. A few days later, I got an email back
thanking me because due to me reporting the scan,
they discovered that intruders had cracked the
machine, and were attempting to break into other
machines around the world. Not many people can tell if they are being portscanned, and many of those same people also
can't tell if an intruder has compromised their
machine's security. Sooner or later, crackers are
going to take control of some important computers
using these compromised machines as a launching
pad. Important computers like banks, stock exchanges, emergency services, or maybe even
military computers. That's why we all need to
take portscanning seriously and stamp it out.
Before a lot of people lose a lot of money, or
are killed.
Who said anything about thousands of computers? I sure didn't.
That's what I'm talking about, people who portscan
thousands of computers connected to dialups, cable
and DSL. The portscanning d00dz scan hundreds of
ports on thousands of computers over a block of
IP addresses to find computers they can attack.
Once they've attacked those computers, they use
them to attack other computers. That's what
portscanning is all about. It's not just one
person trying to make a HTTP GET connection to
a webserver one time. Read more at www.grc.com
As for permission, who do you think should decide
who has got permission to use your
computer? Should it be you, or some
script kiddie? You aren't seriously saying that
you find websites and ftp sites by portscanning
computers, are you? You find them by doing a web
search. The "whatever" connections are the ones
that the script kiddies are very keen to find.
My computer is on the internet for me
to use. It's my computer. I'm not giving anybody
else permission to use it. The permissions are
established by law. Unauthorised access to
a computer is a crime.
I would be glad to debate the subject of port scanning, but please do stick to it and use logic, not rhetoric to back up your claim.
The difference between making an http connection
and portscanning is quite similar to the difference
between sending an email and spamming. And why
should I be held to a higher standard than the
other posters who are talking about "rattling doors", "opening windows", "ringing doorbells",
"crawling in attics", etc, etc, etc?
The download page only lists 8 locations over the world to download from. Even if all of those servers are connected with 1 Gbit/sec ethernet cards to "the backbone" (I know, there's no such thing), and they are able to max out that bandwidth, you cannot ever let 100.000 people download 600 MB worth of data.
But the ISPs have http and ftp caches, right? So
it's not like every copy of the image is going to come from one of those eight servers.
Connecting to a public network for private purposes is inherently retarded and should never be done. Because of this, the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
Ok then , post your online banking username and password
here. After all, using the internet for online banking, that's stupid, right? Come on, don't
keep your banking details private iCEBaLM! Also
please post your usernames and passwords for
all your email and ISP accounts. You wouldn't
want to look hypocritical now.
There is a huge difference between checking whether a port is open and actively trying to exploit a security hole. You are trying to blur the distinction between the two.
There is also a huge difference between "checking
whether a port is open" and "checking every port
on thousands of computers, none of which you have
any permission to use". That is the distinction
a whole bunch of other people here are trying to
blur.
It's sort of like the difference between sending
an email to your friend, or sending thousands of
emails to thousands of people you don't know
asking them if they'd like to "MAKE THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME!!1!". Or do you
think that spamming is ok too?
ISPs use something called dynamic IP addreses. These addresses can change (usually do) every time your computer connects to your ISP. Since we all know that computers often get disconnected from dialup connections, how do I find my computer when I'm at work if I need to use it?
Your computer could send you an email when it
connects up and tell you what its IP address is. That wasn't
too hard, was it? There is no need for you to scan
everybody else's computer to find out which one
is yours.
You can do whatever you like with your computers,
but you have no right to try to break into other
people's computers. All the people who think that
portscanning is a right and that the
Constitution should have a new amendment guaranteeing
the right to bear portscanners, post your IP addresses here and we'll see how many scans you
get. Don't worry! The script kiddies are only
seeing if they CAN break into your computer!
They won't actually break into it.
Portscanning dial-up hosts and portscanning a potential service provider with a fixed IP could arguably be for different reasons. ie, easy-to-own systems run by rookies, vs. professionally (paid) run servers.
Exactly. There is no legitimate reason to portscan
a range of dialup, cable, or DSL IP addresses.
But the fact of the matter is... does driving down the road and looking at house doors to see if they are open cause me to become a criminal? If they don't want me to see their front door, plant a tree in the way!
We're not talking about "driving down the road
looking at house doors", we're talking about
people trying to break into computers. Breaking
into computers is a crime.
Also, another poster said that any computer
attached to a public network is fair game.
Ok, here's a stupid analogy: "If you park your
car on a public street, you should expect it
to be stolen". Do you keep your car always locked
up in a garage? How about "if you drive your
car down a public street, you should expect
to get carjacked. If you don't want to get
carjacked, don't drive it on a public street!
Build your own private street to drive on!".
For a fairly exhaustive paper regarding the secure deletion of data, see the Gutmann paper on USENIX.
This covers a series of 22 overwrite patterns that are formulated to ensure proper destruction of any trace information on RLL- and MFM-encoded hard drives.
Quick! Patent those patterns! Then the Pentagon
will have to pay you hundreds of dollars in
software patent fees for every drive they try
to wipe!
In other words, urandom would become pseudo-random only during the short intervals where the entropy pool is depleted. For this application, probably it is randomized often enough.
/dev/random runs out of bits fairly quickly.
For example, I just ran
cat/dev/random > random.file
and I only got about 750 bytes out of it. I
wiggled the mouse around a lot and the file
went up to 4k. It would be quite difficult to
get a whole hard disk worth of real random
data from there, which means that/dev/urandom
will be mostly pseudo-random.
Remember that, when dealing with data security, you don't just need to worry about what your enemy can do now, you need to worry about their capabilities 20 years from now. If the data has to stay secure for 50 years, then the only choice is to destroy the drive (we may have nanotech by then, and then you'd probably be able to uncover everything that was ever written to the drive).
HEY! This nanotech sounds pretty good! If
you could recover all the data that was written
to a drive over 20 years, that means a standard
20GB hard drive could hold... ZILLIONS OF GIGABYTES! Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those!
When is nanotech going to get invented?
hey noodlehead, conservatives LIKE education, it makes for alot of smart people who know what the hell their doing in the workforce, vs stoned hippies who havnt had a bath in a month.
People with a good education can also spell
"a lot", "haven't", "don't" and "isn't", and can
write sentences that other people can understand.
They are also familiar with the subtleties of the
possessive apostrophe.
Let's say you're shopping around for a web hosting provider. A lot of them will say "secure and reliable", but you know that doesn't really mean anything. So, you decide to run a few trivial security checks on their servers, including running a port scan.
Let's say I'm connecting my computer to the internet for private purposes. Why should I
have to put up with repeated port scans? Those
people aren't trying to connect to ports 111,
161, etc to do me a favour by testing my security.
They're trying to break in! This would be obvious
by examining what they had done, which would be
to scan certain exploitable ports on a range of
IP addresses. If you asked them, they would
probably tell you why they did it: to find
computers to break into. Let's not forget
what happened to grc.com.
Just look away from your TV or computer screen, look out the window and watch the real world, and see how crappy our screens look in comparision. They could be (and will be) a lot better.
DON'T DO IT! IT'S A TRICK! Just keep looking at
your TeeVee. TeeVee is your FRIEND.
If there are punitave penalties based on this charge and the defendant doesn't pay up, (s)he's guilty of contempt of court which is a criminal offence.
EXCEPT! There is no "charge", because IT'S NOT A CRIME! And there will be no "punitive penalties
based on this charge", because this case it ONLY
about jurisdiction. They are only asking the court
to decide if the defamation case should be heard
in Australia or the USA. You would know that if
you read the article instead of just making up
nonsense.
Also, even if this was a civil case where the plaintiff was claiming money (and it isn't, it's about jurisdiction) and a judgement was given against the defendant for
an amount of money, the defendant would not be
"guilty of contempt of court for not paying up".
The plaintiff would follow standard collection
procedures to collect the money awarded under
the judgement.
Quite apart from this, there's a precendent potentially being set where a real person could be sued by a foreign national and then they are barred from the country.
EXCEPT! Being sued is NOT A CRIME! In any case,
they will be sued, this case is only to decide
jurisdiction, which you would know if you bothered
to read the story. The precedent from this case
would be in which country they could be sued,
which is absolutely nothing to do with being
barred from the country.
In any event, a company is often legally equivalent to a person; any criminal charge against it would prevent it performing any business in Australia,
EXCEPT! Defamation is NOT A CRIME! Please stop
making up nonsense.
People have been doing this quite legally for forty years with real-to-real tape drives
I hear that the latest technology the recording
industry invented is the fake-to-fake tape drive.
It tricks people into thinking they've copied
something when they actually haven't.
However, it would be a barrier to the defendant from being able to travel to/do business in Australia. ISTR that Australia is pretty anal about letting people with any kind of conviction (even one in a foreign country) into the country, which is ironic considering its colonial roots...
Well gee, except that defamation is NOT A CRIME!
And the defendant is NOT A PERSON! Apart from that, you really know what you're talking about!
There sure are a lot of clueless people posting
comments to this article.
Slander, is false defamation, while libel is defamation that must meet other qualifications (that the statement is about a person who is identifiable to one or more persons, and that the statement i s distributed to one or more persons other then the injured party, i.e. published). In other words, slander _must_ be a lie. If it's the truth, it's not slander. However, if it's true, it can still be defamation. It must meet the other above criteria to be libel.
That is nonsense. Libel is written defamation, and slander is oral defamation. There is no need for something to be false for it to be defamatory.
Also, the current case is purely to determine where
the defamation case will be heard. More details
can be found in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The part that scared me, was that the top 200 had more money then the world's govt. combined. Makes the notion of big business influencing govt. much more pleusable.
That's logically impossible since the GDP of a country includes the revenue of companies operating within the country.
You're a bit confused there. Governments don't have all the money. GDP is the measure of all the
economic activity in a country, not the amount of
money the government has.
Slashdot Mirror
A few weeks ago, I reported a scan that came from a very large university. One of the most well-known computer science universities in the world. A few days later, I got an email back thanking me because due to me reporting the scan, they discovered that intruders had cracked the machine, and were attempting to break into other machines around the world. Not many people can tell if they are being portscanned, and many of those same people also can't tell if an intruder has compromised their machine's security. Sooner or later, crackers are going to take control of some important computers using these compromised machines as a launching pad. Important computers like banks, stock exchanges, emergency services, or maybe even military computers. That's why we all need to take portscanning seriously and stamp it out. Before a lot of people lose a lot of money, or are killed.
As for permission, who do you think should decide who has got permission to use your computer? Should it be you, or some script kiddie? You aren't seriously saying that you find websites and ftp sites by portscanning computers, are you? You find them by doing a web search. The "whatever" connections are the ones that the script kiddies are very keen to find. My computer is on the internet for me to use. It's my computer. I'm not giving anybody else permission to use it. The permissions are established by law. Unauthorised access to a computer is a crime.
The difference between making an http connection and portscanning is quite similar to the difference between sending an email and spamming. And why should I be held to a higher standard than the other posters who are talking about "rattling doors", "opening windows", "ringing doorbells", "crawling in attics", etc, etc, etc?
So what's your problem?
It's sort of like the difference between sending an email to your friend, or sending thousands of emails to thousands of people you don't know asking them if they'd like to "MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A WEEK WORKING FROM HOME!!1!". Or do you think that spamming is ok too?
Guns don't protect people; people protect people.
You can do whatever you like with your computers, but you have no right to try to break into other people's computers. All the people who think that portscanning is a right and that the Constitution should have a new amendment guaranteeing the right to bear portscanners, post your IP addresses here and we'll see how many scans you get. Don't worry! The script kiddies are only seeing if they CAN break into your computer! They won't actually break into it.
Also, another poster said that any computer attached to a public network is fair game. Ok, here's a stupid analogy: "If you park your car on a public street, you should expect it to be stolen". Do you keep your car always locked up in a garage? How about "if you drive your car down a public street, you should expect to get carjacked. If you don't want to get carjacked, don't drive it on a public street! Build your own private street to drive on!".
Portscanning should be considered a crime.
No way! Don't buy a PS2! Sony is in the MPAA and RIAA! Or did you forget already?
There sure are a lot of clueless people posting comments to this article.
Also, the current case is purely to determine where the defamation case will be heard. More details can be found in the Sydney Morning Herald.