No not really. Once you jailbreak, either Cydia or the jailbreak tool itself patches the hole it used in that OS image. It is fixed until you wipe the device and start over.
Actually, now is the time to update to iOS 6.1.1 while you still can. Once Apple pushes 6.1.2 out, they won't give out the keys so iTunes can install it.
The fact evasi0n only had a limited time window available was known, but Apple has ramped up the release between to devs and to everyone. It used to be about 1.5-2 months, now it's about a week.
This is just to let everyone running a slightly older version that now is the time to update to the latest jailbreakable OS, and to run Cydia so it grabs the keys using your devices SHSH blobs so you can restore to those versions later later.
Most likely someone on the inside sold the list for chump change.
Another possibility is one of their desktop computers got infected with malware that grabbed the Outlook global address book and email contact history and sent it back to the mothership.
These things were notorious a couple years back. If the domain does not use SPF records (and even some times if it does) using the address book for forged From addresses while sending to the addresses found in the Sent box and contact lists, it has a decent chance of hitting a white-list and getting by more spam filters than it normally would otherwise.
Once one PC is infected by a drive by download or something and grabs the Outlook data, the spammers have a nice list of valid addresses and names to send emails with infected attachments to, to hopefully grab other peoples contact lists and sent box items to broaden the attack.
Unfortunately not every mail server admin has the luxury if simply blocking anything incoming matching "If the To address is not our domain, or the From address IS our domain" Worse, it's rare to be blessed with users who never open attachments even if the From address appears to be someone they have had contact with before.
I can't really say which option is actually more likely than the other, but I would think both rank pretty high up there on the possibility charts.
In both cases the situation could very well not be the fault of the company itself, but only in the case of infection would the IT staff likely discover early on what happened. If an email list was sold off by an (ex)employee they can't realistically know until reports come in telling them like the poster has sent.
Of course that isn't to say it definitely is not the fault of the company, one way or another. Lax security would make matters that much worse, but as we all know Windows can quite easily destroy any attempts made at being secure. Then there is the disgruntled employee selling off the email list, yet he/she could have became disgruntled for a valid reason.
But their complete lack of response is at best impolite and at worse indicative of not even caring. I can understand why they wouldn't necessarily want to confirm the problem or provide details to "some outside 3rd party", but they could have at the very least acknowledged receiving his email and stated they will look into it.
So what you're saying is, if you say to me in conversation you are running a server with such and such software, and I reply also in conversion that the latest version of software such and such is exploitable, then give you the URL to the security announcement... I now somehow owe you money despite not even knowing where your network is let alone haven't touched the thing? Simply because you need to check for backdoors and reimage potentially backdoored machines?
I think you don't understand how this "fault" thing actually works.
Proving damages is pretty easy. Google tracks ad views pretty well, and knows down to a fraction of a penny how much money was earned over what period of time. Extrapolate that over the time the video was down = amount of damages.
You sent an email to tell _name_ you will see them in 10 minutes?
You never know how late he was already running before sending that email.
I've dictated similar emails when running late for work due to bad weather. If I'm already 30 minutes late, letting them know I will be there in another 10 minutes is not only polite but could be a stress reliever if someone has been waiting on you for anything important.
We've had a lot of ice storms and snow these past few weeks, an annoying one just yesterday in fact. It started raining ice pellets around 2-3am Friday and by 7am my car was entombed with ice. It took a little longer than expected to unearth it before I could head to work.
I've also had the reverse, where there was only some snow on the ground in the morning, but by the time I left work the parking lot and all the cars in it were coated with an ice sheet, and I ended up getting home an hour or more late. If there was someone at home expecting me, I would probably not want them to worry either.
Wine? It would put an end to Windows, Office, Exchange, Active Directory (all things created by other people/companies) and Microsoft is handing them a the copyright over.
Oracle DB would be done for as well, as SQL will now be copyrighted by the people that created it and not Oracle. Not to mention all the other software Oracle claims is theirs.
The only possibly good thing is that pretty much not a single company in the US will own their own technology, since there has never in the past been a need to transfer copyright ownership for these APIs from the person that invented it to a company. Since no transfers have ever happened, no companies at all would control the things they sell.
Destroying every aspect of capitalism with one moronic legal claim.
You don't perform just one single sequencing due to the error rate.
The best way to get the error sigma down is to run 10 or more sequences, however the money allotted only allows for 3 per sample.
I am trying to figure out how they are getting full sequencing done so cheaply.
My guess is they are willing to run less sequences and accept the higher error rate due to the smaller sample pool of suspects. Knowing one is 70% likely while the other is 30% likely, when they already have claimed only one of these two people could possibly have done it, would likely be enough for a conviction.
So you are admitting to having committed conspiracy?
After all, you have not come forward to report my crimes, so as you said you are clearly guilty of conspiracy for keeping quiet and for claiming innocence yourself.
Apparently the fact you and this twin brother were not aware of the others crimes is beside the point.
The command 'visudo' will launch whatever editor is defined in an environment variable, and if that is not set it will traverse the/etc/defaults/ tree.
On certain distros a brand new install will have those set to pico or nano. After having configured the defaults on a previous system many years prior, one tends to forget about that "feature" even existing.
Not coincidentally, using visudo is more likely immediately after a new installation as well, and where I most often first run into it.
A 12 step program asks only that you admit you are powerless over your addiction and only a power greater than yourself can help you overcome it.
That which does not kill me does NOT make me stronger. *I* make me stronger when I refuse to let it kill me.
I've had two addictions in my life, and both are now very far behind me. One is beaten. I've never wanted no more a part of something in my life than that. The other, while I admit I could enjoy those feelings again, I have chosen not to accept all the negative that would again come with it, and my own self control is all that was needed - proving no higher power beyond the human mind is needed.
I have had little to no support either during nor after those times of my life, however I am far from powerless and in fact I am the only power that both started and stopped, thus the only power that matters.
If AA helps you, more power to you. If you need help, and there is Anything that helps, again more power to you. I truly hope you get as much help as you desire, and reach a point of not being controlled by addiction - or if you are there, that you stay there.
But claiming one is powerless when they are not, and claiming there is no way to overcome it, is nothing but enabling. You can believe as you wish of course, but please stop trying to convince others of what is not true. It will only serve to harm them.
The solution for equality is not to pull others down to your worse levels, but to raise yourself above that.
We force chemical castration on people, and only a decade ago forced physical castration on people. We force brain and mind altering psychoactive on people.
Depending how you view the US prison system, we also force rape upon people as well as torture.
I don't see why the powers that be would have any personal problems forcing this on people as well.
That isn't to say I agree or think any of the above is right. There really are people who have no respect for the life and well being of those around them, and I do agree a line must be drawn somewhere, I just think that line is way too close to the innocents for comfort.
heh that's pretty much what I was thinking. Back in the good ole college days, some weeks you only have a $10 left and that needs to buy both gas and food for the last two days of the week.
It's a shame they can't pay a highly credentialed reporter more than a poor starving college student. He should look for a better job.
Well now that you've decided to be all insulting for no good reason, I will too.
Because the only way to remove permission for the bootloader to boot the OS is to revoke a key, you can tell me i don't have permission all you want, ain't gonna make a shit of difference though, you - like Microsoft - don't have any authority over that.
Thank you for finally admitting I am right.
You do as you say, and don't give a shit like you say, then you are violating copyright and the DMCA. You're now a felon. Congrats!
I'll let You argue with the judges that have ruled and set precident that copyright holders can't dictate who can make a copy of their work, as well as argue with the judge that declared loading a program into ram is copying.
You are now openly stating you can and will violate copyright because there are no technical measures that will prevent you. You think because you won't get caught that it is still somehow magically legal.
I can only hope the EFF doesn't waste our collective money on your case.
That's an interesting take, how would one revoke a UEFI key?
Dunno, doesn't seem possible to me with the current state of hardware. Why do you ask? Seems a bit off topic, since I was discussing permission and not certificates or keys.
And how would revocation - assuming such a thing exists and is possible - of a key result in permission to load the pre-bootloader being denied?
Dunno, I never said anything about revoking a key. However one revokes permission by using the words "you no longer have permission"
Permission to load the bootloader is granted/denied by the UEFI firmware, which makes the decision based on whether the installed key matches that of the signed bootloader, so what you're saying makes absolutely no sense, it just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how secureboot works.
No, the boot loader only knows if the software being booted was signed by a key that is paired to a key stored in UEFI. It can't possibly know about a legal construct such as permission or about copyright law. All it "knows" is the math adds up on the bits it's looking at.
The misunderstanding here is completely on your part, which is obvious with the topics you keep bringing up. You are speaking of technical measures. I am speaking of legal measures.
To give you an extreme example, assuming you own a car, you would have a key to that car. The key is the technical measure that lets you in and keeps others out. Ownership of that car however is a name on a piece of paper registered with the government. If I had a friend who was a corrupt judge, those papers could easily be changed to assign ownership to me. Legally (at least for a very short time with that example) I could use that paper as proof your car is owned by me. But absolutely NONE of that paperwork however would suddenly make your key stop working. You can go on and on about possessing the key all you want, but everyone I present that paper to would believe me over you, until other people in the legal system got things straightened out.
That is the difference between a legal matter and a technical matter. The two rarely have anything to do with each other.
Forget hacking, Someone is going to disguise it as a common place object and spy where they shouldn't. ..
Why on earth would you use a tank camera to rip apart and disguise as something else?
If that thought scares you, go to Amazon and type in "spy camera":P
$30 for a tiny wireless pinhole camera designed for hiding here.
For the DIY-declined, there are pre-disguised cameras already on the market. They cost a bit more, but you don't need any skills other than having a wad of cash to blow.
For $90 you can get an analog wall clock with hidden wireless camera here
Just over $60 for a smoke detector with hidden camera and 8gb of internal video storage, just begging to be installed over a bed here
There are even cameras hidden inside wall power plugs here
These are available publicly to anyone with money, no electronics or building skills required. I've never used a hidden camera, and these are just the ones known to me. I'm sure there are better and cheaper units out there, disguised as just about anything you can think of.
This little toy tank is not particularly a concern in comparison.
Now, today, Microsoft has finished by saying Linux can and will only exist at Microsoft's whim. They hold the keys to the kingdom, and can lock and unlock any OS as they see fit. [...] now we are humbly begging for permission to be allowed to use non-windows on our own computers, while also praying the check clears to buy that capability which should be a natural right. [...] If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
I emphasized the bits in your post that were sensational nonsense. Microsoft could never revoke the keys for Linux, because it is actually too popular for them to get away with it.
Apologies in advance if I miss-copied any emphasized parts above. The editor does not want to cooperate with that. But it will be easier to address each, as I do not agree with your assessment. Sensational perhaps, but that doesn't mean I am incorrect or exaggerating the truth.
Microsoft has finished by saying Linux can and will only exist at Microsoft's whim
And the past 100-ish days prove that to be correct, as Linux was not yet bootable on these new systems without first blanking the certificates out of the BIOS. Yes for now the "generic" PC hardware has this ability, but already more than just Microsoft's tablet/embedded hardware prevents this (aka all Arm systems win8-rt certified) This was obviously their choice to make that distinction, which is what "whim" means.
while also praying the check clears to buy that capability
Are you claiming it does not cost money for the developer program to have your software signed?
And the biggie: Me: If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
You: Microsoft could never revoke the keys for Linux, because it is actually too popular for them to get away with it.
I do not see any exception or provision written into the DMCA or copyright law that states being some value of popular will have any effect upon having the copyright holders permission being no longer required.
I see you did not quote me saying this would not be a technical key revoke but a legal one.
The process goes like this. 1 - Microsoft makes an announcement - as in just using words - that the certificate issued to this preboot loader is now revoked. 2 - Technically, not much changes. Only systems that check CRL's would actually up and stop working, and I am unsure how many (if any) currently do that at all. Even the ARM WinRT restricted devices. 3 - Legally however, using any software signed under that certificate/name is a copyright violation. It is being done without permission.
So, despite having had permission previously, said permission is now publicly revoked. There is no license to run that software, and bypassing any such protections is a DMCA violation, another federal law. Utilizing a perfectly valid in every technical way certificate to sign anything is also a DMCA violation regarding tools used to bypass copyright protections. Again, legal protections, the courts have repeatedly ruled the technicalities do not matter.
Just because there would be massive negative repercussions towards Microsoft for actually doing this, there is nothing actually or legally stopping them from doing so. So far we only have a claim they will not do so. As I mentioned, I wouldn't trust Microsoft as far as Balmer could throw one of their chairs.
But the facts remain: - Stated permission is the only metric that matters when it comes to copyright. - Bypassing the
Thou I must admit, in Oakland, pissing off everyone on the freeway, there is something to be said for us gun nuts self control - not a single one of these ass hats got shot! No I am not condoning doing so, just shocked to hell it didn't happen.
But today, at about day 100, the problem is a long way towards being solved. Get over it.
I interpreted it a little differently. Today at about day 100, Microsoft has won it's war against Linux.
Microsoft started by saying you don't want to use Linux because it's inferior, but they were easily shown to be wrong.
Then Microsoft turned to saying it was illegal to use Linux because it's a mess of copyrights and patents, as well as infected with a viral license that destroys businesses. It took a lawsuit a decade long with one of this countries top companies (at the time) to finally prove otherwise.
Now, today, Microsoft has finished by saying Linux can and will only exist at Microsoft's whim. They hold the keys to the kingdom, and can lock and unlock any OS as they see fit. Please note I am not speaking of a technical measure, but a legal one.
Instead of having the UEFI key signing authority forced from Microsoft's hands and taken away by power of law, now we are humbly begging for permission to be allowed to use non-windows on our own computers, while also praying the check clears to buy that capability which should be a natural right.
Now I'm not trying to claim that would have been an easy battle, and I myself certainly have not put my own money life and future on the line to fight for it either. But I still believe that battle not being won is what will make all those "Yeay tablets and phones, we are in the post PC era now!" predictions come true.
The FCC already went back on their fair use ruling about jailbreaking and being allowed to run the software you choose to run. If you didn't notice, only jailbreaking the iPhone is still an exception to the law. Do the same thing on another device that's just a bit bigger (an iPad) or made by any other manufacturer, and you are committing a federal crime.
If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
While no I do not trust Microsoft, I have to say I can't see myself trusting ANYONE with this power. Signed booting absolutely MUST be controlled at the highest level by the owner of the computer. No one else!
This means there should be ZERO keys or certs installed by default, and it should be a very serious crime to try and sneak one in, similar to any other mass scale computer intrusion laws.
One should be required to learn how it works, why it works, what the advantages of signing your own boot loader would be, and then using that knowledge to enable it and upload your keys. If someone can't do that, then clearly they don't need this feature.
I have to second the suggestion for Start8 to fix Win 8. It brings back the start menu, ungimps the windows key to allow search, and lets you login straight to the desktop.
Then you can think of Win 8 as a Win 7 install where the deprecated sidebar gadgets have been replaced with these silly tab gadget-like things that will be equally avoided.
The only other remaining downsides to Win 8 are also included in Win 7 and Vista so that shouldn't be a problem at all, as you said Win 7 is fine.
The other option is to get a laptop that has win 7 drivers available Any OEM laptop over a couple months old should meet those requirements (IE Dell HP Levono/IBM ASUS Thinkpad etc)
Or get an Apple, they have drivers from XP forward.
Alienware still makes Win 7 laptops, although they are more geared towards gaming, but a beefy GPU isn't much of a downside IMHO;} - Seriously thou, the only downside there is price. But they have entry level laptops starting at $1000, and do run deals on and off that you'll need to keep an eye on.
But I gather you aren't looking for a cheap laptop, since the only really low prices ones will either be deals bundled with Win 8 to lower the price (MS gives them kickbacks for these sales) or will be too underpowered to run any Windows except a gimped XP or 2000 install.
I'd have to recommend an Alienware, and a close second being an Apple.
I am amazed that you got a patched e1000 driver working with a 82574L based piece of hardware... mighty impressive hacking! You should have written up a report on how you managed it for the rest of us to study as homework.
Think about it, their ISP divisions pull in what, 1-2 digit billions of dollars a year? Maybe 3 digit billions? That is nothing compared to the 2-4 digit trillions they state they are losing due to piracy.
do you have a Non **AA affiliated source for that figure?
Those figures are specifically from the **AA sources. I even said "they state they are losing", and who else would make such a statement from within if not the PR department or the RIAA/MPAA?
The non **AA source I intended to cover with:
Granted, this is not anywhere close to true, but they all firmly believe so, and more importantly they have made that statement to our government and so now must stick by it.
Since in reality a pirated work is not a lost sale, the base figure for loses due to piracy is $0.
One would then need to go to court records to show sales count figures of commercial copyright mass-infringers that had their operations shut down, possibly added to jury awards for losses (minus damages) for individual cases, in order to get something close to the real figure.
Of course with things like the Jammie Thomas case, people will misconstrue that multiple-million dollar verdict as "losses" when that is clearly damages, as losses are only 24 songs at $1 each thus $24 total... So of course there will be confusion in that area.
Slashdot Mirror
No not really. Once you jailbreak, either Cydia or the jailbreak tool itself patches the hole it used in that OS image. It is fixed until you wipe the device and start over.
Care to inform me why anyone should update?
Actually, now is the time to update to iOS 6.1.1 while you still can. Once Apple pushes 6.1.2 out, they won't give out the keys so iTunes can install it.
The fact evasi0n only had a limited time window available was known, but Apple has ramped up the release between to devs and to everyone. It used to be about 1.5-2 months, now it's about a week.
This is just to let everyone running a slightly older version that now is the time to update to the latest jailbreakable OS, and to run Cydia so it grabs the keys using your devices SHSH blobs so you can restore to those versions later later.
Most likely someone on the inside sold the list for chump change.
Another possibility is one of their desktop computers got infected with malware that grabbed the Outlook global address book and email contact history and sent it back to the mothership.
These things were notorious a couple years back. If the domain does not use SPF records (and even some times if it does) using the address book for forged From addresses while sending to the addresses found in the Sent box and contact lists, it has a decent chance of hitting a white-list and getting by more spam filters than it normally would otherwise.
Once one PC is infected by a drive by download or something and grabs the Outlook data, the spammers have a nice list of valid addresses and names to send emails with infected attachments to, to hopefully grab other peoples contact lists and sent box items to broaden the attack.
Unfortunately not every mail server admin has the luxury if simply blocking anything incoming matching "If the To address is not our domain, or the From address IS our domain"
Worse, it's rare to be blessed with users who never open attachments even if the From address appears to be someone they have had contact with before.
I can't really say which option is actually more likely than the other, but I would think both rank pretty high up there on the possibility charts.
In both cases the situation could very well not be the fault of the company itself, but only in the case of infection would the IT staff likely discover early on what happened. If an email list was sold off by an (ex)employee they can't realistically know until reports come in telling them like the poster has sent.
Of course that isn't to say it definitely is not the fault of the company, one way or another.
Lax security would make matters that much worse, but as we all know Windows can quite easily destroy any attempts made at being secure. Then there is the disgruntled employee selling off the email list, yet he/she could have became disgruntled for a valid reason.
But their complete lack of response is at best impolite and at worse indicative of not even caring.
I can understand why they wouldn't necessarily want to confirm the problem or provide details to "some outside 3rd party", but they could have at the very least acknowledged receiving his email and stated they will look into it.
So what you're saying is, if you say to me in conversation you are running a server with such and such software, and I reply also in conversion that the latest version of software such and such is exploitable, then give you the URL to the security announcement... I now somehow owe you money despite not even knowing where your network is let alone haven't touched the thing? Simply because you need to check for backdoors and reimage potentially backdoored machines?
I think you don't understand how this "fault" thing actually works.
Proving damages is pretty easy. Google tracks ad views pretty well, and knows down to a fraction of a penny how much money was earned over what period of time. Extrapolate that over the time the video was down = amount of damages.
People say I'm a great programmer but, sometimes, I'm a very bad smeller.
The thing about programming is as long as you always missmell your variables consistently, you'll be fine!
You sent an email to tell _name_ you will see them in 10 minutes?
You never know how late he was already running before sending that email.
I've dictated similar emails when running late for work due to bad weather. If I'm already 30 minutes late, letting them know I will be there in another 10 minutes is not only polite but could be a stress reliever if someone has been waiting on you for anything important.
We've had a lot of ice storms and snow these past few weeks, an annoying one just yesterday in fact.
It started raining ice pellets around 2-3am Friday and by 7am my car was entombed with ice. It took a little longer than expected to unearth it before I could head to work.
I've also had the reverse, where there was only some snow on the ground in the morning, but by the time I left work the parking lot and all the cars in it were coated with an ice sheet, and I ended up getting home an hour or more late.
If there was someone at home expecting me, I would probably not want them to worry either.
You're just not hitting the clerk in the head with the wireless hard enough.
Wine? It would put an end to Windows, Office, Exchange, Active Directory (all things created by other people/companies) and Microsoft is handing them a the copyright over.
Oracle DB would be done for as well, as SQL will now be copyrighted by the people that created it and not Oracle. Not to mention all the other software Oracle claims is theirs.
The only possibly good thing is that pretty much not a single company in the US will own their own technology, since there has never in the past been a need to transfer copyright ownership for these APIs from the person that invented it to a company.
Since no transfers have ever happened, no companies at all would control the things they sell.
Destroying every aspect of capitalism with one moronic legal claim.
You don't perform just one single sequencing due to the error rate.
The best way to get the error sigma down is to run 10 or more sequences, however the money allotted only allows for 3 per sample.
I am trying to figure out how they are getting full sequencing done so cheaply.
My guess is they are willing to run less sequences and accept the higher error rate due to the smaller sample pool of suspects.
Knowing one is 70% likely while the other is 30% likely, when they already have claimed only one of these two people could possibly have done it, would likely be enough for a conviction.
So you are admitting to having committed conspiracy?
After all, you have not come forward to report my crimes, so as you said you are clearly guilty of conspiracy for keeping quiet and for claiming innocence yourself.
Apparently the fact you and this twin brother were not aware of the others crimes is beside the point.
The command 'visudo' will launch whatever editor is defined in an environment variable, and if that is not set it will traverse the /etc/defaults/ tree.
On certain distros a brand new install will have those set to pico or nano.
After having configured the defaults on a previous system many years prior, one tends to forget about that "feature" even existing.
Not coincidentally, using visudo is more likely immediately after a new installation as well, and where I most often first run into it.
A 12 step program asks only that you admit you are powerless over your addiction and only a power greater than yourself can help you overcome it.
That which does not kill me does NOT make me stronger. *I* make me stronger when I refuse to let it kill me.
I've had two addictions in my life, and both are now very far behind me.
One is beaten. I've never wanted no more a part of something in my life than that.
The other, while I admit I could enjoy those feelings again, I have chosen not to accept all the negative that would again come with it, and my own self control is all that was needed - proving no higher power beyond the human mind is needed.
I have had little to no support either during nor after those times of my life, however I am far from powerless and in fact I am the only power that both started and stopped, thus the only power that matters.
If AA helps you, more power to you. If you need help, and there is Anything that helps, again more power to you. I truly hope you get as much help as you desire, and reach a point of not being controlled by addiction - or if you are there, that you stay there.
But claiming one is powerless when they are not, and claiming there is no way to overcome it, is nothing but enabling. You can believe as you wish of course, but please stop trying to convince others of what is not true. It will only serve to harm them.
The solution for equality is not to pull others down to your worse levels, but to raise yourself above that.
We force chemical castration on people, and only a decade ago forced physical castration on people.
We force brain and mind altering psychoactive on people.
Depending how you view the US prison system, we also force rape upon people as well as torture.
I don't see why the powers that be would have any personal problems forcing this on people as well.
That isn't to say I agree or think any of the above is right.
There really are people who have no respect for the life and well being of those around them, and I do agree a line must be drawn somewhere, I just think that line is way too close to the innocents for comfort.
heh that's pretty much what I was thinking. Back in the good ole college days, some weeks you only have a $10 left and that needs to buy both gas and food for the last two days of the week.
It's a shame they can't pay a highly credentialed reporter more than a poor starving college student.
He should look for a better job.
Well now that you've decided to be all insulting for no good reason, I will too.
Because the only way to remove permission for the bootloader to boot the OS is to revoke a key, you can tell me i don't have permission all you want, ain't gonna make a shit of difference though, you - like Microsoft - don't have any authority over that.
Thank you for finally admitting I am right.
You do as you say, and don't give a shit like you say, then you are violating copyright and the DMCA. You're now a felon. Congrats!
I'll let You argue with the judges that have ruled and set precident that copyright holders can't dictate who can make a copy of their work, as well as argue with the judge that declared loading a program into ram is copying.
You are now openly stating you can and will violate copyright because there are no technical measures that will prevent you. You think because you won't get caught that it is still somehow magically legal.
I can only hope the EFF doesn't waste our collective money on your case.
That's an interesting take, how would one revoke a UEFI key?
Dunno, doesn't seem possible to me with the current state of hardware. Why do you ask? Seems a bit off topic, since I was discussing permission and not certificates or keys.
And how would revocation - assuming such a thing exists and is possible - of a key result in permission to load the pre-bootloader being denied?
Dunno, I never said anything about revoking a key.
However one revokes permission by using the words "you no longer have permission"
Permission to load the bootloader is granted/denied by the UEFI firmware, which makes the decision based on whether the installed key matches that of the signed bootloader, so what you're saying makes absolutely no sense, it just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how secureboot works.
No, the boot loader only knows if the software being booted was signed by a key that is paired to a key stored in UEFI. It can't possibly know about a legal construct such as permission or about copyright law. All it "knows" is the math adds up on the bits it's looking at.
The misunderstanding here is completely on your part, which is obvious with the topics you keep bringing up.
You are speaking of technical measures. I am speaking of legal measures.
To give you an extreme example, assuming you own a car, you would have a key to that car.
The key is the technical measure that lets you in and keeps others out.
Ownership of that car however is a name on a piece of paper registered with the government.
If I had a friend who was a corrupt judge, those papers could easily be changed to assign ownership to me. Legally (at least for a very short time with that example) I could use that paper as proof your car is owned by me. But absolutely NONE of that paperwork however would suddenly make your key stop working.
You can go on and on about possessing the key all you want, but everyone I present that paper to would believe me over you, until other people in the legal system got things straightened out.
That is the difference between a legal matter and a technical matter. The two rarely have anything to do with each other.
Forget hacking, Someone is going to disguise it as a common place object and spy where they shouldn't. . .
Why on earth would you use a tank camera to rip apart and disguise as something else?
If that thought scares you, go to Amazon and type in "spy camera" :P
$30 for a tiny wireless pinhole camera designed for hiding here.
For the DIY-declined, there are pre-disguised cameras already on the market. They cost a bit more, but you don't need any skills other than having a wad of cash to blow.
For $90 you can get an analog wall clock with hidden wireless camera here
Just over $60 for a smoke detector with hidden camera and 8gb of internal video storage, just begging to be installed over a bed here
There are even cameras hidden inside wall power plugs here
These are available publicly to anyone with money, no electronics or building skills required.
I've never used a hidden camera, and these are just the ones known to me. I'm sure there are better and cheaper units out there, disguised as just about anything you can think of.
This little toy tank is not particularly a concern in comparison.
Now, today, Microsoft has finished by saying Linux can and will only exist at Microsoft's whim. They hold the keys to the kingdom, and can lock and unlock any OS as they see fit. [...] now we are humbly begging for permission to be allowed to use non-windows on our own computers, while also praying the check clears to buy that capability which should be a natural right. [...] If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
I emphasized the bits in your post that were sensational nonsense.
Microsoft could never revoke the keys for Linux, because it is actually too popular for them to get away with it.
Apologies in advance if I miss-copied any emphasized parts above. The editor does not want to cooperate with that.
But it will be easier to address each, as I do not agree with your assessment. Sensational perhaps, but that doesn't mean I am incorrect or exaggerating the truth.
Microsoft has finished by saying Linux can and will only exist at Microsoft's whim
And the past 100-ish days prove that to be correct, as Linux was not yet bootable on these new systems without first blanking the certificates out of the BIOS.
Yes for now the "generic" PC hardware has this ability, but already more than just Microsoft's tablet/embedded hardware prevents this (aka all Arm systems win8-rt certified)
This was obviously their choice to make that distinction, which is what "whim" means.
while also praying the check clears to buy that capability
Are you claiming it does not cost money for the developer program to have your software signed?
And the biggie:
Me: If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
You: Microsoft could never revoke the keys for Linux, because it is actually too popular for them to get away with it.
I do not see any exception or provision written into the DMCA or copyright law that states being some value of popular will have any effect upon having the copyright holders permission being no longer required.
I see you did not quote me saying this would not be a technical key revoke but a legal one.
The process goes like this.
1 - Microsoft makes an announcement - as in just using words - that the certificate issued to this preboot loader is now revoked.
2 - Technically, not much changes. Only systems that check CRL's would actually up and stop working, and I am unsure how many (if any) currently do that at all. Even the ARM WinRT restricted devices.
3 - Legally however, using any software signed under that certificate/name is a copyright violation. It is being done without permission.
So, despite having had permission previously, said permission is now publicly revoked.
There is no license to run that software, and bypassing any such protections is a DMCA violation, another federal law.
Utilizing a perfectly valid in every technical way certificate to sign anything is also a DMCA violation regarding tools used to bypass copyright protections. Again, legal protections, the courts have repeatedly ruled the technicalities do not matter.
Just because there would be massive negative repercussions towards Microsoft for actually doing this, there is nothing actually or legally stopping them from doing so. So far we only have a claim they will not do so. As I mentioned, I wouldn't trust Microsoft as far as Balmer could throw one of their chairs.
But the facts remain:
- Stated permission is the only metric that matters when it comes to copyright.
- Bypassing the
Gun nuts could learn a lot from car guys. We know how to keep stuff quiet, not be a bunch of whiny babies, and stay on the good side of the law.
[offtopic tag in effect]
You should know better than to talk absolutes on slashdot of all places ;}
Because these guys say they are car guys too. It was just a week ago.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_22499576/tammerlin-drummond-perhaps-oaklands-reputation-played-role-doughnut
Thou I must admit, in Oakland, pissing off everyone on the freeway, there is something to be said for us gun nuts self control - not a single one of these ass hats got shot!
No I am not condoning doing so, just shocked to hell it didn't happen.
But today, at about day 100, the problem is a long way towards being solved. Get over it.
I interpreted it a little differently. Today at about day 100, Microsoft has won it's war against Linux.
Microsoft started by saying you don't want to use Linux because it's inferior, but they were easily shown to be wrong.
Then Microsoft turned to saying it was illegal to use Linux because it's a mess of copyrights and patents, as well as infected with a viral license that destroys businesses. It took a lawsuit a decade long with one of this countries top companies (at the time) to finally prove otherwise.
Now, today, Microsoft has finished by saying Linux can and will only exist at Microsoft's whim. They hold the keys to the kingdom, and can lock and unlock any OS as they see fit.
Please note I am not speaking of a technical measure, but a legal one.
Instead of having the UEFI key signing authority forced from Microsoft's hands and taken away by power of law, now we are humbly begging for permission to be allowed to use non-windows on our own computers, while also praying the check clears to buy that capability which should be a natural right.
Now I'm not trying to claim that would have been an easy battle, and I myself certainly have not put my own money life and future on the line to fight for it either.
But I still believe that battle not being won is what will make all those "Yeay tablets and phones, we are in the post PC era now!" predictions come true.
The FCC already went back on their fair use ruling about jailbreaking and being allowed to run the software you choose to run. If you didn't notice, only jailbreaking the iPhone is still an exception to the law. Do the same thing on another device that's just a bit bigger (an iPad) or made by any other manufacturer, and you are committing a federal crime.
If Microsoft officially claims they have revoked the certificate and thus permission for the Linux preboot loader, then instantly every desktop and server in this country running Linux is in violation of the law. Booting it is a felony.
While no I do not trust Microsoft, I have to say I can't see myself trusting ANYONE with this power.
Signed booting absolutely MUST be controlled at the highest level by the owner of the computer. No one else!
This means there should be ZERO keys or certs installed by default, and it should be a very serious crime to try and sneak one in, similar to any other mass scale computer intrusion laws.
One should be required to learn how it works, why it works, what the advantages of signing your own boot loader would be, and then using that knowledge to enable it and upload your keys.
If someone can't do that, then clearly they don't need this feature.
Wonder if anyone has written some sci-fi where humanity makes contact with the lowest, poorest, stupidest, backwards redneck the aliens have to offer.
You mean StarTrek Voyager?
*RUNS*
I have to second the suggestion for Start8 to fix Win 8.
It brings back the start menu, ungimps the windows key to allow search, and lets you login straight to the desktop.
Then you can think of Win 8 as a Win 7 install where the deprecated sidebar gadgets have been replaced with these silly tab gadget-like things that will be equally avoided.
The only other remaining downsides to Win 8 are also included in Win 7 and Vista so that shouldn't be a problem at all, as you said Win 7 is fine.
The other option is to get a laptop that has win 7 drivers available
Any OEM laptop over a couple months old should meet those requirements (IE Dell HP Levono/IBM ASUS Thinkpad etc)
Or get an Apple, they have drivers from XP forward.
Alienware still makes Win 7 laptops, although they are more geared towards gaming, but a beefy GPU isn't much of a downside IMHO ;} - Seriously thou, the only downside there is price.
But they have entry level laptops starting at $1000, and do run deals on and off that you'll need to keep an eye on.
But I gather you aren't looking for a cheap laptop, since the only really low prices ones will either be deals bundled with Win 8 to lower the price (MS gives them kickbacks for these sales) or will be too underpowered to run any Windows except a gimped XP or 2000 install.
I'd have to recommend an Alienware, and a close second being an Apple.
I wish this guy had done his homework. This was fixed a long time ago:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/when_linux_does_well_the_e1000e_ethernet_bug_fixed
I am amazed that you got a patched e1000 driver working with a 82574L based piece of hardware... mighty impressive hacking! You should have written up a report on how you managed it for the rest of us to study as homework.
Think about it, their ISP divisions pull in what, 1-2 digit billions of dollars a year? Maybe 3 digit billions? That is nothing compared to the 2-4 digit trillions they state they are losing due to piracy.
do you have a Non **AA affiliated source for that figure?
Those figures are specifically from the **AA sources.
I even said "they state they are losing", and who else would make such a statement from within if not the PR department or the RIAA/MPAA?
The non **AA source I intended to cover with:
Granted, this is not anywhere close to true, but they all firmly believe so, and more importantly they have made that statement to our government and so now must stick by it.
Since in reality a pirated work is not a lost sale, the base figure for loses due to piracy is $0.
One would then need to go to court records to show sales count figures of commercial copyright mass-infringers that had their operations shut down, possibly added to jury awards for losses (minus damages) for individual cases, in order to get something close to the real figure.
Of course with things like the Jammie Thomas case, people will misconstrue that multiple-million dollar verdict as "losses" when that is clearly damages, as losses are only 24 songs at $1 each thus $24 total... So of course there will be confusion in that area.