Most acronyms under 5 letters are taken. We decode them by contextual scope. People talking telephony or Internet aren't likely to be confused into Very Important Person when they hear someone say "vip".
I don't know what any of that has to do with my post. But then, I don't see how any of those problems have anything to do with Vonage, either. They don't necessarily have anything to do with their ISP, but LAN problems are certainly much more the province of the ISP than the application vendor. If those same people contacted Google because their GMail wasn't working, I wouldn't be surprised if Google told them to call you, too.
Not that the LAN is the province of the ISP, necessarily. It's one of the grey areas never resolved by the industry. It started to be a problem with phone networking under AT&T, which obtained the benefit of the doubt from their monopoly breakup: wiring inside the home is the homeowner's problem. It's actually pretty clear that there is a huge untapped industry in offering "tech customer support" on an insurance subscription model. But Vonage is one of the less legitimate targets for rage at these problems.
This defensive action by Vonage is a good justification for their somewhat annoying presence in the industry. It would be much more likely to protect the entire industry, including random newcomers, if the various VoIP carriers could get together in an industry association. But they couldn't even get together to grap the pronouncable acronym "VIP". So meanwhile, at least there's an agressive asskicker in Vonage to clear the way for the rest to follow.
Actually, sometimes compression methods can squeeze extra reductions when used in series. But that's not a defense against failure - though the compression phase of most encryption methods might see that extra reduction as a bonus. The point is not just to make the encrypted message "more encrypted", but to guard against the eventual failure of one of the methods. The odds of both methods failing within a short time period are very odd indeed.
Any increase is valuable, its value depending on the total data protected by the total effort over time. Increased implementation requirements can be met by automation, which cost must as always be compared to its benefit.
However, the principle in that FAQ is sound within its scope. In combination with the consideration I mention, the right approach is to use as many redundant methods as possible given costs, network and processing bandwidth.
Again, the redundancy operates on exactly the same principle as the more familiar network redundancy. The second method is the biggest increase in utility, though going to redundancy in that step might also bring the biggest increase in cost. But the variety of failure scenarios against which redundancy protects has proven worth the effort for every serious practitioner, once the methods are commodities.
When people sign messages with both GPG and another signature method, the false positive produced by the GPG is cancelled by the true negative from the other method. My suggestion protects against protocol attacks, cipher attacks, and all kinds of other attacks, by guarding against a higher level of weakness that could include any of those.
Use your friendly head before lashing out in ignorance, AFC.
Another good recommendation is to diversify your crypto. Sign/encrypt your data with multiple different crypto algorithms in the same message. It's like network redundancy: the odds of both methods failing at once are equal to the product of the low, but significant, probability of either failing. A single failure doesn't ever compromise your data, and buys time to get a new second method that works.
Of course, sent messages can't be recovered for reprotection with the new second method. And eventually the other original method will be compromised, so the attacker can use the appropriate methods for each. But at least you've improved your security. Probably more than the next guy. Next lesson: when the bear is chasing y'all, you don't have to be the fastest; just not the slowest.
I've actually watched more good movies in theaters this past year or two than I have since maybe 1997-9. Very few of them were among the top boxoffice takers. And I watch more independent studio releases on cable and recordings.
My cable bill has sure gone up a lot, though. Especially including my broadband Internet connection.
To hell with Lieberman - he makes out with Bush in public. Hillary makes out with Bill in private, but why should she be any different from everybody else?
The worms are already bad enough to force the confrontation you're describing. It obviously isn't enough. People are much lazier and dwelling in denial than even such a wake-up call can change.
As a parallel, 4 years after planebombs took down the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of NY/NJ that owned them isn't trying to stop the handover of the actual NYC port to the UAE, the country in which 2 of the 19 planebombers were based. Whose royal family hangs out with Osama enough that they aborted a missile attack on him because they were in the line of fire. Which protected the Qaeda financial transactions as well as the shipment of nukes to Iran, N. Korea and other enemies of the US. And which threatened to revoke its "partnership in the Terror War" if they didn't get their ports.
After that wakeup call, the security people are still asleep. After the last several years of worms, the IT security people are still largely asleep, from consumers to Gates. Wakeup calls don't work.
More effort getting kids into Little League, or some equivalent in a different activity, would reduce the demand for JD halls and jails. Before kids were organized into constructive play, they used to commit a lot more crime - distracted only by "child labor" and worse.
Kids are different from adults because it's not too late for most of them to change. Teaching them with toys rather than threatening them with jail is a lot more productive way to make better citizens. Centuries of prioritizing jail hasn't done much beyond turn jails into crime schools.
I didn't say these kids have to produce the research themselves, any more than they produce the crackware they play with. Most kids will play with any toy they get, especially if all the other kids are playing with it, too. That sounds like a great "beta test" pool for new P2P systems, especially the more interactive ones. So if the "serious" researchers give their betas to kids as toys, they will displace the more dangerous tools, and kids will do less harm - and more good.
I've met plenty of these kinds of kids, since I used to be among them myself when I got started. One difference between them and me was that I was given constructive toys, actual (simple) programming projects, while they just passed around hacks/cheats given them by someone else.
They don't have to be hackers to cause harm. All they're doing is playing with toys. That's why less harmful toys in wider distribution will dilute the harm.
So if someone gave him some other simple "P2P kit" to "hack" like that, which was constructive rather than destructive, he'd be doing something useful instead of harmful. I didn't even mention the idea of "blame", or how "bad" this guy is - I didn't even refer to this guy individually. Just because windows are breakable doesn't mean people have to break them. But with nothing else to do, I'm not surprised when kids break them.
These kids should be the new face of P2P research and production. Kids care more about group recognition, new toys and testing/breaking limits than they do about money. If more effort were put into giving them constructive P2P toys to play with, they would spend much less of their own effort breaking stuff.
Just stopping kids is a losing battle. The only way to win is to substitute something else into their idle hands. This has been proven over and again, most obviously with "Little League" which replaced gangs of window breakers with happy campers.
At least with this story we get a peek at how Business Week sees the world. A "Security Czar" job is to create propaganda, not enforce security policies. Appointing such a person is principally "an admission of weakness", not a declaration of strength.
Who do they back on National Security issues? How do their favorite National Security spokesmodels rate?
Clearly GPL 1 is the "Old Testament": the original, not very popular. Settled down after an initial conversion onslaught into just a small community handing it down thru generations on conservative faith in the simplest expression of the "One License" inspiration.
GPL 2 is the "New Testament": hugely popular sequel, reforming the original and claiming its legacy. More complex, but more comprehensive to absorb adherents of other licenses. Taking over the world as the old "panoply of proprietary licenses" paradigm fades.
GPL 3 is the "Last Revelation": deriving from the first two licenses in succession, attempting to leverage the success of the second edition into total world domination among a much more diverse population. Impeded by continuing success of the second version.
This comparative license religion note brought to you by an atheist, into the public domain.
Lots of these financial and power networks are illustrated simply and clearly in a book by artist Mark Lombardi. After suddenly rising to fame in the NYC art scene in the late 1990s after exhibiting his drawings, Lombardi was found hanged in his apartment. These networks are opaque from a combination of averted official eyes and a thick red layer of blood, as well as the usual pool of oil and pile of "walk away" cash.
Terrorist financing is so hard to "track down" because the money moves through rich, powerful hands. Like banks and governments. To whom their terrorist customers are more important than the lives and liberty of "someone else's customers", like millions of civilians. Those "transfer agents", in turn, are more important to the governments tracking them down than are their own citizens.
Why would George Bush threaten the safety of the Saudi royalty just for the benefit of a bunch of godless New Yorkers? Especially when he doesn't need to do so to get elected? He's a proper good ol' boy, and so is Bandar Bush. And so (they think) are the people who keep them in power.
The analysts should earn their own salaries by analyzing Google, instead of republishing corporate PR like they do for every other public company whose stock they resell to their clients. Getting "guidance" to determine the stock price from the company profiting from the stock is almost as corrupt as publishing the "research" based on it to sell the stock at a higher price than that at which the analyst's firm bought it.
Since the brokers are demanding Google start to play their evil game, it's no surprise that the brokers also want Google to stop saying such bad things about "doing evil". Even though that "mantra" has no relevance to the stock, its info, its guidance or corporate performance whatsoever. They just want Google to stop being so different from the evil they do every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Most acronyms under 5 letters are taken. We decode them by contextual scope. People talking telephony or Internet aren't likely to be confused into Very Important Person when they hear someone say "vip".
I don't know what any of that has to do with my post. But then, I don't see how any of those problems have anything to do with Vonage, either. They don't necessarily have anything to do with their ISP, but LAN problems are certainly much more the province of the ISP than the application vendor. If those same people contacted Google because their GMail wasn't working, I wouldn't be surprised if Google told them to call you, too.
Not that the LAN is the province of the ISP, necessarily. It's one of the grey areas never resolved by the industry. It started to be a problem with phone networking under AT&T, which obtained the benefit of the doubt from their monopoly breakup: wiring inside the home is the homeowner's problem. It's actually pretty clear that there is a huge untapped industry in offering "tech customer support" on an insurance subscription model. But Vonage is one of the less legitimate targets for rage at these problems.
This defensive action by Vonage is a good justification for their somewhat annoying presence in the industry. It would be much more likely to protect the entire industry, including random newcomers, if the various VoIP carriers could get together in an industry association. But they couldn't even get together to grap the pronouncable acronym "VIP". So meanwhile, at least there's an agressive asskicker in Vonage to clear the way for the rest to follow.
Actually, sometimes compression methods can squeeze extra reductions when used in series. But that's not a defense against failure - though the compression phase of most encryption methods might see that extra reduction as a bonus. The point is not just to make the encrypted message "more encrypted", but to guard against the eventual failure of one of the methods. The odds of both methods failing within a short time period are very odd indeed.
Any increase is valuable, its value depending on the total data protected by the total effort over time. Increased implementation requirements can be met by automation, which cost must as always be compared to its benefit.
However, the principle in that FAQ is sound within its scope. In combination with the consideration I mention, the right approach is to use as many redundant methods as possible given costs, network and processing bandwidth.
Again, the redundancy operates on exactly the same principle as the more familiar network redundancy. The second method is the biggest increase in utility, though going to redundancy in that step might also bring the biggest increase in cost. But the variety of failure scenarios against which redundancy protects has proven worth the effort for every serious practitioner, once the methods are commodities.
When people sign messages with both GPG and another signature method, the false positive produced by the GPG is cancelled by the true negative from the other method. My suggestion protects against protocol attacks, cipher attacks, and all kinds of other attacks, by guarding against a higher level of weakness that could include any of those.
Use your friendly head before lashing out in ignorance, AFC.
Go stick _Applied Cryptography_ up your 482d2721589499e5ad0c2e24bc6e7534 , Anonymous a0a0d7540b7cf3e9e78adfe611d816b9 Coward.
Another good recommendation is to diversify your crypto. Sign/encrypt your data with multiple different crypto algorithms in the same message. It's like network redundancy: the odds of both methods failing at once are equal to the product of the low, but significant, probability of either failing. A single failure doesn't ever compromise your data, and buys time to get a new second method that works.
Of course, sent messages can't be recovered for reprotection with the new second method. And eventually the other original method will be compromised, so the attacker can use the appropriate methods for each. But at least you've improved your security. Probably more than the next guy. Next lesson: when the bear is chasing y'all, you don't have to be the fastest; just not the slowest.
I've actually watched more good movies in theaters this past year or two than I have since maybe 1997-9. Very few of them were among the top boxoffice takers. And I watch more independent studio releases on cable and recordings.
My cable bill has sure gone up a lot, though. Especially including my broadband Internet connection.
To hell with Lieberman - he makes out with Bush in public. Hillary makes out with Bill in private, but why should she be any different from everybody else?
The worms are already bad enough to force the confrontation you're describing. It obviously isn't enough. People are much lazier and dwelling in denial than even such a wake-up call can change.
As a parallel, 4 years after planebombs took down the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of NY/NJ that owned them isn't trying to stop the handover of the actual NYC port to the UAE, the country in which 2 of the 19 planebombers were based. Whose royal family hangs out with Osama enough that they aborted a missile attack on him because they were in the line of fire. Which protected the Qaeda financial transactions as well as the shipment of nukes to Iran, N. Korea and other enemies of the US. And which threatened to revoke its "partnership in the Terror War" if they didn't get their ports.
After that wakeup call, the security people are still asleep. After the last several years of worms, the IT security people are still largely asleep, from consumers to Gates. Wakeup calls don't work.
I was thinking Mohammed. With Joseph Smith more like GPL2.1 for Windows, and Elron Hubbard more like Cialis.
grep -i 'senator' iBill.dat; grep -i 'representative' iBill.dat ; grep -i 'congress' iBill.dat
More effort getting kids into Little League, or some equivalent in a different activity, would reduce the demand for JD halls and jails. Before kids were organized into constructive play, they used to commit a lot more crime - distracted only by "child labor" and worse.
Kids are different from adults because it's not too late for most of them to change. Teaching them with toys rather than threatening them with jail is a lot more productive way to make better citizens. Centuries of prioritizing jail hasn't done much beyond turn jails into crime schools.
I didn't say these kids have to produce the research themselves, any more than they produce the crackware they play with. Most kids will play with any toy they get, especially if all the other kids are playing with it, too. That sounds like a great "beta test" pool for new P2P systems, especially the more interactive ones. So if the "serious" researchers give their betas to kids as toys, they will displace the more dangerous tools, and kids will do less harm - and more good.
Well, you seem to spend more time posting/reading Slashdot than you do cracking your neighbor's credit account. Slashdot saves the world!
I've met plenty of these kinds of kids, since I used to be among them myself when I got started. One difference between them and me was that I was given constructive toys, actual (simple) programming projects, while they just passed around hacks/cheats given them by someone else.
They don't have to be hackers to cause harm. All they're doing is playing with toys. That's why less harmful toys in wider distribution will dilute the harm.
So if someone gave him some other simple "P2P kit" to "hack" like that, which was constructive rather than destructive, he'd be doing something useful instead of harmful. I didn't even mention the idea of "blame", or how "bad" this guy is - I didn't even refer to this guy individually. Just because windows are breakable doesn't mean people have to break them. But with nothing else to do, I'm not surprised when kids break them.
These kids should be the new face of P2P research and production. Kids care more about group recognition, new toys and testing/breaking limits than they do about money. If more effort were put into giving them constructive P2P toys to play with, they would spend much less of their own effort breaking stuff.
Just stopping kids is a losing battle. The only way to win is to substitute something else into their idle hands. This has been proven over and again, most obviously with "Little League" which replaced gangs of window breakers with happy campers.
At least with this story we get a peek at how Business Week sees the world. A "Security Czar" job is to create propaganda, not enforce security policies. Appointing such a person is principally "an admission of weakness", not a declaration of strength.
Who do they back on National Security issues? How do their favorite National Security spokesmodels rate?
My HDTV doesn't need a fan. Can I get a Linux PC with HDTV videocard that doesn't need a fan to play widescreen "HDVDs" off my hard drive?
Clearly GPL 1 is the "Old Testament": the original, not very popular. Settled down after an initial conversion onslaught into just a small community handing it down thru generations on conservative faith in the simplest expression of the "One License" inspiration.
GPL 2 is the "New Testament": hugely popular sequel, reforming the original and claiming its legacy. More complex, but more comprehensive to absorb adherents of other licenses. Taking over the world as the old "panoply of proprietary licenses" paradigm fades.
GPL 3 is the "Last Revelation": deriving from the first two licenses in succession, attempting to leverage the success of the second edition into total world domination among a much more diverse population. Impeded by continuing success of the second version.
This comparative license religion note brought to you by an atheist, into the public domain.
Lots of these financial and power networks are illustrated simply and clearly in a book by artist Mark Lombardi. After suddenly rising to fame in the NYC art scene in the late 1990s after exhibiting his drawings, Lombardi was found hanged in his apartment. These networks are opaque from a combination of averted official eyes and a thick red layer of blood, as well as the usual pool of oil and pile of "walk away" cash.
Terrorist financing is so hard to "track down" because the money moves through rich, powerful hands. Like banks and governments. To whom their terrorist customers are more important than the lives and liberty of "someone else's customers", like millions of civilians. Those "transfer agents", in turn, are more important to the governments tracking them down than are their own citizens.
Why would George Bush threaten the safety of the Saudi royalty just for the benefit of a bunch of godless New Yorkers? Especially when he doesn't need to do so to get elected? He's a proper good ol' boy, and so is Bandar Bush. And so (they think) are the people who keep them in power.
The analysts should earn their own salaries by analyzing Google, instead of republishing corporate PR like they do for every other public company whose stock they resell to their clients. Getting "guidance" to determine the stock price from the company profiting from the stock is almost as corrupt as publishing the "research" based on it to sell the stock at a higher price than that at which the analyst's firm bought it.
Since the brokers are demanding Google start to play their evil game, it's no surprise that the brokers also want Google to stop saying such bad things about "doing evil". Even though that "mantra" has no relevance to the stock, its info, its guidance or corporate performance whatsoever. They just want Google to stop being so different from the evil they do every day.