These sites are already installing malicious code.
A CA change is nice, simple, and currently unlikely to be caught by AV and other protection software, and yet help get the information for identity theft.
It's due diligence. Do the same with any license before you integrate code under it. The "contribute code back" isn't limited to GPL. IIRC, some of the MS shared source licenses have the same restrictions (except it's only back to MS, not the public)
It's the damn protection, that makes thing require admin and screws up WINE compatibility. Forget best practices, it's all about screwing the legitimate customer.
Slashdot Mirror
./configure --prefix=~
make
make install
What was that about installing as root again?
It's already been revoked under terms of the GPL, simply by distributing it without source. Try reading the whole GPL sometime.
These sites are already installing malicious code.
A CA change is nice, simple, and currently unlikely to be caught by AV and other protection software, and yet help get the information for identity theft.
Any malicious code downloaded could install a CA cert locally
Contractor or employee, doesn't matter. The company does not own you.
The better question, did he know he was undermining it?
DUH!
It's due diligence. Do the same with any license before you integrate code under it. The "contribute code back" isn't limited to GPL. IIRC, some of the MS shared source licenses have the same restrictions (except it's only back to MS, not the public)
You have less respect for OSDL since they basically said "What an employee does on his own time is his own business?"
The key is IT DOESN'T.
It's the damn protection, that makes thing require admin and screws up WINE compatibility. Forget best practices, it's all about screwing the legitimate customer.
Do you think Best Buy makes it a practice to sell items at a loss?
Yes
Intuit uses CD-Zilla
So yes, it "needs" the low level access.
The "Designed for XP" label requires the ability to run as a lower privileged user. I don't know how much more MS can really do to enforce it.
The problem with games is that they use low level access for copy protection tests, and need admin level to do that.
I don't think they could.
Unilaterally removing copyright from code from thousands of authors? That would get slammed down pretty quickly.
5 minutes? What movie theater are you going to?
Last time I went to the movies (ROTK), it was 35. That made it the last time I go to the movies.
Gamma already has a defined meaning - Release.
Since it was patented?
You mean like that 8 year old DOS attack that regressed recently?
The auditing of new changes is not pervasive then.
The issue there is most users *do* run as Administrator. The box is owned even if you can't do privilege escalation directly with IE
There's plenty of abstractions and simplicity.
It is at the Native API and Kernel level *NOT* at the Win32 level.
True, but there's one thing you're missing.
Login as another user, snag the data, trash the user. Infection gone.
The same is sort of true for Windows except that most people run at an admin level and the system can be globally infected.
And the number of ads (and hence the amount of income generated for that traffic) on the google news page is exactly what?
(hint: it's about the same as the probability of Windows XP getting GPL'ed by the end of the year)
You can ship an iPod to an e-mail address now? Wow, ain't technology grand.
If there is sufficient demand, a provider will step into the void.
Now continued, free (as in beer) support is not guaranteed.
Right Braces = Good in inline in headers
Left Braces = seperate files
Pay $50 more, get an iPod mini (non flash) with 4x the memory and a display.
Great, so it's lawless enough I can take down their server with no repercussions?