NEW YORK, November 21, 2001 - WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. today announced that it intends to file a motion with the Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware seeking to establish procedures for an auction of the company's assets in early December 2001. As the company announced in August, Winstar has been working toward a potential sale of or investment in the company to speed its exit from Chapter 11.
In addition, William J. Rouhana Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Nathan Kantor, President and Chief Operating Officer have resigned in order to be in a position to submit a bid for Winstar as part of the auction process.
-------
That's right, the bozos that ran the company into the ground and $2 billion of debt quit their jobs so they could buy the assets on the cheap. So much for conspiracy theories.
Cable and satelite companies are all over building PVRs into their boxes. Don't confuse these companies with the networks that make most of their money from advertisers. The Cable and Satelite companies will be on board with _anything_ they can sell you.
the drunk drivers I know wouldn't feel comfortable with using such services. basically, they just 'assume' when they are drunk that they arn't, hop in their car, and go...
So know they'll 'assume' they aren't drunk, jump in the car. The car will tell them the're drunk and they'll 'assume' the stupid thing is broken and have it disabled for next time.
They had BBC there when the Yugoslavian MIGs where taken out of ground and that one scene with the mountain side opening up and dozens of planes flying out was priceless.
I think you were watching one of the old James Bond films. Really, planes _flying_ out of a mountain....in Yugoslavia?
The graphite bombs were rendered almost useless by applying hair spray on wires
I guess I don't watch enough CNN since I have no idea what a graphite bomb sould be used for, or why you would put hairspray on wires.
First of all these disputes have Complaintants and Respondants
You are coorect that no contract needs to exist between these parties before the complaint, but if you search you will find that one often does. In any case, the contract that gives authority in these cases is the one between the Registrar and the Registrant. These contracts stipulate that you agree to ICANN's rules for resolving disputes.
Everyone seems to be hung up on the fact that the Complaintant gets to pick the arbitrator, who cares? Would it be more fair if the respondant got to pick the arbitrator? Or if they were randomly selected from a rotating pool? The answer is it wouldn't matter. Even this "fairest" arbitrator only decided in favor of the "little guy" less than 40% of the time. If you actually look at these disputes most of the time the trademark holder is right, there have been very few cases (etoy and nissan computers come to mind) where the current holder actually has a legitamate claim to the name, and most of these cases involve lengthy legal battles instead of simple arbitration.
IMHO, domain names should only be forcibly transferred if:
The holder is using the name for purposes which could reasonably cause confusion with the TM-holder, OR
The holder has no reason whatsoever to have the name, while the plaintiff has every reason, OR
The holder is not using the name for anything.
This is actually very close to the critera used by WIPO to define cybersquatters.
The filing party _always_ gets to chose the arbiter. Haven't you ever signed a contract, lease, rental agreement, or loan app. of some sort. There is almost always a clause that you agree any dispute will be settled by arbitration and the arbiter will be...
Re:You misunderstand.
on
Future Of IDS
·
· Score: 5, Informative
SNORT is a Network IDS.
What you are describing is Host IDS.
Two different things. SNORT tells you what is going on in your network. HIDS tells you what is going on on and to your host.
The point is to be aware, not to come down on them. If they knocked on the door, trying some exploit.. it's not worth your time to chase them down if it has no effect. On the other hand.. what if it turns out to be a rival company?
The point is _detection_ as in the three prongs of security, Protection, Detection, and Response.
Having a firewall (protection) without IDS (detection) is betting that your firewall is blocking everything bad, and not wanting to know if it isn't. Putting sensors inside and outside of your firewall allows you to see what is being attempted and what is being blocked. The IDS will flag things as possible attacks that will pass through the firewall, what you do when you IDS alarms is as important as having it in the first place.
The Firewall is the lock on your front door, the NIDS is your motion detector, and response is the alarm company sending the police.
user education and antivirus software would help stop this
If you don't have antivirus software you deserve to be infected. If you are in charge and you don't deploy it, you should be fired. You are aware that there are free antivirus packages aren't you?
The wireless MAN stuff is great, so is 802.11. It's all useless though if you signal can't get through. If you are trying to do something outside in a metro area then your pretty much screwed as far as getting a clean signal. Inside is quite a but easier since 802.11 doesn't penetrate very far and you aren't likely to be sharing that space with anyone.
Spoken like someone who has never tried to set up 802.11b in a populated area.
We aren't talking about you and your neghbor using cordless phones on the same frequencies anymore. We've gone Waaaay beyond that.
1. If you want other people to be able to access your network (you have lots of webservers) you need your IP addresses to remain constant regardless of who's network you are connecting through.
2. You want to be able to use _optimal_ routing inbound and outbound to the Internet. Your solution is very easy to implement, just two ISP connections with equal cost static default routes will let you load balance outbound traffic, but this decison is made without any upstream knowledge. If one of your ISP's has a failure elsewhere in their network and becomes partitioned from part of the Internet your router will have no way of knowing and you'll send half of your packets into a back hole. Oops. So much for redundancy. Even if both paths are up, one or the other will always be "better" to a certain destination, but you are making routing decisions at random. The same holds true for inbound. If you use round-robin DNS to balance queries you have the same problem of above in reverse.
Or just don't keep logs. Your policy should be to only keep log files of any sort only as long as they are absolutely necesarry. This also means you should only log information that you will need. Logs should not be backed up unless necesarry for your own purposes.
Even if you aren't worried about being caught yourself, your logs can still be subpoenaed against someone else, and it's just eaiser to say, "Sorry, Mr. G man, we only keep logs for 1 week." than have to actually produce them.
I worked for a semi-public agency, just about everything they had was 'FOIA'. You could call up and ask for their firewall logs and they would have to produce them. Needless to say the firewall logs would be empty.
Although many designers are now treating 802.11 networks like the Internet it is not strictly necessary, or always a good idea. Whether you treat your WLAN as untrusted depends on your security policy, but putting it in your DMZ and using VPN to your LAN is not always a requirement because it is actually possible to configure the WLAN itself so that it is secure enough for most environments. Of course, some companies run IPSEC over regular LANs so security is always relative.
the FBI doesn't need a warrant to bug your computer with a keystroke logging virus
I belive this is still being argued in the courts, however they at least need a wiretap order.
It is however irrelevant for the analogy. The security guards will stand down for the police wether they have a warrant or not, as would you if you were home yourself. But iot doesn't matter. If the police collects physical evidence illegaly or the FBI collects your keystrokes illegaly the result will be the same. The evidence that they gather as a result will not be admissable against you. And that is a string detterant if your job is law enforcement.
According to the presentation the conclusion was that brute forcing WEP keys was _not_ feasable. They concluded it would take >200 days to crack a 40bit key, the attacks against weak ICV's claim to succed in 24-48 hours depending on data flow. If you use equipment that doesn't have the ICV problem and you use WEP correctly you can be relativly safe.
Granted there are attacks against WEP, but they are _trivial_ to defend against if one knows what they are doing. I think Disney probably employs a few network security engineers and consulted with the big boys before they deployed this.
All those who keep claiming that 802.11 is insecure
a) don't really know what they are talking about
and
b) are repeating some other chicken little's BS
WEP can certainly be deployed insecurely, and by default will keep out a determined enemy for less than 2 days, but that does not mean 802.11 cannot be deployed securely. If you use the right hardware and configure it correctly 802.11 is as secure as a wired LAN. Add to that some type of VPN and it's probably more secure than most wired LAN's.
You'd probably have to make >$200,000 last year to pay that much in taxes. And you aren't smart enough to hire an accountant to help you keep more of it? I'll give you a hint, try charity. Or would you have us believe that you are some incredibly wealthy do-gooder who has nothing better to do than post on slashdot?
Who's the dipshit?
The only reference I could find for that quote (which is attributed to Bush's _office_ not him) is the above linked site which just happens to be the "free mumia" site for a convicted and executed MURDERER. So, do you have another source for the quote, or should we just take your word for it?
Gosh, I didn't know that the U.S. government jacked up their soldiers with mind-altering drugs and then ran over protesters with tanks while gunning them down with machine guns. That must've not made the news.
Is that really what happened in China, or is that just what you heard on the news. You realize realty != CNN don't you?
when the chips came down, they resorted to the same things that tyrants always resort to: I will kill you if you don't do what I say.
But this is not only true of tyrannical governments. Even in the US if I refuse to pay my taxes I will be forced to do so at gunpoint, (yes, the IRS has armed "collections" agents) the government will force my employer to pay my salary directly to the IRS, or I will be put in prision.
And yet we call this democracy. The fact of the matter is that if there is a government there must be laws, and the government must be able to enforce these laws with force, threat of confinement, or even death if necesarry. No matter what the type or form of government in power ther will always be dissenters. In this country we tollerate and even welcome dissenting voices, but we still jail and execute the violent ones.
Your are right of course, we do not have right to change objectional governements. We have an obligation to change them.
And I assume that we base this on _your_ standard of objectionable?
As human beings we have an obligation to strive for a better life for our fellows.
Again, we will use _your_ definition of a better life
That would include getting rid of corrupt governments.
and of course _your_ definition of corrupt as well.
Sorry, just because _you_ want them to live in a democracy doesn't mean that they would be better off, or eve happier. Believe it or not there is actually a large percentage of the 1.2 Billion people in China who are happy with their lives. Would you apprechiate it if they told you that you would be better off living under a communist/marxist/totalitarin regime?
Says you. How do you know that if you had been raised in China you wouldn't like it?
The answer is you don't. I think the saying is, "Don't judge a man from where you stand, but from where he stands."
So you are _assuming_ that the majority of Chinese people are unhappy with their current government. That position is not supported by the.
Pointing to events like Tienamen square and claiming that the people of China hate their government is like pointing to Waco and saying the same about the US.
No, it is a clear case of a minority dictating to the majority.
And they have the right to be OK with that.
Most in China will secretly tell you that their government sucks, but they are too afraid to do anything about it.
Also their choice. It isn't up to you or me or the UN to force a revolution against a government _we_ don't like. We can use political pressure and such to _urge_ them in a particular direction, but except for violations of "internationl law" and certain humanitarian issues we have no right to tell them how to run their country.
There is no inalienable right to live in a democracy.
If the Apple patent were valid, I think it could be a problem and might have to be overturned. In that sense, it is "relevant", and it makes a lot of sense to collect prior art.
No, if the Apple patent were valid it would not be overturned. Anyone wanting to use the technology would have to pay licensing fees.
It's also relevant in a different sense: it tells us about what Apple is up to, what their attitude is towards free and open source software, and the intellectual and research standards at the company.
I don't understand your point. Are you happy with Apple because they are no longer requiring royalty payments, or are you complaining that they didn't give the patent to the public domain all together? Please explain what Apple is "up to."
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like this:
-------
NEW YORK, November 21, 2001 - WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. today announced that it intends to file a motion with the Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware seeking to establish procedures for an auction of the company's assets in early December 2001. As the company announced in August, Winstar has been working toward a potential sale of or investment in the company to speed its exit from Chapter 11.
In addition, William J. Rouhana Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Nathan Kantor, President and Chief Operating Officer have resigned in order to be in a position to submit a bid for Winstar as part of the auction process.
-------
That's right, the bozos that ran the company into the ground and $2 billion of debt quit their jobs so they could buy the assets on the cheap. So much for conspiracy theories.
BTW Winstar == Fixed Wireless last mile
Cable and satelite companies are all over building PVRs into their boxes. Don't confuse these companies with the networks that make most of their money from advertisers. The Cable and Satelite companies will be on board with _anything_ they can sell you.
So know they'll 'assume' they aren't drunk, jump in the car. The car will tell them the're drunk and they'll 'assume' the stupid thing is broken and have it disabled for next time.
I think you were watching one of the old James Bond films. Really, planes _flying_ out of a mountain....in Yugoslavia?
The graphite bombs were rendered almost useless by applying hair spray on wires
I guess I don't watch enough CNN since I have no idea what a graphite bomb sould be used for, or why you would put hairspray on wires.
You are coorect that no contract needs to exist between these parties before the complaint, but if you search you will find that one often does. In any case, the contract that gives authority in these cases is the one between the Registrar and the Registrant. These contracts stipulate that you agree to ICANN's rules for resolving disputes.
Everyone seems to be hung up on the fact that the Complaintant gets to pick the arbitrator, who cares? Would it be more fair if the respondant got to pick the arbitrator? Or if they were randomly selected from a rotating pool? The answer is it wouldn't matter. Even this "fairest" arbitrator only decided in favor of the "little guy" less than 40% of the time. If you actually look at these disputes most of the time the trademark holder is right, there have been very few cases (etoy and nissan computers come to mind) where the current holder actually has a legitamate claim to the name, and most of these cases involve lengthy legal battles instead of simple arbitration.
IMHO, domain names should only be forcibly transferred if: The holder is using the name for purposes which could reasonably cause confusion with the TM-holder, OR The holder has no reason whatsoever to have the name, while the plaintiff has every reason, OR The holder is not using the name for anything.
This is actually very close to the critera used by WIPO to define cybersquatters.
The filing party _always_ gets to chose the arbiter. Haven't you ever signed a contract, lease, rental agreement, or loan app. of some sort. There is almost always a clause that you agree any dispute will be settled by arbitration and the arbiter will be ...
The point is to be aware, not to come down on them. If they knocked on the door, trying some exploit.. it's not worth your time to chase them down if it has no effect. On the other hand.. what if it turns out to be a rival company?
The point is _detection_ as in the three prongs of security, Protection, Detection, and Response.
Having a firewall (protection) without IDS (detection) is betting that your firewall is blocking everything bad, and not wanting to know if it isn't. Putting sensors inside and outside of your firewall allows you to see what is being attempted and what is being blocked. The IDS will flag things as possible attacks that will pass through the firewall, what you do when you IDS alarms is as important as having it in the first place.
The Firewall is the lock on your front door, the NIDS is your motion detector, and response is the alarm company sending the police.
If you don't have antivirus software you deserve to be infected. If you are in charge and you don't deploy it, you should be fired. You are aware that there are free antivirus packages aren't you?
Don't you mean, "Actually I Have :( ?"
The wireless MAN stuff is great, so is 802.11. It's all useless though if you signal can't get through. If you are trying to do something outside in a metro area then your pretty much screwed as far as getting a clean signal. Inside is quite a but easier since 802.11 doesn't penetrate very far and you aren't likely to be sharing that space with anyone.
Spoken like someone who has never tried to set up 802.11b in a populated area.
We aren't talking about you and your neghbor using cordless phones on the same frequencies anymore. We've gone Waaaay beyond that.
You are missing a couple of imporatant things:
1. If you want other people to be able to access your network (you have lots of webservers) you need your IP addresses to remain constant regardless of who's network you are connecting through.
2. You want to be able to use _optimal_ routing inbound and outbound to the Internet. Your solution is very easy to implement, just two ISP connections with equal cost static default routes will let you load balance outbound traffic, but this decison is made without any upstream knowledge. If one of your ISP's has a failure elsewhere in their network and becomes partitioned from part of the Internet your router will have no way of knowing and you'll send half of your packets into a back hole. Oops. So much for redundancy. Even if both paths are up, one or the other will always be "better" to a certain destination, but you are making routing decisions at random. The same holds true for inbound. If you use round-robin DNS to balance queries you have the same problem of above in reverse.
Or just don't keep logs. Your policy should be to only keep log files of any sort only as long as they are absolutely necesarry. This also means you should only log information that you will need. Logs should not be backed up unless necesarry for your own purposes.
Even if you aren't worried about being caught yourself, your logs can still be subpoenaed against someone else, and it's just eaiser to say, "Sorry, Mr. G man, we only keep logs for 1 week." than have to actually produce them.
I worked for a semi-public agency, just about everything they had was 'FOIA'. You could call up and ask for their firewall logs and they would have to produce them. Needless to say the firewall logs would be empty.
Although many designers are now treating 802.11 networks like the Internet it is not strictly necessary, or always a good idea. Whether you treat your WLAN as untrusted depends on your security policy, but putting it in your DMZ and using VPN to your LAN is not always a requirement because it is actually possible to configure the WLAN itself so that it is secure enough for most environments. Of course, some companies run IPSEC over regular LANs so security is always relative.
I belive this is still being argued in the courts, however they at least need a wiretap order.
It is however irrelevant for the analogy. The security guards will stand down for the police wether they have a warrant or not, as would you if you were home yourself. But iot doesn't matter. If the police collects physical evidence illegaly or the FBI collects your keystrokes illegaly the result will be the same. The evidence that they gather as a result will not be admissable against you. And that is a string detterant if your job is law enforcement.
According to the presentation the conclusion was that brute forcing WEP keys was _not_ feasable. They concluded it would take >200 days to crack a 40bit key, the attacks against weak ICV's claim to succed in 24-48 hours depending on data flow. If you use equipment that doesn't have the ICV problem and you use WEP correctly you can be relativly safe.
Granted there are attacks against WEP, but they are _trivial_ to defend against if one knows what they are doing. I think Disney probably employs a few network security engineers and consulted with the big boys before they deployed this.
All those who keep claiming that 802.11 is insecure
a) don't really know what they are talking about
and
b) are repeating some other chicken little's BS
WEP can certainly be deployed insecurely, and by default will keep out a determined enemy for less than 2 days, but that does not mean 802.11 cannot be deployed securely. If you use the right hardware and configure it correctly 802.11 is as secure as a wired LAN. Add to that some type of VPN and it's probably more secure than most wired LAN's.
Um, the shuttle rides on top of the 747. This article is talking about putting vehicles _inside_ the transport.
You'd probably have to make >$200,000 last year to pay that much in taxes. And you aren't smart enough to hire an accountant to help you keep more of it? I'll give you a hint, try charity. Or would you have us believe that you are some incredibly wealthy do-gooder who has nothing better to do than post on slashdot?
Who's the dipshit?
Isn't that how they killed the dinosaurs?
The only reference I could find for that quote (which is attributed to Bush's _office_ not him) is the above linked site which just happens to be the "free mumia" site for a convicted and executed MURDERER. So, do you have another source for the quote, or should we just take your word for it?
Is that really what happened in China, or is that just what you heard on the news. You realize realty != CNN don't you?
when the chips came down, they resorted to the same things that tyrants always resort to: I will kill you if you don't do what I say.
But this is not only true of tyrannical governments. Even in the US if I refuse to pay my taxes I will be forced to do so at gunpoint, (yes, the IRS has armed "collections" agents) the government will force my employer to pay my salary directly to the IRS, or I will be put in prision.
And yet we call this democracy. The fact of the matter is that if there is a government there must be laws, and the government must be able to enforce these laws with force, threat of confinement, or even death if necesarry. No matter what the type or form of government in power ther will always be dissenters. In this country we tollerate and even welcome dissenting voices, but we still jail and execute the violent ones.
And I assume that we base this on _your_ standard of objectionable?
As human beings we have an obligation to strive for a better life for our fellows.
Again, we will use _your_ definition of a better life
That would include getting rid of corrupt governments.
and of course _your_ definition of corrupt as well.
Sorry, just because _you_ want them to live in a democracy doesn't mean that they would be better off, or eve happier. Believe it or not there is actually a large percentage of the 1.2 Billion people in China who are happy with their lives. Would you apprechiate it if they told you that you would be better off living under a communist/marxist/totalitarin regime?
Says you. How do you know that if you had been raised in China you wouldn't like it?
The answer is you don't. I think the saying is, "Don't judge a man from where you stand, but from where he stands."
So you are _assuming_ that the majority of Chinese people are unhappy with their current government. That position is not supported by the.
Pointing to events like Tienamen square and claiming that the people of China hate their government is like pointing to Waco and saying the same about the US.
And they have the right to be OK with that.
Most in China will secretly tell you that their government sucks, but they are too afraid to do anything about it.
Also their choice. It isn't up to you or me or the UN to force a revolution against a government _we_ don't like. We can use political pressure and such to _urge_ them in a particular direction, but except for violations of "internationl law" and certain humanitarian issues we have no right to tell them how to run their country.
There is no inalienable right to live in a democracy.
No, if the Apple patent were valid it would not be overturned. Anyone wanting to use the technology would have to pay licensing fees.
It's also relevant in a different sense: it tells us about what Apple is up to, what their attitude is towards free and open source software, and the intellectual and research standards at the company.
I don't understand your point. Are you happy with Apple because they are no longer requiring royalty payments, or are you complaining that they didn't give the patent to the public domain all together? Please explain what Apple is "up to."
Just because you can't see the source doesn't mean they can't.