yes, they should. but they don't, and they won't. the losses will be absorbed by a degradation of value of the dollar caused by federal bailouts.
when the banks use less cheap systems, who will pay for that? are you going to use the bank with free checking, or the one with $39/mo checking? has any money in your checking account ever been stolen and not returned? if the systems were "a bit more secure" would they not still be "not completely secure"? there will ALWAYS be exploit pathways. once they are defined, commodity cracking solutions are available almost instantly. nothing is gained by pointing out a new exploit pathway other than the praise and thanks from would-be criminals.
so EVERY bad guy, including would-be bad guys, already know this? do you know it? how about you post it as an anonymous response to this comment.... i mean, it's everywhere, right?
the people who argue that the information needs to be public actually understand the issue here.
you mean the issue where more exposure can only lead to more exploitation, and degradation of the value of a dollar?
are offenders currently prosecuted and convicted? yes. if the specific exploit was plugged, would others ALWAYS still exist? yes.
if the governments or corporations have the ability to convince people to muzzle themselves, and no one who depends on the protection of their savings will stand up to fight for the self-muzzled, then any "rights" are irrelevant.
bottom line, there will ALWAYS be exploit potential... the banks have trusted the justice system to prosecute offenders.
where are all the headlines pointing out how easily tumbler locks can be opened? security isn't about building the biggest wall.
presenting this information can only decrease the security and value of your savings. anyone that argues that the information needs to be public is probably broke.
Customers can mix and match different versions of IE with different versions of Windows.....But Microsoft has done very little to get this message out there. I'd argue this is because it makes plain the absurdity of the company's claims that IE is part of Windows.
and i'd argue that you probably don't know much about configuration files. the OS could still be linked to an "IE Hub" that would then invoke whichever version of IE, for whichever user, using whichever preferences settings were requested.
useful: allowing people to provide you with something to leak, and then allowing it to be leaked to anyone that wants to see it, and successfully distributing it to them in a reasonable time.
if you're on the side attempting to suppress a "leak", the usefulness or workability of an individual leakers infrastructure is irrelevant.... unless you think they would claim that the infrastructure only "works" if it doesn't work at all.
i understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the usefulness of the service has been compromised and is unlikely to recover.
i'm just asking if the children or relatives of the registered lobbyists are also to be held to the same restrictions as registered lobbyists. if i'm big oil and all of my lobbyist communication to government is carried out through the teenage children on both sides... what is the point of the bill? are lobbyists and government officials not expected to be allowed private communication with their children? it's like a chicken-wire fence border with mexico... ineffective waste of resources.
It's not that contacting a lobbyist, or the child/relative/friend of a lobbyist is bad. It's that contacting a lobbyist and discussing action/inaction items with out the interaction being recorded, transparent, and reviewable is bad.
not being allowed to communicate privately is the same as not being allowed to have a personal relationship.
what if the staffers email friends or relatives or children of the lobbyists? are we to assume that anyone a lobbyist regularly comes in contact with is tainted, and unfit for a personal relationship with a politician's staff?
when i first read "first pictures of an exoplanet" i assumed they were talking about the first pictures of a specific new exoplanet, as i've already seen other pictures of exoplanets...
were a lot of people led to believe this was the first picture of ANY exoplanet?
someone asked how a software update could ever "fix an human-caused short circuit"... as you are pointing out, the implied nature of a generic "short-circuit" could be almost anything, many of which a software solution could fix... generally by turning off certain logic pathways or retuning them to not create interference... many others, including as it seems the true nature of the problem with the iphone described above, a software solution might not be able to completely "fix", but it could definitely detect the problem and make available an API for developers to also incorporate in their applications... perhaps youtube would switch to the lowest resolution, or stop the video and report "video transmission is not capable because your antennae is in direct contact with something. don't hold your phone here: [pic of phone with arrow to bottom left]"
i agree with you completely... i'm just saying that if someone told me "my VCR shorted out" that i would assume that the device's electronic circuits were damaged due to power misdirection rather than the the device's analog outputs became cross-wired, degrading the media signal.
you don't agree that my conclusion is warranted or at least has a logical basis supporting it?
a point that a lot of people seem to be missing is that a man in the middle attack is illegal circumvention, whereas network sniffing is not necessarily illegal... yes, SSL using a valid authenticated certificate is relatively more trustworthy than using an unauthenticated certificate, but breaking the systems of trust will now require the attacker to break the law.
well, when you use a shared 3rd party to establish trust, the middle becomes only as big as the 3rd party's local network... but there are still 2 separate connections to the 3rd party... if they were both middled simultaneously the trust of the 3rd party is irrelevant. it's all just 1 more degree of difficulty.
that's because SSL, even misconfigured SSL, provides a layer of encryption to thwart network packet sniffing... most people don't care about the potential for SSL to establish a higher degree of "trust"... they just want encryption.
assuming anything, ever is somewhat foolish... make an ass out of u and me, etc... but when someone tells you "there is problem with shorts in the new iphone" is it foolish to assume the short would be regarding the electronic circuitry and not the antenna? intentionally misleading people is also foolish.
this confusion needs to be clipped. speaking about an electronic device, a "short" would be assumed to be a misdirection of power from the battery or internal logic circuits. so claiming this is a "short" is both correct and negatively misleading. something PR firms for the competition will surely continue to shout from their soap boxes.
technically it's a short causing attenuation... but not a "short" as in general electronics parlance where it implies power is redirected to it's source. i was initially confused at the nature of the problem as it was presented as a "short".
Slashdot Mirror
They should have to replace the money.
yes, they should. but they don't, and they won't. the losses will be absorbed by a degradation of value of the dollar caused by federal bailouts.
when the banks use less cheap systems, who will pay for that? are you going to use the bank with free checking, or the one with $39/mo checking? has any money in your checking account ever been stolen and not returned? if the systems were "a bit more secure" would they not still be "not completely secure"? there will ALWAYS be exploit pathways. once they are defined, commodity cracking solutions are available almost instantly. nothing is gained by pointing out a new exploit pathway other than the praise and thanks from would-be criminals.
the information is already known by the bad guys
so EVERY bad guy, including would-be bad guys, already know this? do you know it? how about you post it as an anonymous response to this comment.... i mean, it's everywhere, right?
the people who argue that the information needs to be public actually understand the issue here.
you mean the issue where more exposure can only lead to more exploitation, and degradation of the value of a dollar?
are offenders currently prosecuted and convicted? yes. if the specific exploit was plugged, would others ALWAYS still exist? yes.
you're the worst kind of idiot.
if the governments or corporations have the ability to convince people to muzzle themselves, and no one who depends on the protection of their savings will stand up to fight for the self-muzzled, then any "rights" are irrelevant.
where are all the headlines pointing out how easily tumbler locks can be opened? security isn't about building the biggest wall.
presenting this information can only decrease the security and value of your savings. anyone that argues that the information needs to be public is probably broke.
Customers can mix and match different versions of IE with different versions of Windows.....But Microsoft has done very little to get this message out there. I'd argue this is because it makes plain the absurdity of the company's claims that IE is part of Windows.
and i'd argue that you probably don't know much about configuration files. the OS could still be linked to an "IE Hub" that would then invoke whichever version of IE, for whichever user, using whichever preferences settings were requested.
"help" them prove... pile on the circumstantial facts and hope the jury buys it.
he said "earthshaking"... slashdot printed it...
if you're on the side attempting to suppress a "leak", the usefulness or workability of an individual leakers infrastructure is irrelevant.... unless you think they would claim that the infrastructure only "works" if it doesn't work at all.
i understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the usefulness of the service has been compromised and is unlikely to recover.
the service isn't useful if it doesn't work
define "ALL"... can lobbyist children play with public service children?
i'm just asking if the children or relatives of the registered lobbyists are also to be held to the same restrictions as registered lobbyists. if i'm big oil and all of my lobbyist communication to government is carried out through the teenage children on both sides... what is the point of the bill? are lobbyists and government officials not expected to be allowed private communication with their children? it's like a chicken-wire fence border with mexico... ineffective waste of resources.
It's not that contacting a lobbyist, or the child/relative/friend of a lobbyist is bad. It's that contacting a lobbyist and discussing action/inaction items with out the interaction being recorded, transparent, and reviewable is bad.
not being allowed to communicate privately is the same as not being allowed to have a personal relationship.
what if the staffers email friends or relatives or children of the lobbyists? are we to assume that anyone a lobbyist regularly comes in contact with is tainted, and unfit for a personal relationship with a politician's staff?
were a lot of people led to believe this was the first picture of ANY exoplanet?
if this exoplanet was born on a tuesday... nm.
No one should even have the opportunity to try a password except you.
uhh... then why have a password?
someone asked how a software update could ever "fix an human-caused short circuit"... as you are pointing out, the implied nature of a generic "short-circuit" could be almost anything, many of which a software solution could fix... generally by turning off certain logic pathways or retuning them to not create interference... many others, including as it seems the true nature of the problem with the iphone described above, a software solution might not be able to completely "fix", but it could definitely detect the problem and make available an API for developers to also incorporate in their applications... perhaps youtube would switch to the lowest resolution, or stop the video and report "video transmission is not capable because your antennae is in direct contact with something. don't hold your phone here: [pic of phone with arrow to bottom left]"
you don't agree that my conclusion is warranted or at least has a logical basis supporting it?
could you attach a fiber optic bundle to your camera? sounds like a custom job to me.
^subject
a point that a lot of people seem to be missing is that a man in the middle attack is illegal circumvention, whereas network sniffing is not necessarily illegal... yes, SSL using a valid authenticated certificate is relatively more trustworthy than using an unauthenticated certificate, but breaking the systems of trust will now require the attacker to break the law.
well, when you use a shared 3rd party to establish trust, the middle becomes only as big as the 3rd party's local network... but there are still 2 separate connections to the 3rd party... if they were both middled simultaneously the trust of the 3rd party is irrelevant. it's all just 1 more degree of difficulty.
that's because SSL, even misconfigured SSL, provides a layer of encryption to thwart network packet sniffing... most people don't care about the potential for SSL to establish a higher degree of "trust"... they just want encryption.
assuming anything, ever is somewhat foolish... make an ass out of u and me, etc... but when someone tells you "there is problem with shorts in the new iphone" is it foolish to assume the short would be regarding the electronic circuitry and not the antenna? intentionally misleading people is also foolish.
this confusion needs to be clipped. speaking about an electronic device, a "short" would be assumed to be a misdirection of power from the battery or internal logic circuits. so claiming this is a "short" is both correct and negatively misleading. something PR firms for the competition will surely continue to shout from their soap boxes.
technically it's a short causing attenuation... but not a "short" as in general electronics parlance where it implies power is redirected to it's source. i was initially confused at the nature of the problem as it was presented as a "short".