What is being 'proposed' is NOT anything infecting through the speaker/microphone, but a pre-existing inection (that was probably USB based) then communication through these methods - a VERY VERY different thing.
The hype and BS layers need to be peeled off this.
There is no possible infection vector via microphone/speaker, or via power cord as semi-implied (unless you had a powerline modem..), it is simply a way to get data out of the airgapped but INFECTED machine to others that may not be airgapped.
The 'solution' here is simple, remove the infection! there is more to security than just network airgapping!
I bet politicians from both are now (if they didn't realize/get reminded earlier) aware that they are owned.. After all, all their dirty little secrets will be as useful to the 'protectors of the free world' as those of the evil Germans and French!
After all, we must all be protected from any form of true democracy and/or choice!
(repost after putting on the wrong thread above, damn!)
I bet politicians from both are now (if they didn't realize/get reminded earlier) aware that they are owned.. After all, all their dirty little secrets will be as useful to the 'protectors of the free world' as those of the evil Germans and French!
After all, we must all be protected from any form of true democracy and/or choice!
Actually, there is absolutely zero proof that they did fail. NASA certain could not find any way to fault the system.
What this decision is based around is a bunch of technical argument that they could have tried harder to prove that the system could not fail, but with absolutely zero proof that it does or even can fail. No procedure to make the software fail was presented, no theory of a set of inputs that could result in the theorised output was presented, only a critique of their testing and analysis procedure that poked a few holes in that.
This is a VERY concerning direction for programmers in the USA, as of course complex software by definition cannot be proven correct (at least there currently exists no known way). It opens the door for all sorts of development-process based litigation, which is a very very bad direction for things to take.
Again, so far ZERO evidence, proof, or test case has been provided that the software is in any way responsible for this problem.
So, when I have to quickly brake (to avoid things in front of me) and the cyclist who thought it was cool to be tailgating me slams in the back of my car? That has happened to me TWICE, both times they grabbed their bikes and ran, leaving me with the insurance costs of fixing up the damage to my paintwork..
How about the cyclists weaving and cutting through the traffic, making cars emergency stop because they decide its ok to cut around the front of you as they can go faster than the heavy traffic by doing it?
And the one I really love, the cyclists who blaze straight through red lights and pedestrians crossing because they are somehow more holy that all other road users? I have seen at least one nasty accident between cyclists and crossing pedestrian..
The fact is that ALL road users have to follow the rules, however many cyclists want and in fact demand special treatment.
Bring on the equiality I say - time to register those bikes, have manditory fitness checks for they safety, and test/license to riders for the road? Then there is the issue of road taxes, etc - time they started paying their share? Damn those two way streets, cyclists are special and shouldnt have to do THOSE things, right?
Start quoting technical road laws at people to excuse your situation, and you better be damn ready to follow them yourself.
So, if I get you right you are claiming that taxes they take are all used for services that improve the lives of the people paying those taxes directly?
Wow, that must be an amazing utopia to live in, it sure as hell doesnt work like that around here..
'After huge effort to drown nuclear energy in red tape, escalating build costs to many times their real cost - while at the same time stopping any form on innovation in cleaner/safer/more efficient forms, we have finally achieved the point where its price/performance does not wipe the floor with everything else' And for bonus points throw in a little 'while of course ignoring the actual ecological and human damage of competing generation methods as those are OBVIOUSLY clean, since they dont use evil nasty RADIATION (and where they do, we will ignore it)'
It seems we are taking the position of a man who was part of an active and systematic attack on the security of network infrastructure through planned back dooring, lowering of quality of encryption systems, and intentional hacking?
Really? its the corps fault they are not secure, considering what the NSA has been up to?
Perhaps they should have spent 10% of the effort on informing corps of the holes they found instead of just squirreling them away i the grab bag of dirty tricks.
If suddenly matters so much, then please, make public the details of ALL known security holes, and inform all victims of the backdooring done to their systems..
Oh, and for god sake pull your finger out and take your parenting responsibilities seriously.
Yes, I am sure you miss little johnny when you are away from him, so perhaps you need to spend more time with them when you can, and get used to them having some space and freedom when you cannot! Ruining his life with a leash is not a solution to your separation anxiety.
It is ALWAYS the responsibility of a drive to be able to stop safety in the visible road ahead. ALWAYS.
You may not agree with it, but its the law, when you hit the back of a car in front of you (unless it actively reversed in to you), you are ALWAYS at fault.
To be handing out this mass of tickets it is quite clear that he is camping at red light as it is an easy target. Are you claiming THIS is his job? not patrolling? not trying to increase road safety, but to find the easiest set of targets and therefore maximize revenue?
He also seems to be using a dubious definition of 'driving', it is very arguable that these people are not driving while stationary.
I will happily blame the police for actions such as this - thats what 'discression' is all about, and they have it.
You do realise, of course that there has been exactly ZERO evidence of any form of backdooring in the chinese gear that the US is working to block and has successfully blocked now from many projects, mainly 3G/4G cell rollouts?
You dont think that just perhaps the whole thing was a smokescreen to make SURE that the backdoored US gear was used, rather than the actually secure chinese gear?
You are completely wrong, as you are assuming that I can know that the driver will act illegally.
As text messages are the equivalent of email or physical letters, I cannot be held responsible for the drivers decision as to when and where to read them. In fact, even if the 'driver' is responding, how am I to know they are not safetly pulling over, stopping, reading and responding? How am I to know that they are not having a passenger read/respond?
In other words what you are trying to claim is that I should be repsonsible for the possibility that they MAY act illegally, with no way I can be sure - in fact you seem to think I should be required to assume they will break the law.
That is not valid, in any way, as I can in no way, at the time of sending a text, be aware that they will subsequently break the law!
So, tell me, if I know someone is a bad driver, and you dont actively stop them from driving, and they hitkill someone, are you responsible? By your logic, then yes - in fact everyone who knew they were a bad driver was responsible. What if I knew someone had a habbit of eating too fast, and they choked themselves to death on a lump of steak, and I resposible?
You argument is complete and utter rubbish. negligence does NOT work like this, at all.
So, when I know someone is driving and I sent them a text instead of calling them, as that way they can read it later and not be distracted, then I should be help partially responsible if they are stupid enough to *not* *wait*?
That is completely stupid. The whole point of text messages, like email, is they do NOT require or demand immediate attention from the recipient. If someone decides to read them immediately then that is not my responsibility.
If I am stupid enough to be holding a txt 'conversation' with someone while they are driving, that is different, however that was not what was claimed, it was knowing them were driving and could read it - I am not responsible for their actions in this case.
Another example of the incompetence of the nanny state.
I assume by fired/terminated you mean because you have broken the terms of your contract (and normally been given suitable warnings, etc). Of COURSE there is then no payment period, you have broken your employment terms!
Exactly the same thing would apply in reverse, if your employer broke the terms of employment (for example didnt pay you, etc, etc) then you would have the right to leave immediately.
The 'question' is of course termed wrong, resigning your job is VERY different from being fired, it is equivalent to being laid off.
Actually no, you are completely and totally wrong!
In your very messed up world view, all they have to do is put in 'we have the right to limit service to remote end points as we see fit' and they can do what they want.
The point of network neutrality is that they are not ALLOWED to limit what services are carried based on source/destination, only on amount of bandwidth consumed.
It would be like a petrol station selling you gas that could (somehow) only be used to drive on local roads, not on the freeway...
Slashdot Mirror
What is being 'proposed' is NOT anything infecting through the speaker/microphone, but a pre-existing inection (that was probably USB based)
then communication through these methods - a VERY VERY different thing.
The hype and BS layers need to be peeled off this.
There is no possible infection vector via microphone/speaker, or via power cord as semi-implied (unless you had a powerline modem..), it is simply a
way to get data out of the airgapped but INFECTED machine to others that may not be airgapped.
The 'solution' here is simple, remove the infection! there is more to security than just network airgapping!
Time to go back to security 101.
Dont worry, they are busy spying on themselves for the Americans..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangimoana_Station
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9070435/Controversial-GCSB-laws-pass-by-two-votes
They are, after all, part of the same 'club'.
I bet politicians from both are now (if they didn't realize/get reminded earlier) aware that they are owned..
After all, all their dirty little secrets will be as useful to the 'protectors of the free world' as those of the evil
Germans and French!
After all, we must all be protected from any form of true democracy and/or choice!
(repost after putting on the wrong thread above, damn!)
Oops, was meant to go on the thread below about the kiwis ;)
Dont worry, they are busy spying on themselves for the Americans..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangimoana_Station
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9070435/Controversial-GCSB-laws-pass-by-two-votes
They are, after all, part of the same 'club'.
I bet politicians from both are now (if they didn't realize/get reminded earlier) aware that they are owned..
After all, all their dirty little secrets will be as useful to the 'protectors of the free world' as those of the evil
Germans and French!
After all, we must all be protected from any form of true democracy and/or choice!
Actually, there is absolutely zero proof that they did fail.
NASA certain could not find any way to fault the system.
What this decision is based around is a bunch of technical argument that they could have tried harder to prove
that the system could not fail, but with absolutely zero proof that it does or even can fail. No procedure to make
the software fail was presented, no theory of a set of inputs that could result in the theorised output was presented,
only a critique of their testing and analysis procedure that poked a few holes in that.
This is a VERY concerning direction for programmers in the USA, as of course complex software by definition cannot
be proven correct (at least there currently exists no known way). It opens the door for all sorts of development-process
based litigation, which is a very very bad direction for things to take.
Again, so far ZERO evidence, proof, or test case has been provided that the software is in any way responsible for this
problem.
So, when I have to quickly brake (to avoid things in front of me) and the cyclist who thought it was cool to be tailgating me slams in the back of my car?
That has happened to me TWICE, both times they grabbed their bikes and ran, leaving me with the insurance costs of fixing up the damage to my paintwork..
How about the cyclists weaving and cutting through the traffic, making cars emergency stop because they decide its ok to cut around the front of you as they
can go faster than the heavy traffic by doing it?
And the one I really love, the cyclists who blaze straight through red lights and pedestrians crossing because they are somehow more holy that all other road
users? I have seen at least one nasty accident between cyclists and crossing pedestrian..
The fact is that ALL road users have to follow the rules, however many cyclists want and in fact demand special treatment.
Bring on the equiality I say - time to register those bikes, have manditory fitness checks for they safety, and test/license to riders for the road?
Then there is the issue of road taxes, etc - time they started paying their share?
Damn those two way streets, cyclists are special and shouldnt have to do THOSE things, right?
Start quoting technical road laws at people to excuse your situation, and you better be damn ready to follow them yourself.
Are you talking about DLink or the NSA, or is the just DLinks way of complying?
Just wondering....
So, if I get you right you are claiming that taxes they take are all used for services that improve the lives of the people paying those taxes directly?
Wow, that must be an amazing utopia to live in, it sure as hell doesnt work like that around here..
And sadly, for them, they will be exposed to much higher levels of radiation in the aircraft flying to japan - lets hope they all take ships!
Oh, and for a bonus they can avoid eating bananas, why havnt those radioactive horrors be banned yet? think of the children!
You need a translation not a citation..
'After huge effort to drown nuclear energy in red tape, escalating build costs to many times their real cost - while at the same time
stopping any form on innovation in cleaner/safer/more efficient forms, we have finally achieved the point where its price/performance
does not wipe the floor with everything else'
And for bonus points throw in a little 'while of course ignoring the actual ecological and human damage of competing generation methods
as those are OBVIOUSLY clean, since they dont use evil nasty RADIATION (and where they do, we will ignore it)'
Make a little more sense now?
It seems we are taking the position of a man who was part of an active and systematic attack on the security of network infrastructure through planned back dooring, lowering of quality of encryption systems, and intentional hacking?
Really? its the corps fault they are not secure, considering what the NSA has been up to?
Perhaps they should have spent 10% of the effort on informing corps of the holes they found instead of just squirreling them away i the grab bag of dirty tricks.
If suddenly matters so much, then please, make public the details of ALL known security holes, and inform all victims of the backdooring done to their systems..
No? Thought not..
https://d1jqecz1iy566e.cloudfront.net/med2/sb014.jpg
Oh, and for god sake pull your finger out and take your parenting responsibilities seriously.
Yes, I am sure you miss little johnny when you are away from him, so perhaps you need
to spend more time with them when you can, and get used to them having some space
and freedom when you cannot!
Ruining his life with a leash is not a solution to your separation anxiety.
No, you are wrong.
It is ALWAYS the responsibility of a drive to be able to stop safety in the visible road ahead.
ALWAYS.
You may not agree with it, but its the law, when you hit the back of a car in front of you (unless it
actively reversed in to you), you are ALWAYS at fault.
end of story.
No, you are wrong.
To be handing out this mass of tickets it is quite clear that he is camping at red light as it is an easy target.
Are you claiming THIS is his job? not patrolling? not trying to increase road safety, but to find the easiest
set of targets and therefore maximize revenue?
He also seems to be using a dubious definition of 'driving', it is very arguable that these people are not driving
while stationary.
I will happily blame the police for actions such as this - thats what 'discression' is all about, and they have it.
You do realise, of course that there has been exactly ZERO evidence of any form of backdooring in the
chinese gear that the US is working to block and has successfully blocked now from many projects, mainly
3G/4G cell rollouts?
You dont think that just perhaps the whole thing was a smokescreen to make SURE that the backdoored US
gear was used, rather than the actually secure chinese gear?
Hmmmm.
So genius, tell me, how can i know that short of sitting next to them and forcing them to read it under duress if they decide not to?
You are completely wrong, as you are assuming that I can know that the driver will act illegally.
As text messages are the equivalent of email or physical letters, I cannot be held responsible for the drivers decision as to when and where to read them.
In fact, even if the 'driver' is responding, how am I to know they are not safetly pulling over, stopping, reading and responding?
How am I to know that they are not having a passenger read/respond?
In other words what you are trying to claim is that I should be repsonsible for the possibility that they MAY act illegally, with no way I can be sure - in fact you seem to think I should be required to assume they will break the law.
That is not valid, in any way, as I can in no way, at the time of sending a text, be aware that they will subsequently break the law!
So, tell me, if I know someone is a bad driver, and you dont actively stop them from driving, and they hitkill someone, are you responsible?
By your logic, then yes - in fact everyone who knew they were a bad driver was responsible.
What if I knew someone had a habbit of eating too fast, and they choked themselves to death on a lump of steak, and I resposible?
You argument is complete and utter rubbish. negligence does NOT work like this, at all.
So, when I know someone is driving and I sent them a text instead of calling them, as that way they can read it later and not be distracted, then I should be help partially responsible if they are stupid enough to *not* *wait*?
That is completely stupid. The whole point of text messages, like email, is they do NOT require or demand immediate attention from the recipient. If someone decides to read them immediately then that is not my responsibility.
If I am stupid enough to be holding a txt 'conversation' with someone while they are driving, that is different, however that was not what was claimed, it was knowing them were driving and could read it - I am not responsible for their actions in this case.
Another example of the incompetence of the nanny state.
Really?
I wonder just how you have managed to live over 50 years without paying tax with little//no oversight in to how it is spent?
Have a look at the budgets (and i mean the total spending, not the nice clean top level budgets) and tell me you are not funding bribery.
So no, you have not - you have spent most of your life paying bribes to the government, just indirectly.
Just take his quotes and replace the word 'terrorist' with 'voter' as required and it will be decoded for you.
I assume by fired/terminated you mean because you have broken the terms of your contract (and normally been given suitable warnings, etc).
Of COURSE there is then no payment period, you have broken your employment terms!
Exactly the same thing would apply in reverse, if your employer broke the terms of employment (for example didnt pay you, etc, etc) then you
would have the right to leave immediately.
The 'question' is of course termed wrong, resigning your job is VERY different from being fired, it is equivalent to being laid off.
Get it? Simple enough?
ah yes, but the astroturf is DEEP on this one.
Who said the 'donations' that matter are monetary,
You think those ssl encryption keys are free?
Actually no, you are completely and totally wrong!
In your very messed up world view, all they have to do is put in 'we have the right to limit service to remote end points as we see fit'
and they can do what they want.
The point of network neutrality is that they are not ALLOWED to limit what services are carried based on source/destination, only on
amount of bandwidth consumed.
It would be like a petrol station selling you gas that could (somehow) only be used to drive on local roads, not on the freeway...
THAT is network neutrality!