Turning of secure boot removes the driver restrictions. There's also a method of enabling test-signed drivers for development and testing. It's right in the TFA, but submitter left those facts out because they'd inferior with his fear-mongering.
This is simply a means to force consumers to purchase NEW hardware to replace their old reliable still working fine piece of hardware because there is no longer a driver for it. It is simply a way for MS and their partner hardware manufacturing companies to separate consumers from their money.
False. According to TFA, "Drivers signed with cross-signing certificate issued prior to July 29th 2015, when the initial policy went into place, will continue to be allowed." Translation--older drivers that worked before will continue to work.
Also, the new restrictions only apply when secure boot to turned on, something the submitter conveniently forgets to mention, meaning you can use any driver you want by simply turning off secure boot.
Today we're announcing an experiment in Chrome where a small fraction of connections between desktop Chrome and Google's servers will use a post-quantum key-exchange algorithm in addition to the elliptic-curve key-exchange algorithm that would typically be used. By adding a post-quantum algorithm on top of the existing one, we are able to experiment without affecting user security. The post-quantum algorithm might turn out to be breakable even with today's computers, in which case the elliptic-curve algorithm will still provide the best security that today’s technology can offer. Alternatively, if the post-quantum algorithm turns out to be secure then it'll protect the connection even against a future, quantum computer.
If I read this correctly, they are using "New Hope" in combination with an existing algorithm.
In so far as WhatsApp is concerned, there's nothing stopping WhatsApp from changing the app so that both needs are served.
Except that no one has ever found a way to create a backdoor that only law enforcement can use. An encryption backdoor can't distinguish between "good guys" and "bad guys."
The challenge for services using encryption is to ensure that only the parties that have a right to know what is being sent are aware of it and nobody else. That includes keeping out hackers *AND* the CIA/DHS/NSA (that don't have any rights to that material) as well as allowing the FBI *ONLY* when so authorized.
Same problem... a backdoor built for the "the FBI *ONLY* when so authorized" can be abused by the NSA or by FBI when not authorized. If you poke a hole in a wall, the hole doesn't know or care who looks through it.
Unlike governments, corporations have no power to imprison or execute you. And no one's forcing you to use any of the services you list, whereas you can't opt-out of goverment surveillence.
That's true, but it is possible for 32-bit applications to use up to 4GB when run on 64-bit Windows if the application is compiled with the right options.
You only read the parts of the article you wanted to, didn't you.
It said more than a dozen of the reports involved military drones. It said a half dozen were far too high to be hobbyist drones. Some were commercial drones. Some weren't drones at all--there was a "mini blimp", a vulture, and model rocket specifically mentioned, but it didn't say how many weren't actually drones.
BTW, I don't own a drone at all. I just think the "drone panic" is ridiculous. And legislating based on that panic is even more ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
That's for a local account. If he's truly using a Microsoft Account, he can reset the password here:
https://support.microsoft.com/...
Control Panel -> User Accounts -> User Accounts -> Manage User Accounts
Select the user in the dialog and press the big "Reset Password" button.
You can disable MS's driver restrictions by turning off secure boot.
Turning off
Turning of secure boot removes the driver restrictions. There's also a method of enabling test-signed drivers for development and testing. It's right in the TFA, but submitter left those facts out because they'd inferior with his fear-mongering.
This is simply a means to force consumers to purchase NEW hardware to replace their old reliable still working fine piece of hardware because there is no longer a driver for it. It is simply a way for MS and their partner hardware manufacturing companies to separate consumers from their money.
False. According to TFA, "Drivers signed with cross-signing certificate issued prior to July 29th 2015, when the initial policy went into place, will continue to be allowed." Translation--older drivers that worked before will continue to work.
Also, the new restrictions only apply when secure boot to turned on, something the submitter conveniently forgets to mention, meaning you can use any driver you want by simply turning off secure boot.
It comes down to DRM.
https://blogs.windows.com/wind...
Most of _everything_ is outside Silicon Valley.
Is this news to anyone?
It is to many inside the Valley.
Most people have some time they fritter frivolously.
Try saying "fritter frivolously on Facebook" ten times fast.
How many billion users can you have, before this no longer applies?
Infinite... it's still their site. Those billions of users are free to move to another site that better meets their needs.
Who was Facebook discriminating against exactly?
According to Google's blog post:
Today we're announcing an experiment in Chrome where a small fraction of connections between desktop Chrome and Google's servers will use a post-quantum key-exchange algorithm in addition to the elliptic-curve key-exchange algorithm that would typically be used. By adding a post-quantum algorithm on top of the existing one, we are able to experiment without affecting user security. The post-quantum algorithm might turn out to be breakable even with today's computers, in which case the elliptic-curve algorithm will still provide the best security that today’s technology can offer. Alternatively, if the post-quantum algorithm turns out to be secure then it'll protect the connection even against a future, quantum computer.
If I read this correctly, they are using "New Hope" in combination with an existing algorithm.
Somebody can replace the locks in your car with new locks that both your keys and their keys will unlock.
They already had opt-in filtering, they're just making it opt-out.
Windows, OS X, Linux (I think, but couldn't find out definitively), Android, iOS, and Windows Phone.
Not wanting to be your slave != feminism
In so far as WhatsApp is concerned, there's nothing stopping WhatsApp from changing the app so that both needs are served.
Except that no one has ever found a way to create a backdoor that only law enforcement can use. An encryption backdoor can't distinguish between "good guys" and "bad guys."
The challenge for services using encryption is to ensure that only the parties that have a right to know what is being sent are aware of it and nobody else. That includes keeping out hackers *AND* the CIA/DHS/NSA (that don't have any rights to that material) as well as allowing the FBI *ONLY* when so authorized.
Same problem... a backdoor built for the "the FBI *ONLY* when so authorized" can be abused by the NSA or by FBI when not authorized. If you poke a hole in a wall, the hole doesn't know or care who looks through it.
Please look up the definition of treason. Even if what you said were true (it's not), that's not treason.
John Scott approves of your idea...
Woosh!
Unlike governments, corporations have no power to imprison or execute you. And no one's forcing you to use any of the services you list, whereas you can't opt-out of goverment surveillence.
That's true, but it is possible for 32-bit applications to use up to 4GB when run on 64-bit Windows if the application is compiled with the right options.
It has 2 supporters, one of which commented "I signing this because I'm stupid."
I just explained a lot of the reports were either not hobbyists, or not near airports. My earlier comment should have said "many" rather than "most."
There are already laws against flying drones near airports. No need for another, just enforce the existing ones.
You only read the parts of the article you wanted to, didn't you.
It said more than a dozen of the reports involved military drones. It said a half dozen were far too high to be hobbyist drones. Some were commercial drones. Some weren't drones at all--there was a "mini blimp", a vulture, and model rocket specifically mentioned, but it didn't say how many weren't actually drones.
BTW, I don't own a drone at all. I just think the "drone panic" is ridiculous. And legislating based on that panic is even more ridiculous.