MAC addresses are sent in cleartext, regardless of the encryption method used. These can be sniffed in a matter of seconds. MAC addresses can also be spoofed. Meaning attackers laptop will become yours, as far as your router is concerned.
They don't. They're checking hashes on key platform binaries to check if they're compromised -- that's not the same as detecting the nature of the compromise.
This cannot be what they're doing. I cannot believe even Microsoft's marketing department could be this stupid.
Hash checking will not reveal compromised binaries on a rootkit-infected machine. That's the whole point of a rootkit. It makes the operating system lie to you about the contents and existence of files related to the rootkit.
Which means the machine will be infected, hash checks will pass, and the machine will BSOD on reboot.
Actually, in Ontario, if you slam the brakes on to stop for a yellow, and get rear ended by someone who was following you, you can get a ticket for stopping when it's not safe to do so.
This is from a strict reading of the Highway Traffic Act regarding yellow lights, and IANAL, and all that.
A quick check of the law in canada says that the law is the same.
Red: Stop under *all* circumstances Yellow: Stop unless you're already crossing the line when it goes yellow.
Where did you check the law in Canada? Weekly World News?
It's not all the same. It's different for every province.
In Ontario, the wording is this:
Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).
So if you can't do it safely, for example, if someone is tailgating you, or you're too close to the intersection when it goes yellow, then proceed.
Why do all these people keep insisting that a yellow means stop, and being in the intersection when it turns red is illegal, regardless of all the laws that have been posted proving otherwise. You just look like idiots, who can't interpret something that is essentially plain english.
And the ironic part is, they probably had the personal assistant look up the price online at BBs website, during the board meeting where they were discussing this stuff.
Somewhat the opposite of what we have here - we are preparing for such attacks all the time after all, trying to secure our networks. Now, it seems, al we need is perpetrators.
You obviously do not work in the security field.
The problem is, we _aren't_ trying to secure our networks, and we're _not_ preparing for such attacks. We have the idea that "follow this checklist, and I'm secure" and the checklist is giving out 5 year old security advice that's no longer valid.
Following old security advice is not only ineffective, but it can be dangerous.
We assume that since we've never noticed an attack, there must not have been one. That works fine in the physical world with bombs and such, but what would you notice if someone broke into your computer, copied every single file on it, then left?
Absolutely nothing.
The systems that are monitored for things like this record incredible numbers of breakin attempts. The firewall box on my home DSL connection has logged upwards of 1000 hack attempts an hour for sustained periods. Reading my current logs, right now, I've had 49 high-number UDP port connection attempts in the past 46 seconds. While some of this is just noise, some of it is not. The same source IP address/port sending the same packet to multiple different destination ports, or a slightly different packet repeatedly to the same port, usually points to some kind of reconnaissance, or actively trying to break in. The single TCP connection attempt to port 135, on the other hand, is somebody's poorly configured Windows machine that's sitting bare on the Internet.
And that's just a random home computer. Imagine the attacks that must occur on Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and other government computers.
You mean like the facts of evolutionist Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953? And how it basically proves that amino acids can only be created in a rigidly controlled environment, and certainly not by chance on a primordial earth?
It's not expanding the functionality. It's modifying the GUI. Maybe adding an option checkbox that wasn't there, or rearranging some dialog somewhere.
Without the source code, and more specifically, modifying the source code, it's impossible to add features in any meaningful sense.
Sure, you could add a "show all images with red background" checkbox, or something like that, and modify the program display output appropriately, but I can't imagine any case where something like that would be called a feature.
But then, I'm not among the 95% of the population that considers "Ooooh, shiny!" to be a feature, either.....
That post is so full of misunderstanding, I don't even know where to begin.
For a start, demonstrating the unlikelihood of something does not prove that it doesn't exist. So my statement still stands.
Now, heaven and Genesis violate the laws of thermodynamics? Huh? You think heaven is on some other planet somewhere?
We've already proven mathematically that alternative dimensions and alternative universes could exist, that very likely don't use the same laws of physics that we have.
So why does heaven, by its very nature immaterial, have to exist within our own universe's rigid physical laws?
You've got to stop to consider: The person who wrote Genesis lived in a very simple time, with barely a concept of what time and space were. Yet, somehow, they managed to come up with a God, heaven, and hell, all of which existed outside this time and space, and their God created this time and space.
That is not something that was possible to just imagine at the time. We can imagine warp drive now because we know things like the speed of light, and E=mc2, and all that. But think about somebody 1000 years ago, trying to imagine a method to travel faster than the speed of light.
I think Douglas Adams (an evolutionist, BTW) said it best: "Even light, which travels so fast that it takes most races thousands of years to realize that it travels at all,...."
1000 years ago it would have been impossible to imagine warp drive, because nobody knew light traveled, or that it was impossible to travel faster than it in our universe. But some guy writing 5000 years ago somehow managed to pull multiple universes out of his hat?
They didn't have the benefit of any scientific research into the nature of the universe, yet somehow managed to realize that there was a place "outside" the universe.
We've only just managed to come up with that (and a bunch of other realizations) scientifically in the last half century.
Yet you can't imagine heaven as being anything more exotic than a colony on Mars.
Nowhere in the Bible, and I assume most other religious books, does it say "Shove your nose into other's business."
I guess you never read it. Matthew 10:34-36
34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Setting people against their own flesh and blood, and their neighbors as well, has to qualify as "shoving your nose into others' business."
What? That doesn't say "shove your nose into others' business" even if you take it out of context. What it says is that if you aim to be righteous, and follow Jesus' teachings, then your own family could very well fight against you.
It's also immoral as all heck... but then again, Jesus also thought it was more important to fight over money (the temple) than slavery - nowhere did he say "Owning people is wrong, you stupid sh*ts!"
"Love your neighbour as yourself."
Considering the societal values in the time that was said, a neighbour was considered to be not just the guy who lives next door, or a couple of doors down. A neighbour could live on the other side of the city, be a completely different social caste, and someone you've never actually met. Basically, it meant everyone around you.
Loving everyone around you the way you love yourself pretty much nukes from orbit the whole idea of owning a person, doesn't it?
We see the same thing today, with the Pope moving pedophile priests to other parishes (where they then re-offend) because exposing them and punishing them will turn people away, reducing the $$$. More important to fleece the flock than to protect it.
And that practice is not defended by the majority of Christians. Not even the majority of Catholics. There are plenty of comments on/. about anecdotal evidence not being meaningful.
Well, just because it's very public and messy, doesn't make it any less anecdotal. The pope, and a dozen or so PervyPriests don't make statistics. They make data points. And they are the outliers, by far.
It makes the news for the same reason any other "Think fo the Children!!1!!!!" situation does. Is it horrible? Sure. But that doesn't mean that the church as a whole supports it, either Catholic or Protestant.
And considering that most Protestants think the Catholic church is a bunch of wankers anyway, then you've got to realize they don't stand for Christianity as a whole. Maybe their own little warped view of it.
There are people who'll take any dogma, law, policy, or what have you, and twist it to their own ends. Politicians, business leaders, police, you name it. Why when it happens in a church, do you cast that same view over the entire body of people?
I honestly had no idea about the abortion thing. I can't imagine anybody who actually understands Christian principles saying that abortion is OK. To me, that's about as screwy as Bill Gates publicly claiming that Linux is the best operating system ever.
As for the Jew/pork/ten commandments thing.....
No, Jews don't eat pork, because it's "unclean." Linking Christianity and Judaism simply by saying that both share the ten commandments, though, is pretty tenuous, at best. I don't know of any Christian who thinks we need to follow all the Old Testament laws. I'm sure they exist, but the whole point of Christianity is that we discard the law for a relationship with Christ, so a legalistic view of the Old Testament is not strictly Christian. Similarly, anybody who claims to be Christian and pounds on the ten commandments doesn't quite get it. Either that, or they're using the law as that social one-upmanship, which again, is not at all Christian. If you want to get really technical on legalistic views, eating any meat at all isn't allowed, as before the flood in Genesis, it wasn't permitted.
That's not to say we're supposed to violate the law willy nilly, but the priorities are completely different.
for one thing, it would be full of boring, nosy, uptight, self-righteus busybodies.
Only if you think an alien coming to Earth and saying "Take me to your leader" would have good reason to believe that everyone on the planet acts like George Bush.....
The boring, nosy, uptight, self-righteous busybodies are just politicians in the Church, who try to control everything they don't like. Nowhere in the Bible, and I assume most other religious books, does it say "Shove your nose into other's business."
There are passages about caring for neighbours and such that have been perverted into "If you're doing something wrong, I have a right to come in and tell you how evil you are." But the people who do this never seem to remember the passage that says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Nowhere does it say "If you're a Christian, you can lord (no pun intended) it over everyone else, and brag about how good you are." In fact, it says a lot of places that you are to place others above yourself. The self-righteous people aren't doing this, and they're just using their religion (not faith) as a social one-upping stepping stone.
Any true religion would happily COOPERATE with science.
Any religion that shuns science is shunning the creative mind that God gave us.
As a Christian myself, I say "Right on!"
It's when science becomes fundamentalist religion itself that it becomes a problem. See a lot of the posts in this thread about "We can now explain this, so it proves heaven doesn't exist."
Bullshit.
It just proves that we can simulate similar visions with drugs.
As has been stated, you pretty much cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God/heaven/hell/Allah/Thor/Odin/Gum, so it's up to you what you want to believe.
Do you believe that science will eventually come up with all the answers? It certainly doesn't have them yet. Maybe it will, but that belief in an unpredictable future is as unfounded in science as any Christian tenet, so don't try to pretend you have a purely scientific mind when you say stuff like this.
Is belief in God scientific? No. Is there evidence one way or another that such a being exists? Yes, but it's not conclusive either way. There's evidence, but no proof, and your interpretation of it, and how much importance you give to any individual piece of evidence really depends on what you already believe.
Evolutionists will take fossil evidence of humans embedded in ancient coal as the faked work of a crackpot religious nut trying to prove evolution wrong.
Creationists will take evidence of NDE-like hallucinations caused by drugs and say "So what? That proves nothing."
This argument will go on forever, until we're all dead and we've found out for ourselves.
Until then, everybody who calls the other side names just sounds childish, and it doesn't advance your cause at all.
Obviously we could use chemicals to make someone hungry even if they eat enough... but I fail to see how that proves food doesn't exist.
It doesn't. If we were to use food as an analogy for this, what we'd basically have is this:
We can inject this chemical into your brain, and it will make you feel hungry. Since this works, even if you've just finished a seven course meal, then we can conclude that hunger is caused by this chemical, not a lack of food. Therefore, "real" hunger does not exist.
Obviously, this is stupid, as hunger in this case would have more than one cause: the chemical, and actually being hungry.
The fact that we can simulate NDE visions with chemical injections in no way confirms or denies the reality of the heaven experience of an actual NDE.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhmm....yeah.
You don't understand it correctly.
MAC addresses are sent in cleartext, regardless of the encryption method used. These can be sniffed in a matter of seconds.
MAC addresses can also be spoofed. Meaning attackers laptop will become yours, as far as your router is concerned.
If Microsoft can detect the rootkit
They don't. They're checking hashes on key platform binaries to check if they're compromised -- that's not the same as detecting the nature of the compromise.
This cannot be what they're doing. I cannot believe even Microsoft's marketing department could be this stupid.
Hash checking will not reveal compromised binaries on a rootkit-infected machine. That's the whole point of a rootkit. It makes the operating system lie to you about the contents and existence of files related to the rootkit.
Which means the machine will be infected, hash checks will pass, and the machine will BSOD on reboot.
My Windows XP computer doesn't have err.exe on it.
It also doesn't have Visual Studio.
And net helpmsg doesn't decode any 0x12345678 format errors, which is all I've ever seen anywhere important in Windows.
Next suggestion?
Actually, in Ontario, if you slam the brakes on to stop for a yellow, and get rear ended by someone who was following you, you can get a ticket for stopping when it's not safe to do so.
This is from a strict reading of the Highway Traffic Act regarding yellow lights, and IANAL, and all that.
WRONG!
A quick check of the law in canada says that the law is the same.
Red: Stop under *all* circumstances
Yellow: Stop unless you're already crossing the line when it goes yellow.
Where did you check the law in Canada? Weekly World News?
It's not all the same. It's different for every province.
In Ontario, the wording is this:
So if you can't do it safely, for example, if someone is tailgating you, or you're too close to the intersection when it goes yellow, then proceed.
Why do all these people keep insisting that a yellow means stop, and being in the intersection when it turns red is illegal, regardless of all the laws that have been posted proving otherwise. You just look like idiots, who can't interpret something that is essentially plain english.
True...
And the ironic part is, they probably had the personal assistant look up the price online at BBs website, during the board meeting where they were discussing this stuff.
Well, you don't expect some Paramount idiot board member to shop anywhere other than a big box chain store, do you?
Remember, the Internet is the enemy of these people, so why would they ever think to shop at someplace like Newegg.
I'm kind of surprised that someone who knows how to actually spell queue, doesn't have a clue how to use it.....
Heavily dependent on technology != connected to the Internet.
Somewhat the opposite of what we have here - we are preparing for such attacks all the time after all, trying to secure our networks. Now, it seems, al we need is perpetrators.
You obviously do not work in the security field.
The problem is, we _aren't_ trying to secure our networks, and we're _not_ preparing for such attacks. We have the idea that "follow this checklist, and I'm secure" and the checklist is giving out 5 year old security advice that's no longer valid.
Following old security advice is not only ineffective, but it can be dangerous.
We assume that since we've never noticed an attack, there must not have been one. That works fine in the physical world with bombs and such, but what would you notice if someone broke into your computer, copied every single file on it, then left?
Absolutely nothing.
The systems that are monitored for things like this record incredible numbers of breakin attempts. The firewall box on my home DSL connection has logged upwards of 1000 hack attempts an hour for sustained periods. Reading my current logs, right now, I've had 49 high-number UDP port connection attempts in the past 46 seconds. While some of this is just noise, some of it is not.
The same source IP address/port sending the same packet to multiple different destination ports, or a slightly different packet repeatedly to the same port, usually points to some kind of reconnaissance, or actively trying to break in. The single TCP connection attempt to port 135, on the other hand, is somebody's poorly configured Windows machine that's sitting bare on the Internet.
And that's just a random home computer. Imagine the attacks that must occur on Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and other government computers.
Blissful ignorance does not equal security.
I "believe" what the facts tell me
You mean like the facts of evolutionist Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953? And how it basically proves that amino acids can only be created in a rigidly controlled environment, and certainly not by chance on a primordial earth?
To throw in the face of some dumbass politician?
Crack pipe.
Get it right.
It's not expanding the functionality. It's modifying the GUI.
Maybe adding an option checkbox that wasn't there, or rearranging some dialog somewhere.
Without the source code, and more specifically, modifying the source code, it's impossible to add features in any meaningful sense.
Sure, you could add a "show all images with red background" checkbox, or something like that, and modify the program display output appropriately, but I can't imagine any case where something like that would be called a feature.
But then, I'm not among the 95% of the population that considers "Ooooh, shiny!" to be a feature, either.....
"You don't agree with me, therefore you're an idiot."
I think my 3 year old could come up with a better argument than that.
Having said that, atheism is still a religion. Fanatical evolutionism is a religion. Your belief that there is no God is religion.
You don't see it as religion, because you define religion as anything that's taken on faith, with the addendum of "except what you believe."
Wow.
Just, wow.
That post is so full of misunderstanding, I don't even know where to begin.
For a start, demonstrating the unlikelihood of something does not prove that it doesn't exist. So my statement still stands.
Now, heaven and Genesis violate the laws of thermodynamics? Huh? You think heaven is on some other planet somewhere?
We've already proven mathematically that alternative dimensions and alternative universes could exist, that very likely don't use the same laws of physics that we have.
So why does heaven, by its very nature immaterial, have to exist within our own universe's rigid physical laws?
You've got to stop to consider:
The person who wrote Genesis lived in a very simple time, with barely a concept of what time and space were.
Yet, somehow, they managed to come up with a God, heaven, and hell, all of which existed outside this time and space, and their God created this time and space.
That is not something that was possible to just imagine at the time. We can imagine warp drive now because we know things like the speed of light, and E=mc2, and all that. But think about somebody 1000 years ago, trying to imagine a method to travel faster than the speed of light.
I think Douglas Adams (an evolutionist, BTW) said it best:
"Even light, which travels so fast that it takes most races thousands of years to realize that it travels at all,...."
1000 years ago it would have been impossible to imagine warp drive, because nobody knew light traveled, or that it was impossible to travel faster than it in our universe. But some guy writing 5000 years ago somehow managed to pull multiple universes out of his hat?
They didn't have the benefit of any scientific research into the nature of the universe, yet somehow managed to realize that there was a place "outside" the universe.
We've only just managed to come up with that (and a bunch of other realizations) scientifically in the last half century.
Yet you can't imagine heaven as being anything more exotic than a colony on Mars.
I guess you never read it. Matthew 10:34-36
Setting people against their own flesh and blood, and their neighbors as well, has to qualify as "shoving your nose into others' business."
What? That doesn't say "shove your nose into others' business" even if you take it out of context. What it says is that if you aim to be righteous, and follow Jesus' teachings, then your own family could very well fight against you.
It's also immoral as all heck ... but then again, Jesus also thought it was more important to fight over money (the temple) than slavery - nowhere did he say "Owning people is wrong, you stupid sh*ts!"
"Love your neighbour as yourself."
Considering the societal values in the time that was said, a neighbour was considered to be not just the guy who lives next door, or a couple of doors down. A neighbour could live on the other side of the city, be a completely different social caste, and someone you've never actually met. Basically, it meant everyone around you.
Loving everyone around you the way you love yourself pretty much nukes from orbit the whole idea of owning a person, doesn't it?
We see the same thing today, with the Pope moving pedophile priests to other parishes (where they then re-offend) because exposing them and punishing them will turn people away, reducing the $$$. More important to fleece the flock than to protect it.
And that practice is not defended by the majority of Christians. Not even the majority of Catholics. There are plenty of comments on /. about anecdotal evidence not being meaningful.
Well, just because it's very public and messy, doesn't make it any less anecdotal. The pope, and a dozen or so PervyPriests don't make statistics. They make data points. And they are the outliers, by far.
It makes the news for the same reason any other "Think fo the Children!!1!!!!" situation does. Is it horrible? Sure. But that doesn't mean that the church as a whole supports it, either Catholic or Protestant.
And considering that most Protestants think the Catholic church is a bunch of wankers anyway, then you've got to realize they don't stand for Christianity as a whole. Maybe their own little warped view of it.
There are people who'll take any dogma, law, policy, or what have you, and twist it to their own ends. Politicians, business leaders, police, you name it. Why when it happens in a church, do you cast that same view over the entire body of people?
Ouch.
I honestly had no idea about the abortion thing.
I can't imagine anybody who actually understands Christian principles saying that abortion is OK.
To me, that's about as screwy as Bill Gates publicly claiming that Linux is the best operating system ever.
As for the Jew/pork/ten commandments thing.....
No, Jews don't eat pork, because it's "unclean." Linking Christianity and Judaism simply by saying that both share the ten commandments, though, is pretty tenuous, at best. I don't know of any Christian who thinks we need to follow all the Old Testament laws. I'm sure they exist, but the whole point of Christianity is that we discard the law for a relationship with Christ, so a legalistic view of the Old Testament is not strictly Christian.
Similarly, anybody who claims to be Christian and pounds on the ten commandments doesn't quite get it.
Either that, or they're using the law as that social one-upmanship, which again, is not at all Christian.
If you want to get really technical on legalistic views, eating any meat at all isn't allowed, as before the flood in Genesis, it wasn't permitted.
That's not to say we're supposed to violate the law willy nilly, but the priorities are completely different.
You can't prove a negative.
If you're as scientific as your post implies, you'd know that.
The only thing you can prove is that you can't prove (yet) that it exists.
for one thing, it would be full of boring, nosy, uptight, self-righteus busybodies.
Only if you think an alien coming to Earth and saying "Take me to your leader" would have good reason to believe that everyone on the planet acts like George Bush.....
The boring, nosy, uptight, self-righteous busybodies are just politicians in the Church, who try to control everything they don't like.
Nowhere in the Bible, and I assume most other religious books, does it say "Shove your nose into other's business."
There are passages about caring for neighbours and such that have been perverted into "If you're doing something wrong, I have a right to come in and tell you how evil you are."
But the people who do this never seem to remember the passage that says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Nowhere does it say "If you're a Christian, you can lord (no pun intended) it over everyone else, and brag about how good you are."
In fact, it says a lot of places that you are to place others above yourself. The self-righteous people aren't doing this, and they're just using their religion (not faith) as a social one-upping stepping stone.
Any true religion would happily COOPERATE with science.
Any religion that shuns science is shunning the creative mind that God gave us.
As a Christian myself, I say "Right on!"
It's when science becomes fundamentalist religion itself that it becomes a problem.
See a lot of the posts in this thread about "We can now explain this, so it proves heaven doesn't exist."
Bullshit.
It just proves that we can simulate similar visions with drugs.
As has been stated, you pretty much cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God/heaven/hell/Allah/Thor/Odin/Gum, so it's up to you what you want to believe.
Do you believe that science will eventually come up with all the answers? It certainly doesn't have them yet. Maybe it will, but that belief in an unpredictable future is as unfounded in science as any Christian tenet, so don't try to pretend you have a purely scientific mind when you say stuff like this.
Is belief in God scientific? No. Is there evidence one way or another that such a being exists? Yes, but it's not conclusive either way. There's evidence, but no proof, and your interpretation of it, and how much importance you give to any individual piece of evidence really depends on what you already believe.
Evolutionists will take fossil evidence of humans embedded in ancient coal as the faked work of a crackpot religious nut trying to prove evolution wrong.
Creationists will take evidence of NDE-like hallucinations caused by drugs and say "So what? That proves nothing."
This argument will go on forever, until we're all dead and we've found out for ourselves.
Until then, everybody who calls the other side names just sounds childish, and it doesn't advance your cause at all.
Heck .. you guys can't even agree on whether or not to eat meat on Friday, or whether abortion is murder.
I'm sure you must have something to back this up, so I'm going to ask. This is a legitimate question, as I really don't know.
What Christian denomination/sect/whatever believes that eating meat on Friday is not allowed, and which one doesn't think abortion is murder?
Obviously we could use chemicals to make someone hungry even if they eat enough... but I fail to see how that proves food doesn't exist.
It doesn't. If we were to use food as an analogy for this, what we'd basically have is this:
We can inject this chemical into your brain, and it will make you feel hungry. Since this works, even if you've just finished a seven course meal, then we can conclude that hunger is caused by this chemical, not a lack of food.
Therefore, "real" hunger does not exist.
Obviously, this is stupid, as hunger in this case would have more than one cause: the chemical, and actually being hungry.
The fact that we can simulate NDE visions with chemical injections in no way confirms or denies the reality of the heaven experience of an actual NDE.
To drive on the phone, you have to have a special license plate and you have to have your cell phone visible on the outside of the vehicle.
Joe and Jane are married. One of them is a supertasker, the other isn't.
They own one car.
You figure it out.
That makes no sense.
A shit driver when only driving will be running up somebody's tailpipe when given a phone conversation to deal with as well.