I know one Google engineer who didn't even graduate high school, and another who only has an associates degree. They are the exceptions, though. Most have MS degrees, with a large minority with only BS degrees, plus a fair number of PhDs.
Still, if it can get a few more minorities and women started down the path to a full CS education, it could increase the supply. I think realistically it's less about the training and more about the buzz that the offer will generate, hopefully selling the idea that there are great options for women and minorities who are willing to put in the effort.
I don't think old devices are vulnerable, and while 4.3 devices are vulnerable, most of them have an additional countermeasure in place that should protect against any actual disclosure of private keys.
In older devices, it looks like prior to changing keystore to use the Binder API the bounds checking was done at a higher level in the call stack, so the code isn't actually vulnerable. When keystore's API was changed to be Binder-based, that checking was lost, enabling the bug. Looking at the git log, the Binder keystore API was merged in November 2012 which I believe means that only 4.3 devices are vulnerable. It appears the bug was identified and fixed before 4.4 was released.
But most 4.3 devices, at least from major vendors, have hardware-backed key storage. All Nexus devices do. They're vulnerable to the bug, but the private keys are completely inaccessible to the Android userspace and kernel, so there's no way the key material can be leaked. To see if your device has hardware-backed key storage go to Settings -> Security and scroll down to "Credential Storage". If it says "Storage type Hardware-backed", then keystore private keys are not accessible to the Android OS userspace or kernel, so there's no way they could leak.
One caveat: Until 4.4 (I think), only RSA keys could be managed by secure hardware. So DSA and ECDSA private keys in 4.3 device keystores could leak via this vulnerability. In the future we should have support for all sorts of keys in secure hardware (https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/97651/ -- yes, I'm the author of that CL), as well as a mechanism for checking the hardware vs software storage question on individual keys.
I'm not trying to say this wasn't a pretty serious error on Google's part. Even with the bounds check higher in the call stack, it should have been done in keystore as well. Security-sensitive code like this should take a belt-and-suspenders approach, not depending on validation done at other layers, specifically because stuff at other layers changes. Actually, I know the guy who wrote it and that is the way he thinks, too, so I'm somewhat surprised he wrote this bug.
(Note: I recently joined the Android security team, and it looks like I may be the maintainer of keystore. I am taking the lead on hardware-backed key storage. However, I should mention that I'm not speaking in an official capacity, just someone who knows the code a bit and took a few minutes to look through the git logs.)
I agree, actually. I think the issue is interest, not opportunity, so Google's attempt to create more opportunity isn't going to make much difference. However, the PR buzz generated by it may spark some interest.
Unless you're a woman or a minority in which case they might need you to even out the numbers apparently.
Google would like to even out the numbers... but won't hire incompetent employees to do it. Hence this attempt to improve the supply of women and minority candidates, so they can hire the subset of those that have the necessary level of ability. Note that I said "ability" not "skill". Google wants to hire smart people, and is perfectly willing to let them acquire the skills on the job. The problem is that until the candidate has obtained enough knowledge for their CS problem-solving ability to be adequately tested, Google can't evaluate their ability. Also, the culture and jargon of CS so thoroughly permeates language and thought processes at Google that employees without a certain level of knowledge have a hard time even communicating adequately.
So, it's necessary to get more of the desired demographics educated to the level that they can apply with some hope of success. That's the only way to increase hiring in those demographics without lowering standards. It really does make sense.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, and a Google interviewer, but I'm speaking for myself, not for the company. The above is my explanation, not a statement of Google's rationale.)
Slippery Slope is called a fallacy for a reason. There's a big difference between discovering what actually works and doesn't work, and forcing it on people. If you're worried about being forced, you need to avoid socialized medicine. When you've collectivized healthcare costs then there's a clear "social good" argument to forcing people to make healthy choices.
Can you legally be detained without being placed under arrest?
Detention is the definition of arrest, and it requires probable cause. You can be stopped briefly on "reasonable suspicion", and if the officer has a reasonable belief that it's necessary for his safety he can even frisk you and remove any weapons. But it has to be a brief stop. Not being allowed to leave for two hours would clearly fall into the category of detention, which is illegal without probable cause.
This is all US law, and I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. There are some great videos on YouTube which cover this stuff in detail and are produced by lawyers from ACLU, etc.
That's not what the article is about. It's about generating graphical visualizations of what your code is doing on a computer screen, not generating internal visualizations of what you think your code is doing in your head. In fact, I'd guess that most of the value of the former comes from noticing the ways in which it's different from the latter.
That's not a but... the last thing we need is a bunch of fetal alcohol borderline cases peopling our planet.
I don't think the mother being drunk during conception can cause fetal alcohol syndrome. However, FAS is a real, serious problem, and it's clearly caused by excessive drinking, and not counted in this 1 in 10 statistic.
To which I say, the answer is pretty damn obvious - he wants to make more money.
Meh. Page has more money than anyone can spend, and if you listen to him talk it quickly becomes clear that money was never his real motivation anyway. Unlike many CEOs, for whom business is their life and money is how they keep score, Page is interested in technology and what it can do for people. Money is what you have to have to be able to create and deploy world-changing technology. Not that I expect you to believe any of that. Your mind is made up: he has money therefore he is evil.
yeah, i agree - but as soon as you refuse they say "Ok well we're going to have to wait a couple hours for the canine to get here". What do you do then?
Ask them if you're being detained, or if you're free to go. If they insist on keeping you there for two hours, then you're clearly being detained. Go with it and then sue them for unlawful detention afterwards. Odds are fair (not great, but fair) that you'll get a few thousand bucks for your time.
My phone is always listening for voice commands, which is great for things like making calls, sending messages, starting navigation etc., but I want a new command specifically for situations like this: "OK Google Now: Lock and Record". It should lock my phone and start a continuous video and audio recording which is streamed to a server somewhere. Even better if it's a separate hotword so I don't have to say "OK Google Now" first to warn the officer I'm about to screw with his plans to screw with me.
If I can activate it by voice, it won't matter whether the phone is locked when it's taken from my pocket. And with the recording, I'll have proof that I did not consent to the search. Streaming will ensure that proof can't be accidentally destroyed by, say, dropping my phone just before a cruiser happens to roll past.
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer
Actually, he's more ambitious than that. He's invested a big chunk of his personal fortune in research that's aiming to cure death.
So... he's insane?
Why is that insanity? If we can find a way to get the body to continue repairing itself the way it does when people are young, they ought to be able to live forever. Of course, we don't know what the mental effects of hundreds or thousands of years of experience might be. That seems likely to impose additional bounds on human life, but perhaps we can find solutions there as well.
And, perhaps even if the longevity research can't find a way to cure death, it does seem likely to be a fruitful are of research on how to improve and lengthen life. Might even provide some insights into cancer.
First off, tweaking out those few extra heartbeats as we figure out how to keep you alive a couple years longer while you lie completely demented, catheterized in your bed in the Nusring home, is to what or who's benefit?
This question is a red herring. Oh, there's no doubt that improvements in medicine can be used and long has been used to extend life at any cost, but the low value of that is now widely recognized, and research is taking it into account. I think this would be a very useful application of data mining... analyzing the conditions which lead to a long, healthy life before institutional support is required. That's exactly the sort of thing that can't be done very effectively in studies now, because they are necessarily much more limited in scope, and generally in duration as well.
It's not at all within the realm of possibility for an attacker to brute force the CC space for each salt separately
Sure it is. With a couple dozen GPUs you can do 10^14 SHA-256 hashes in a little over two hours. The most cost-effective option, though, is probably to modify the Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner FPGA. One of those can search the space in a little over an hour. The ASICs are much faster but you couldn't use a bitcoin miner unmodified, and ASICs can't be easily tweaked.
I suppose maybe my perspective is a little skewed, because I've been doing CC secure storage at Google for the last three years. My normal supposed adversary is a malicious Google engineer... and Google engineers have massive computational resources available to them. Any one can fire up a job on tens of thousands of machines -- many of them with GPUs -- as long as they're willing to set the priority very low. So I think of the CC space as small. It's a little harder for most people than my notional adversary... but it's really not that much harder.
The fact that CCNs have such low value (because they're so easy to get), probably does make your scheme workable. If you brought your design to me in a security review, though, I'd kill it. The attack is hard but feasible now, and getting easier all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I know one Google engineer who didn't even graduate high school, and another who only has an associates degree. They are the exceptions, though. Most have MS degrees, with a large minority with only BS degrees, plus a fair number of PhDs.
Still, if it can get a few more minorities and women started down the path to a full CS education, it could increase the supply. I think realistically it's less about the training and more about the buzz that the offer will generate, hopefully selling the idea that there are great options for women and minorities who are willing to put in the effort.
See my post below: http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
See my post below: http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
I don't think old devices are vulnerable, and while 4.3 devices are vulnerable, most of them have an additional countermeasure in place that should protect against any actual disclosure of private keys.
In older devices, it looks like prior to changing keystore to use the Binder API the bounds checking was done at a higher level in the call stack, so the code isn't actually vulnerable. When keystore's API was changed to be Binder-based, that checking was lost, enabling the bug. Looking at the git log, the Binder keystore API was merged in November 2012 which I believe means that only 4.3 devices are vulnerable. It appears the bug was identified and fixed before 4.4 was released.
But most 4.3 devices, at least from major vendors, have hardware-backed key storage. All Nexus devices do. They're vulnerable to the bug, but the private keys are completely inaccessible to the Android userspace and kernel, so there's no way the key material can be leaked. To see if your device has hardware-backed key storage go to Settings -> Security and scroll down to "Credential Storage". If it says "Storage type Hardware-backed", then keystore private keys are not accessible to the Android OS userspace or kernel, so there's no way they could leak.
One caveat: Until 4.4 (I think), only RSA keys could be managed by secure hardware. So DSA and ECDSA private keys in 4.3 device keystores could leak via this vulnerability. In the future we should have support for all sorts of keys in secure hardware (https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/97651/ -- yes, I'm the author of that CL), as well as a mechanism for checking the hardware vs software storage question on individual keys.
I'm not trying to say this wasn't a pretty serious error on Google's part. Even with the bounds check higher in the call stack, it should have been done in keystore as well. Security-sensitive code like this should take a belt-and-suspenders approach, not depending on validation done at other layers, specifically because stuff at other layers changes. Actually, I know the guy who wrote it and that is the way he thinks, too, so I'm somewhat surprised he wrote this bug.
(Note: I recently joined the Android security team, and it looks like I may be the maintainer of keystore. I am taking the lead on hardware-backed key storage. However, I should mention that I'm not speaking in an official capacity, just someone who knows the code a bit and took a few minutes to look through the git logs.)
I agree, actually. I think the issue is interest, not opportunity, so Google's attempt to create more opportunity isn't going to make much difference. However, the PR buzz generated by it may spark some interest.
Unless you're a woman or a minority in which case they might need you to even out the numbers apparently.
Google would like to even out the numbers... but won't hire incompetent employees to do it. Hence this attempt to improve the supply of women and minority candidates, so they can hire the subset of those that have the necessary level of ability. Note that I said "ability" not "skill". Google wants to hire smart people, and is perfectly willing to let them acquire the skills on the job. The problem is that until the candidate has obtained enough knowledge for their CS problem-solving ability to be adequately tested, Google can't evaluate their ability. Also, the culture and jargon of CS so thoroughly permeates language and thought processes at Google that employees without a certain level of knowledge have a hard time even communicating adequately.
So, it's necessary to get more of the desired demographics educated to the level that they can apply with some hope of success. That's the only way to increase hiring in those demographics without lowering standards. It really does make sense.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, and a Google interviewer, but I'm speaking for myself, not for the company. The above is my explanation, not a statement of Google's rationale.)
Just for comparison, in the US I pay ~8 eurocents per kWh.
Slippery Slope is called a fallacy for a reason. There's a big difference between discovering what actually works and doesn't work, and forcing it on people. If you're worried about being forced, you need to avoid socialized medicine. When you've collectivized healthcare costs then there's a clear "social good" argument to forcing people to make healthy choices.
"The accused consented to a search of his phone prior to the recording starting, your honor."
That's only going to work if the search was done prior to my recorded denial of consent... and even then the judge is going to be skeptical.
Well, obviously your hotword should be: "I do not consent to this search"...
Perfect!
Can you legally be detained without being placed under arrest?
Detention is the definition of arrest, and it requires probable cause. You can be stopped briefly on "reasonable suspicion", and if the officer has a reasonable belief that it's necessary for his safety he can even frisk you and remove any weapons. But it has to be a brief stop. Not being allowed to leave for two hours would clearly fall into the category of detention, which is illegal without probable cause.
This is all US law, and I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. There are some great videos on YouTube which cover this stuff in detail and are produced by lawyers from ACLU, etc.
That's not what the article is about. It's about generating graphical visualizations of what your code is doing on a computer screen, not generating internal visualizations of what you think your code is doing in your head. In fact, I'd guess that most of the value of the former comes from noticing the ways in which it's different from the latter.
That's not a but... the last thing we need is a bunch of fetal alcohol borderline cases peopling our planet.
I don't think the mother being drunk during conception can cause fetal alcohol syndrome. However, FAS is a real, serious problem, and it's clearly caused by excessive drinking, and not counted in this 1 in 10 statistic.
To which I say, the answer is pretty damn obvious - he wants to make more money.
Meh. Page has more money than anyone can spend, and if you listen to him talk it quickly becomes clear that money was never his real motivation anyway. Unlike many CEOs, for whom business is their life and money is how they keep score, Page is interested in technology and what it can do for people. Money is what you have to have to be able to create and deploy world-changing technology. Not that I expect you to believe any of that. Your mind is made up: he has money therefore he is evil.
yeah, i agree - but as soon as you refuse they say "Ok well we're going to have to wait a couple hours for the canine to get here". What do you do then?
Ask them if you're being detained, or if you're free to go. If they insist on keeping you there for two hours, then you're clearly being detained. Go with it and then sue them for unlawful detention afterwards. Odds are fair (not great, but fair) that you'll get a few thousand bucks for your time.
My phone is always listening for voice commands, which is great for things like making calls, sending messages, starting navigation etc., but I want a new command specifically for situations like this: "OK Google Now: Lock and Record". It should lock my phone and start a continuous video and audio recording which is streamed to a server somewhere. Even better if it's a separate hotword so I don't have to say "OK Google Now" first to warn the officer I'm about to screw with his plans to screw with me.
If I can activate it by voice, it won't matter whether the phone is locked when it's taken from my pocket. And with the recording, I'll have proof that I did not consent to the search. Streaming will ensure that proof can't be accidentally destroyed by, say, dropping my phone just before a cruiser happens to roll past.
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer
Actually, he's more ambitious than that. He's invested a big chunk of his personal fortune in research that's aiming to cure death.
So... he's insane?
Why is that insanity? If we can find a way to get the body to continue repairing itself the way it does when people are young, they ought to be able to live forever. Of course, we don't know what the mental effects of hundreds or thousands of years of experience might be. That seems likely to impose additional bounds on human life, but perhaps we can find solutions there as well.
And, perhaps even if the longevity research can't find a way to cure death, it does seem likely to be a fruitful are of research on how to improve and lengthen life. Might even provide some insights into cancer.
Because one is actually helpful to society, and the other one is just a way for the rich to get richer?
Saving 100,000 lives per year is not helpful to society? And no one would make any money from a cure for cancer?
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer
Actually, he's more ambitious than that. He's invested a big chunk of his personal fortune in research that's aiming to cure death.
First off, tweaking out those few extra heartbeats as we figure out how to keep you alive a couple years longer while you lie completely demented, catheterized in your bed in the Nusring home, is to what or who's benefit?
This question is a red herring. Oh, there's no doubt that improvements in medicine can be used and long has been used to extend life at any cost, but the low value of that is now widely recognized, and research is taking it into account. I think this would be a very useful application of data mining... analyzing the conditions which lead to a long, healthy life before institutional support is required. That's exactly the sort of thing that can't be done very effectively in studies now, because they are necessarily much more limited in scope, and generally in duration as well.
So... what you're saying is that statistical results can be misapplied by people who don't understand statistics.
I don't think any citation is needed for that result.
I assume that you're taking action to correct the understanding of those who support the intervention programs.
One other point: If you modify your scheme to use a tunable slow hash, e.g. scrypt, then I would give it a thumbs up.
It's not at all within the realm of possibility for an attacker to brute force the CC space for each salt separately
Sure it is. With a couple dozen GPUs you can do 10^14 SHA-256 hashes in a little over two hours. The most cost-effective option, though, is probably to modify the Butterfly Labs bitcoin miner FPGA. One of those can search the space in a little over an hour. The ASICs are much faster but you couldn't use a bitcoin miner unmodified, and ASICs can't be easily tweaked.
I suppose maybe my perspective is a little skewed, because I've been doing CC secure storage at Google for the last three years. My normal supposed adversary is a malicious Google engineer... and Google engineers have massive computational resources available to them. Any one can fire up a job on tens of thousands of machines -- many of them with GPUs -- as long as they're willing to set the priority very low. So I think of the CC space as small. It's a little harder for most people than my notional adversary... but it's really not that much harder.
The fact that CCNs have such low value (because they're so easy to get), probably does make your scheme workable. If you brought your design to me in a security review, though, I'd kill it. The attack is hard but feasible now, and getting easier all the time.
Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake basin are surrounded by much higher natural "walls". Downtown SLC still managed to get a tornado.
One. In 30+ years. This in spite of the fact that tornadoes are quite common out on the lake.
This seems like a better solution for blood sugar monitoring: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
Or does the upcoming iPhone claim to have some method that doesn't require getting access to blood?