But you're quoting a vulnerability in a piece of software that was patched 3 years ago, in response to an article about running PuTTy on a Windows system.
A windows system that today likely has so many unpatched 0-day vulnerabilities, that they can't be counted, not even on all the current and past Windows developers' fingers, put together.
This is just a variant of tried-and-true character-based attacks against terminals.
Smart people use mesg n on multi-user systems, especially when running as root.
Physical security is one thing... but if your computer running the SSH client is compromised by malware, or an intruder, an attacker may be able to login remotely and leapfrog to the other server you left logged in as root.
That's why you set a screen password.
Control + A, : password ENTER
The attach cannot proceed without typing the password.
The password cannot be changed (for an already running session) without attaching first.
From the screen man page:
password [crypted_pw]
Present a crypted password in your ".screenrc" file and screen will ask
for it, whenever someone attempts to resume a detached. This is useful
if you have privileged programs running under screen and you want to
protect your session from reattach attempts by another user masquerad-
ing as your uid (i.e. any superuser.) If no crypted password is speci-
fied, screen prompts twice for typing a password and places its encryp-
tion in the paste buffer. Default is `none', this disables password
checking.
By the way... until this trial is over: you're grounded.
You're not allowed to use a land line.
Not allowed to use a cell phone.
No going out to bars and getting drunk with friends.
(I'm sure talking about the case outside court is also already off-limits).
And forget bringing your laptop or iPad into the court room to take notes about what's going on in court, so you can make an accurate decision when it comes time for deliberation.
Because 90% of internet users don't know what the hell a SSL certificate is and can't intelligently make the decision.
The presence of the cert does more harm than good, if it's being used to distribute malware, then obviously it is not trustworthy, and Mozilla is harming the community by including it.
If you want to go out on your own and install the cert, fine.
Mozilla should have no part in installing by default a cert that is untrustworthy.
They should remove the default authority and let you install manually if you want it.
Semantics is such a fun game. Of course you don't need broadcasting rights because you aren't broadcasting, but you do need DISTRIBUTION rights.
No, you don't need distribution rights, because you aren't creating and distributing copies of the work.
Nor do you need broadcast rights of any type.
The only rights you need are performance rights.
Since you aren't distributing any copies.
No, the FCC does not license cable companies to broadcast anything, because cable companies do not broadcast.
Bzzt. Wrong, they are licensed to broadcast signals within their system.
So, gosh, all those times when Times-Warner and a broadcast station/network cannot come to terms over payments for carrying that broadcast station,
Big cable companies demand more favorable terms than are available simply under compulsory licensing.
They are powerful and have a lot of bargaining power.
When they broadcast messages like that, they are attempting to use their customers as a weapon to get the terms they want.
They would even go so far as to drop the broadcast station, as them not providing the terms they demand is a threat to them... other broadcast stations might get wind of that and start demanding concessions too: they can't stand for it.. their high profit margins would start to shrink.
Also, they will want to re-transmit outside the normal coverage area of the broadcast station.
I think the matter isn't covered by the CFR you quote, because, of course, the person with a 65" TV in his sports bar isn't a cable system licensed by the FCC at all!
As someone later in the comments point, you do not have broadcasting rights to the material
You don't need broadcasting rights to play something on TV, because you aren't broadcasting or re-broadcasting the material.
A television receives the over-the-air broadcast, does not transmit a broadcast.
Decoding the electromagnetic signal broadcast over the air into the audiovisual representation is not making a new broadcast, or even time-shifting.
Even cable companies/re-broadcasters don't even have "broadcasting rights". They have statutory rights to make secondary transmissions, that come from the law.
The FCC licenses cable companies to re-broadcast material, not the copyright owner.
Often referred to as "compulsory licensing", because the copyright owner doesn't have a choice in the matter, they cannot deny or refuse the right to make "secondary transmissions by cable systems" provided under Title 17 Chapter 1, Sec 111.
No but I can give you another example. If you're living on rent, you're not allowed to do just anything you want to the apartment. You need to ask your landlord if its acceptable,
Getting a bigger TV doesn't change the content or the nature of the broadcast.
Selling things at the premises of the TV instead of just having the TV at a public place doesn't change the nature of the broadcast.
Placing a TV in a public place VS in a private home doesn't fundamentally change the broadcast either. The advertisements get shown the same whether it's in a public place or not.
But the landlord in your example can't discover (through whatever means) that you sell things on eBay and then ad-hoc decide and tell you, you can't bring and keep any items in your private room worth more than 3 inches wide, if you intend to sell them.
Or the landlord can't just start demanding a cut of your eBay sales and have any entitlement to them, just because he figured out you were selling some things as a hobby, and using an apartment you acquired through the lease to facilitate this.
Sure 60 inches is big enough?
Might want to get a few projectors if possible...
Project 200" images of it on the street and nearby buildings at night with full audio in the middle of a major metro area.
Rope off the area. Charge for admission.
If I can't make the stream, would you kindly upload the video to a bittorrent tracker, display some imagery of it in public including some footage of the performances, and offer to sell public internet users a permanent copy of the video plus some of that home-made McNuggets and KFC chicken -- with recipes, and publish a link on slashdot where we can buy the modified work from you?
I'm sure some of the public would also be interested if you were to offer the MP3 of y'all singing happy birthday superbowl to the public.
Bonus points for videos of all 50 of y'all walking down the street singing the song at the top of your lungs and offering to sell homemade Nuggets + Chicken to members of the public.
You can make a device usable without denying the ability to run your own software.
Without denying the ability of the hobbyist to develop software for the device without paying $500 a year for the "Apple development program"
Without requiring every developer get a certificate and go through this complex process of authorizing their own software for their device for testing.
Without requiring every hacker to go through this "app approval" process, to let their friends (or customers) install the app on their own devices.
In other words: Making a usable device is absolutely no excuse for all this.
Then Apple is essentially trying to seize and destroy the promise of computing.
The iPad is more closed, even than Microsoft's tablet PC platform.
It's insane, and the price of this device is every bit as expensive as real open, cooler PC hardware. When Apple moves the iMac and Mac book platforms to the iPhone OS, I hope there is a mass exodus away from their platform.
Then after that, they might consider opening things back up like they should be...
I don't like Windows, but better than Apple's restricted devices!
Melting the crust would probably not be a good idea if they want to live here due to the ideal living environment
Biological attacks against humans, or attacks against human technology are more likely.
If humans are at their current level of development... I imagine Phase 1 would involve
creating a large number of EMPs in earth's upper atmosphere, to disable electronics and military intelligence on the ground, radar, etc.
Phase 2 would involve capturing some humans for 'research' purposes... analyzing them, and eventually developing a "humanicide", or rather, a biological agent designed to attack just human DNA, and leave other less-hostile organisms intact, probably something 1000x as potent and deadly to humans as any bio weapon we currently know about.
Or they could make a more 'humane' version and only cause massive sterilization, disperse it throughout the planet. Then they return in ~100 years, to take ownership of the planet.
Phase 3 would be colonization.
All colonists would have plenty of the potent lethal version of the weapon, in the form of hand sprays and foggers.
So that one small squirt from a hand spray would kill any humans within about 10 miles of the release.
Or such that a fogger release would obliterate all humans within 200 miles radius within 2 hours.
Well, humans would consider it a valuable source of fuel... and sure plastics, you named some possible uses..
If their biology is a bit different from ours, oil or some body part of humans might be food, as in a prized delicacy worth lots of money in their society.
Suppose humans get interstellar travel capabilities, and we come upon an inferior alien species?
Of course NASA was privatized a long time ago, and all space missions are fielded by private companies who don't have any interstellar laws to worry about violating.
If they see an inferior civilization on another planet, that can be exploited for resources, or slave labor, what are they going to do?
Lets ignore the fact that at your state of grogginess in near darkness you aren't capable of telling the difference between an assailant and your own wife.
This is what security systems and X10 are for.
Many emergency lights and cameras automatically turn on, if an alarm condition occurs, and they have suitable backup power.
Actually, lights can turn on due to motion outside. Giving you a fighting chance to get the watch and put in the pin.
You will NOT be groggy after the adrenaline rush of having a proximity buzzer go off.
Slashdot Mirror
The ASIBC surely had some hand in this... (The American Society for the Incineration of Blue Cars)
Yeah, and drive a black SUV with tinted windows if you want to get laid.
YMMV.
P.S. Don't drive red sports cars, unless you want to get weekly traffic tickets.
I'll agree owch.
But you're quoting a vulnerability in a piece of software that was patched 3 years ago, in response to an article about running PuTTy on a Windows system.
A windows system that today likely has so many unpatched 0-day vulnerabilities, that they can't be counted, not even on all the current and past Windows developers' fingers, put together.
This is just a variant of tried-and-true character-based attacks against terminals. Smart people use mesg n on multi-user systems, especially when running as root.
Physical security is one thing... but if your computer running the SSH client is compromised by malware, or an intruder, an attacker may be able to login remotely and leapfrog to the other server you left logged in as root.
RTFM.
That's why you set a screen password. Control + A, : password ENTER
The attach cannot proceed without typing the password. The password cannot be changed (for an already running session) without attaching first.
From the screen man page:
. Your ISP can't "sniff that handshaking" and go on without you getting a security warning.
You're making an assumption about the modality of the attack.
Not all theoretically possible sniffing attacks are active man-in-the-middle attacks.
If the DH key negotiation is compromised, then the attacker may be able to passively sniff the keys and all the data that follows.
If the attacker can modify the SSH server or the SSH client, then of course, they can sniff all traffic, regardless of connection duration.
What if the vulnerability is a cryptanlytic one in the protocol used by OpenSSH for the key negotiation?
Something like: 2^10 initial key exchanges, reduces the search space for an attacker trying to guess the key
Or certain nonce values turn out to be vulnerable, but not others.
Then more session setups helps the hacker to improve their chances of guessing.
MiTH = Make It Trust Hackers"
I guess courts treat jurors like children.
By the way... until this trial is over: you're grounded.
You're not allowed to use a land line.
Not allowed to use a cell phone.
No going out to bars and getting drunk with friends.
(I'm sure talking about the case outside court is also already off-limits).
And forget bringing your laptop or iPad into the court room to take notes about what's going on in court, so you can make an accurate decision when it comes time for deliberation.
Because 90% of internet users don't know what the hell a SSL certificate is and can't intelligently make the decision.
The presence of the cert does more harm than good, if it's being used to distribute malware, then obviously it is not trustworthy, and Mozilla is harming the community by including it.
If you want to go out on your own and install the cert, fine.
Mozilla should have no part in installing by default a cert that is untrustworthy.
They should remove the default authority and let you install manually if you want it.
Semantics is such a fun game. Of course you don't need broadcasting rights because you aren't broadcasting, but you do need DISTRIBUTION rights.
No, you don't need distribution rights, because you aren't creating and distributing copies of the work.
Nor do you need broadcast rights of any type.
The only rights you need are performance rights. Since you aren't distributing any copies.
No, the FCC does not license cable companies to broadcast anything, because cable companies do not broadcast.
Bzzt. Wrong, they are licensed to broadcast signals within their system.
So, gosh, all those times when Times-Warner and a broadcast station/network cannot come to terms over payments for carrying that broadcast station,
Big cable companies demand more favorable terms than are available simply under compulsory licensing. They are powerful and have a lot of bargaining power.
When they broadcast messages like that, they are attempting to use their customers as a weapon to get the terms they want. They would even go so far as to drop the broadcast station, as them not providing the terms they demand is a threat to them... other broadcast stations might get wind of that and start demanding concessions too: they can't stand for it.. their high profit margins would start to shrink.
Also, they will want to re-transmit outside the normal coverage area of the broadcast station.
I think the matter isn't covered by the CFR you quote, because, of course, the person with a 65" TV in his sports bar isn't a cable system licensed by the FCC at all!
Maybe there's a fix for this, namely:
Equip sports bars with chapels.
Start a formal religion around the sport... Call it Footbology, or something such as that.
As someone later in the comments point, you do not have broadcasting rights to the material
You don't need broadcasting rights to play something on TV, because you aren't broadcasting or re-broadcasting the material. A television receives the over-the-air broadcast, does not transmit a broadcast.
Decoding the electromagnetic signal broadcast over the air into the audiovisual representation is not making a new broadcast, or even time-shifting.
Even cable companies/re-broadcasters don't even have "broadcasting rights". They have statutory rights to make secondary transmissions, that come from the law. The FCC licenses cable companies to re-broadcast material, not the copyright owner. Often referred to as "compulsory licensing", because the copyright owner doesn't have a choice in the matter, they cannot deny or refuse the right to make "secondary transmissions by cable systems" provided under Title 17 Chapter 1, Sec 111.
Government-granted monopolies such as copyright are distinctly non-capitalist.
Then don't play their content. Don't buy their content, and they lose.
No but I can give you another example. If you're living on rent, you're not allowed to do just anything you want to the apartment. You need to ask your landlord if its acceptable,
Getting a bigger TV doesn't change the content or the nature of the broadcast.
Selling things at the premises of the TV instead of just having the TV at a public place doesn't change the nature of the broadcast.
Placing a TV in a public place VS in a private home doesn't fundamentally change the broadcast either. The advertisements get shown the same whether it's in a public place or not.
But the landlord in your example can't discover (through whatever means) that you sell things on eBay and then ad-hoc decide and tell you, you can't bring and keep any items in your private room worth more than 3 inches wide, if you intend to sell them.
Or the landlord can't just start demanding a cut of your eBay sales and have any entitlement to them, just because he figured out you were selling some things as a hobby, and using an apartment you acquired through the lease to facilitate this.
I'm sure the poster is just a decoy. The real offenders hire other people to say they will do infringing things (they won't really do).
Keeps the enforcement agents distracted from the real offenders, like the pirates in China making counterfeit tickets and DVDs.
Sure 60 inches is big enough? Might want to get a few projectors if possible...
Project 200" images of it on the street and nearby buildings at night with full audio in the middle of a major metro area.
Rope off the area. Charge for admission.
If I can't make the stream, would you kindly upload the video to a bittorrent tracker, display some imagery of it in public including some footage of the performances, and offer to sell public internet users a permanent copy of the video plus some of that home-made McNuggets and KFC chicken -- with recipes, and publish a link on slashdot where we can buy the modified work from you?
I'm sure some of the public would also be interested if you were to offer the MP3 of y'all singing happy birthday superbowl to the public.
Bonus points for videos of all 50 of y'all walking down the street singing the song at the top of your lungs and offering to sell homemade Nuggets + Chicken to members of the public.
It's still more stable than Windows ME.
And i'm sure the eval h@x0rs will find a way around this measure.
Such as the Windows 7 equivalent of a shutdown -a command.
Displaying a dialog box frequently is almost as bad as a shutdown every 2 hours :)
You can make a device usable without denying the ability to run your own software.
Without denying the ability of the hobbyist to develop software for the device without paying $500 a year for the "Apple development program"
Without requiring every developer get a certificate and go through this complex process of authorizing their own software for their device for testing.
Without requiring every hacker to go through this "app approval" process, to let their friends (or customers) install the app on their own devices.
In other words: Making a usable device is absolutely no excuse for all this.
Then Apple is essentially trying to seize and destroy the promise of computing.
The iPad is more closed, even than Microsoft's tablet PC platform.
It's insane, and the price of this device is every bit as expensive as real open, cooler PC hardware. When Apple moves the iMac and Mac book platforms to the iPhone OS, I hope there is a mass exodus away from their platform.
Then after that, they might consider opening things back up like they should be...
I don't like Windows, but better than Apple's restricted devices!
Melting the crust would probably not be a good idea if they want to live here due to the ideal living environment
Biological attacks against humans, or attacks against human technology are more likely.
If humans are at their current level of development... I imagine Phase 1 would involve creating a large number of EMPs in earth's upper atmosphere, to disable electronics and military intelligence on the ground, radar, etc.
Phase 2 would involve capturing some humans for 'research' purposes... analyzing them, and eventually developing a "humanicide", or rather, a biological agent designed to attack just human DNA, and leave other less-hostile organisms intact, probably something 1000x as potent and deadly to humans as any bio weapon we currently know about.
Or they could make a more 'humane' version and only cause massive sterilization, disperse it throughout the planet. Then they return in ~100 years, to take ownership of the planet.
Phase 3 would be colonization.
All colonists would have plenty of the potent lethal version of the weapon, in the form of hand sprays and foggers.
So that one small squirt from a hand spray would kill any humans within about 10 miles of the release. Or such that a fogger release would obliterate all humans within 200 miles radius within 2 hours.
So what you're saying is we should obseverve some creature that travels faster than light and not blindly copy them?
Supposing a creature did travel faster than light, we would have some difficulties perceiving it.
We don't know of a way to develop electronics or optics that can perceive signals or motion at a faster speed of light, if it were to occur.
And something moving so fast cannot be perceived by the naked eye, either.
As a result, it would be impossible for humans to observe the creature traveling that fast.
Well, humans would consider it a valuable source of fuel... and sure plastics, you named some possible uses..
If their biology is a bit different from ours, oil or some body part of humans might be food, as in a prized delicacy worth lots of money in their society.
Suppose humans get interstellar travel capabilities, and we come upon an inferior alien species?
Of course NASA was privatized a long time ago, and all space missions are fielded by private companies who don't have any interstellar laws to worry about violating.
If they see an inferior civilization on another planet, that can be exploited for resources, or slave labor, what are they going to do?
Lets ignore the fact that at your state of grogginess in near darkness you aren't capable of telling the difference between an assailant and your own wife.
This is what security systems and X10 are for.
Many emergency lights and cameras automatically turn on, if an alarm condition occurs, and they have suitable backup power.
Actually, lights can turn on due to motion outside. Giving you a fighting chance to get the watch and put in the pin.
You will NOT be groggy after the adrenaline rush of having a proximity buzzer go off.