You do realize that there are no extant MD5 or SHA1 attacks that can produce data of a specified length that matches a specified hash, right? (For that matter, there isn't such an attack when the length isn't specified.) You would need such an attack to poison something like BitTorrent with false data.
(This protocol, and BitTorrent, both use SHA1.)
The existence of a type of attack on MD5 doesn't even imply that MD5 is rendered useless, much less SHA1. There's only a risk where that type of attack can be employed.
Actors as President or governors? How is this counter to democracy?
One can actually vote for any of many parties. However, for a number of hardly-fair reasons, only two parties have any reasonable shot of winning the Presidential election. (Third parties have a decent chance at winning smaller elections.)
Tolerating torture and infiltrating or making war on other countries is entirely democratic, if the people are behind it. Perhaps you meant to include that plenty of Americans didn't agree with those things, but you didn't.
I think you're confused about what "democracy" means.
They should've commented on how poor Slashdotters' reading comprehension is.
Note:
They're talking about "Anonymous" the "organization", not the act of posting anonymously or the Slashdot Anonymous Coward. Free speech has nothing to do with it. They're included in the report because they're a large-scale "organizaiton" connected with threats and vandalism.
The only people dumb enough to make the association that "since terrorists can use cell phones and digital music players, owning one makes you suspicious" are those on Slashdot who will stretch to make a criticism. The reason they're listed is that they should be considered by investigators as a potential source of information or evidence.
These sort of reports are quite common and are written at a fairly low level, so that law enforcement has a degree of familiarity with these topics.
There are actually other solutions: an anonymizing network layer, like I2P or Tor (yes, yes: don't use the existing Tor network in this fashion), and anonymous sharing protocols, like FreeNet.
For one, because SwarmScreen primarily protects against people who observe your connection profile, e.g., ISPs. You are unable to conceal this information from them without a system like Tor.
For another, the problem with PeerGuardian is the spies who aren't using known IP addresses. Does PeerGuardian block all Tor exit nodes?
Yes, they can. In addition, there's no requirement that they actually download or upload any of the content in order to identify IP addresses who claim to be downloading/sharing the content. (If you want to confirm it, it would be wise to download a full piece from the peer, confirm its hash, and eventually download a full copy of the torrent to confirm its content. However, you certainly can do this without ever distributing the content. There are open-source BitTorrent clients, you know, that anyone can modify.)
In criminal investigation, at least, you don't really see "guilt by association" for P2P clients. Everyone and their brother has LimeWire or a BitTorrent client (or multiple ones) installed, so the fact that they have a copy of uTorrent doesn't tell you anything useful.
Taking up 1% CPU is fairly trivial. The memory impact is a little on the high side, but if you're familiar with how BitTorrent works, you should appreciate that it either needs to do a fair amount of memory buffering or you will make more trips to the disk. Some BitTorrent clients let you tune that. Seeding multiple torrents while permitting a reasonably large number of connected downloaders is a data-intensive task, any way you slice it.
Probably shouldn't take mathematical advice from someone who confuses "3 to 3000 times" with "3 to 3000 percent".
Considering that SSD prices vary and performance and workload situations vary more, it's not surprising that there is a range. It's not even surprising that it's a large range. (For example, "if your workload is closer to the optimal profile, the price needs to decrease by a factor of 3; if the workload is closer to the worst-case profile, the price needs to decrease by a factor of 3000". The only odd thing is the factor of 3 in a three-order-of-magnitude range.
Frankly, religion crops up almost never in this "debate". People listening to others out of authority or because they like the secondary effects of their claims (I don't like higher taxes, so global warming is a myth), whether that person is Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh, isn't religion. For that matter, neither is blind agreement with something because it's convenient or popular, and neither is the tinfoil hat "everything must be a way for the government to control and tax us".
So, did you then confuse possession and distribution? I still don't see how possession of nmap, neither committing a crime nor intending to, is illegal under that reading.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought we were talking about p2p here, or at least some transfer of data over a network.
Encryption doesn't really do you any good in the legal department. It only makes it more difficult for your ISP to identifyg BitTorrent connections.
You do realize that there are no extant MD5 or SHA1 attacks that can produce data of a specified length that matches a specified hash, right? (For that matter, there isn't such an attack when the length isn't specified.) You would need such an attack to poison something like BitTorrent with false data.
(This protocol, and BitTorrent, both use SHA1.)
The existence of a type of attack on MD5 doesn't even imply that MD5 is rendered useless, much less SHA1. There's only a risk where that type of attack can be employed.
Interesting set of non-points.
Actors as President or governors? How is this counter to democracy?
One can actually vote for any of many parties. However, for a number of hardly-fair reasons, only two parties have any reasonable shot of winning the Presidential election. (Third parties have a decent chance at winning smaller elections.)
Tolerating torture and infiltrating or making war on other countries is entirely democratic, if the people are behind it. Perhaps you meant to include that plenty of Americans didn't agree with those things, but you didn't.
I think you're confused about what "democracy" means.
They should've commented on how poor Slashdotters' reading comprehension is.
Note:
They're talking about "Anonymous" the "organization", not the act of posting anonymously or the Slashdot Anonymous Coward. Free speech has nothing to do with it. They're included in the report because they're a large-scale "organizaiton" connected with threats and vandalism.
The only people dumb enough to make the association that "since terrorists can use cell phones and digital music players, owning one makes you suspicious" are those on Slashdot who will stretch to make a criticism. The reason they're listed is that they should be considered by investigators as a potential source of information or evidence.
These sort of reports are quite common and are written at a fairly low level, so that law enforcement has a degree of familiarity with these topics.
Ethnic cleansing is when you kill people because hundreds of years ago, your ancestors and their ancestors didn't get along.
In America, we kill people because they're in the way. It's completely different.
It seems you didn't read the article.
There are actually other solutions: an anonymizing network layer, like I2P or Tor (yes, yes: don't use the existing Tor network in this fashion), and anonymous sharing protocols, like FreeNet.
For one, because SwarmScreen primarily protects against people who observe your connection profile, e.g., ISPs. You are unable to conceal this information from them without a system like Tor.
For another, the problem with PeerGuardian is the spies who aren't using known IP addresses. Does PeerGuardian block all Tor exit nodes?
Yes, they can. In addition, there's no requirement that they actually download or upload any of the content in order to identify IP addresses who claim to be downloading/sharing the content. (If you want to confirm it, it would be wise to download a full piece from the peer, confirm its hash, and eventually download a full copy of the torrent to confirm its content. However, you certainly can do this without ever distributing the content. There are open-source BitTorrent clients, you know, that anyone can modify.)
In criminal investigation, at least, you don't really see "guilt by association" for P2P clients. Everyone and their brother has LimeWire or a BitTorrent client (or multiple ones) installed, so the fact that they have a copy of uTorrent doesn't tell you anything useful.
Taking up 1% CPU is fairly trivial. The memory impact is a little on the high side, but if you're familiar with how BitTorrent works, you should appreciate that it either needs to do a fair amount of memory buffering or you will make more trips to the disk. Some BitTorrent clients let you tune that. Seeding multiple torrents while permitting a reasonably large number of connected downloaders is a data-intensive task, any way you slice it.
Germany has quite a lot of Max-Planck Institutes. Name association.
I at least got to work at a particle-physics Max Planck Institute, so it was appropriately named.
Plus, have you ever tried to actually make a hat out of lead foil? That stuff's tough to work with.
Probably shouldn't take mathematical advice from someone who confuses "3 to 3000 times" with "3 to 3000 percent".
Considering that SSD prices vary and performance and workload situations vary more, it's not surprising that there is a range. It's not even surprising that it's a large range. (For example, "if your workload is closer to the optimal profile, the price needs to decrease by a factor of 3; if the workload is closer to the worst-case profile, the price needs to decrease by a factor of 3000". The only odd thing is the factor of 3 in a three-order-of-magnitude range.
Actually, the article includes most of those.
If only there was a linked article that addressed these questions!
What purpose is there in spending money unnecessarily?
He was in too much of a hurry to draw a parallel to his gun control views.
Frankly, religion crops up almost never in this "debate". People listening to others out of authority or because they like the secondary effects of their claims (I don't like higher taxes, so global warming is a myth), whether that person is Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh, isn't religion. For that matter, neither is blind agreement with something because it's convenient or popular, and neither is the tinfoil hat "everything must be a way for the government to control and tax us".
The weather is still the weather. What we're talking about is climate. You should've learned the difference before you left elementary school.
Unless, of course, some portion of the ice shelf is not free-floating.
You are aware that radio devices use different frequencies, yes?
So, did you then confuse possession and distribution? I still don't see how possession of nmap, neither committing a crime nor intending to, is illegal under that reading.
I can turn uranium into lead. Is that close enough?