I can only speak based on turnitin, but assume all of these services are similar in respects. I note that turnitin will often make mistakes, and is also incredibly easy to fool. Changing keywords, and sentence structure etc..., it is rather easy to rewrite the whole thing to avoid detection. Having seen it make mistakes because of stuff that actually was already written, and is conicdentally similar, I wonder how useful it is for text written hudnreds of years ago.
What if someone wnated to write in a shakespearian style, or genuinley had a similar style be default? What is the actual reliable indication that this poem was Shakespears?
If the users role has access to sudo, and sudo has access to change to the root role, then everything is working as it should. You can easily change the policy to prevent this. A bad configuration is not a design flaw.
Re:OpenBSD - not that secure...
on
OpenBSD 4.6 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My point was that OpenBSD is not a 'secure system', despite being quality code.
It provides no ways to limit or control the system, or to limit access if an attack does occur.
It is good practice to assume that an attack may occur, and be prepared for it.
I never said OpenBSD was snake oil, simply that it is not the secure system people seem to think it is.
And, no, you can't bypass RBAC with SUID bombs if it is set up correctly.
Rubbish. The problem is you simply ignoring messages because you don't understand them, instead of bothering to get acquainted with the technology in the first place.
What problem do you have with SELinux? Perhaps you don't understand correctly how it works. It has a bad rep for being cumbersome, but it isn't terribly hard to learn if you're willing. There are several examples of it blocking exploits and 0 day attacks, because of the method I describe. You may find this article interesting, with links to some of Dan Walsh's blog posts.
As for VMS, it is widely considered to be one of the most secure systems. Just have a quick look at it's vulnarability history. It puts OpenBSD to shame. More info.
OpenBSD security is in large part overstated, and at worst, a myth.
Let us look at 3 main points, of which the last is the most important.
1. Secure by default. Yes, having services turned off by default is a good move. It also actually has nothing to do with the security of what you actually have running.
2. Auditing. Only the base system is audited. The ports are often quite far behind. Most attacks are not against "the base system".
3. Lastly...OpenBSD, by design, is not a secure system. A secure system is much, much more than just a lack of vulnerabilities. It is the ability to have controls and lock down things, to prevent unauthorized access. Instead, the OpenBSD approach does it's very best to assume that people don't get in, but does little to help when something does go wrong. Or, you know, if you even wanted to actually restrict access with more than just the user/group scheme. Hell, they don't even have a basic ACL. VMS was a secure system. Very recent editions of Windows are well on their way to becoming secure systems. OpenBSD is not.
In fact, as it stands, Linux is a far, far more secure system, because of access to things like SELinux and RSBAC. These frameworks allow you to lock down and control every aspect of your system. Anything you want to restrict and how, you basically can. It takes the "everything is a file" philosophy to the next step. These systems are more secure for one simple reason. You should be prepared in case someone does, not simply try to eliminate all bugs all together, which while noble, is a flawed attempt. Not to mention the inability to restrict legitimate users on the system in a limiting way...
Instead, if someone successfully gets root on OpenBSD..then they have root, This is getting better with privilege separated stuff, but Linux had this in 3rd party patches about 10 years ago. With SELinux and RSBAC, you can remove the concept of root. If someone hacks a webserver...well, the webserver does not need write access, except maybe to tmp, it won't need execute access, it won't need to initiate outgoing connections, and it won't need write access, only append access to/var/log. The attacker can't do anything, and you simply can't do something similar with OpenBSD.
In fact, despite Theo being staunchly opposed to such attempts, there was one. Systrace. It was nowhere near as powerful or flexible as the aforementioned frameworks, but it was a start. Instead, The developers decided to use an insecure technique, system call interposition, shown to be insecure. After this they gave up.
OpenBSD is an extremely quality codebase, and it is more secure for small stuff and does make a good router or firewall. It is by no means a secure system though, and should not be hailed as one.
Yes, URL'S are not just for webpages, hence the Universal part.
As I said, there would be a default, and the protcol would be specified, as encessary.
For example, at the moment, you don't have to prefix http:/// to link to a webserver, because it is assumed to be http. That is what a webbrowser looks for, or https. However, we can manually specify mailto or ftp, and then it will be treated as defined.
The slashes help nothing, and the conclusion you drew from your examples is false, unless I am misunderstanding your point.
Your examples clear have a : separating the protocol and address. Without the protocol specified, it will default to http, as it does now. Considering that whatever you type in a webbrowser is really only going to be using http or tls/ssl, then there is no need to specifiy the protocol, unless it is something else, like rss or whatever.
Likewise, outside of a browser, the relevant programs will be used and the protocol to use will be obvious or can easily be specified.
The slashes have no merits, and nor does your example.
The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes.
No they aren't.
Yes, they bloody well are. Besides, parents said arguably, and was not stating it as a fact.
No they're not. And he was not doing any such thing.
Yes, they are. Who was not doing what? Parent said this fact could be argued, the first reply was stating his reply as a fact.
MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture.
Yes it does.
Sure. A minimal amount. Which was parents point.
No it wasn't.
Yes, it was. "doesn't really have much influence on popular culture", acknowledinging that it does have a small, or minimal influence.
The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.
No they haven't.
They certainly did. Can you show how most sitcoms were not in some way influenced by them, or did not follow the same basic format?
Can you show me how most were?
It should not be necessary to explain the obvious. Most sitcoms follow the format followed be the aforrementioned show. Sitcoms that don't, tend to be the exception. A good example of an exception, would be seinfeld, and then perhaps peep show. For every exception, there is probably around 30 that follow the format of the aforementioned shows.
Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.
No it couldn't.
How can it not?
How can it?
So, you don't think the parents point can be debated? Why not?
[i]Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by the German Constitution.[/i]
Rubbish. Germany has Freedom of Expression like Iran has Freedom of Press. I know, I live in the damn place.
Honestly, it'S a joke, the grandparent is right, and the goverment needs to take a step back and stop babysitting the citizens. Except, that the Germans love it. We love to criticise over goverments that limit freedom of speech, but in germany, where the people want and accept it, it is quite a strange case, and not much can be said.
[i]Jeez, people, everytime anything related to this law comes up, everyone starts crying censorship. There is one small bloody set of symbols that's forbidden. One stupid verse of a song, and one stupid greeting.[/]
And with this, you completely miss the point. It is censorship, and it is completely retarded and unjustifed. While once it may not have been, there is no longer any excuse for it.
NO, not "loads and loads". Quite a few, but that does not make the term wrong. technically, Linux is just a kernel, as the term happens to be used, it tends to refer to the userspace as well.
Distros that go against the grain somewhat, with a different libc or without x or with busybox, are still very much considered linux. Android, is very much only a Linux kernel. It is not that they don't ship with X, it is that they have their own unique to android graphics server, their own libc not used anywhere else...its all new, unorthodox, and not part of the standard linux realm.
Android is as much Linux(as the term is used), as Debian running on a FreeBSD kernel is FreeBSD.
There is absolutely no problem. Even RMS is fine with it.
The problem is these fanatics who embrace and extent the philosophy beyond a reasonable point because they lack a grasp of the real world. Charging for software is bad? Please. Unfortunately, the same thing happened with Linux, with all the MS IS EVIL idiots embracing it as their platform of choice. Which ultimately, is only holding back development.
People who try to enforce freedom by restricting freedom don't understand what freedom means.
Don't be foolish. The world is not so simple, black and white as compared to the colours of imaginary hats. In the world we live in, there may be many justified reasons for breaking into a computer. Script kiddies don't just idolise blackhats, anyone interested in security research does, for coming up with the frequently ingenuous attacks they devise. Judging them for their actions is another issue altogether.
Spending to have your birthday there would more than likely be to do with games.
It makes sense actually. Get some music playing, play some Xbox or games on LIVE...it's not a bad idea, and certainly not sinister in the least. Arcades have somewhat died in the last few years, so it could very well make sense to book something like this instead of an internet cafe, depending on what you get for the price...
PC hardware is cheaper. PC software is cheaper. PC software 'just works' despite people claiming it does not.
Windows is very stables these days, despite claims to the contrary. There is far more software available for it than any other hardware, and it will run on any hardware of my choosing(within range of course). When I use a PC, I know that I will have access to all the applications, have the freedoms to choose between operating systems and hardware, and that if I want to, I can make it look just as pretty as a Mac. Let's not mention Apple's atrocious security record....
The excuse that Apples just work is just crap. Stability is not the issue it once was, and those people have watched one too many "I'm a Mac" ads.
Premium in this case is referring to the hardware, not the entire system including software. You want to extent the definition being used so you can say it is no longer accurate. A top of the line PC is a premium system, and a premium price is payed for it. The software does not matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only speak based on turnitin, but assume all of these services are similar in respects. I note that turnitin will often make mistakes, and is also incredibly easy to fool. Changing keywords, and sentence structure etc..., it is rather easy to rewrite the whole thing to avoid detection. Having seen it make mistakes because of stuff that actually was already written, and is conicdentally similar, I wonder how useful it is for text written hudnreds of years ago.
What if someone wnated to write in a shakespearian style, or genuinley had a similar style be default? What is the actual reliable indication that this poem was Shakespears?
Considering how much the archive misses, there is reason to be suspcious. I would guess it has only 50%, of only web content, at the very most.
I say this after managing several websites over the last 10 years and seeing very few of them archived, despite being high ranking in searches.
I don't think you understand RBAC.
If the users role has access to sudo, and sudo has access to change to the root role, then everything is working as it should. You can easily change the policy to prevent this. A bad configuration is not a design flaw.
My point was that OpenBSD is not a 'secure system', despite being quality code.
It provides no ways to limit or control the system, or to limit access if an attack does occur.
It is good practice to assume that an attack may occur, and be prepared for it.
I never said OpenBSD was snake oil, simply that it is not the secure system people seem to think it is.
And, no, you can't bypass RBAC with SUID bombs if it is set up correctly.
Rubbish. The problem is you simply ignoring messages because you don't understand them, instead of bothering to get acquainted with the technology in the first place.
Oops, sorry. OpenVMS security overview here.
http://www.blacksheepnetworks.com/security/resources/openvms/
What problem do you have with SELinux? Perhaps you don't understand correctly how it works. It has a bad rep for being cumbersome, but it isn't terribly hard to learn if you're willing. There are several examples of it blocking exploits and 0 day attacks, because of the method I describe. You may find this article interesting, with links to some of Dan Walsh's blog posts.
As for VMS, it is widely considered to be one of the most secure systems. Just have a quick look at it's vulnarability history. It puts OpenBSD to shame. More info.
OpenBSD security is in large part overstated, and at worst, a myth.
Let us look at 3 main points, of which the last is the most important.
1. Secure by default. Yes, having services turned off by default is a good move. It also actually has nothing to do with the security of what you actually have running.
2. Auditing. Only the base system is audited. The ports are often quite far behind. Most attacks are not against "the base system".
3. Lastly...OpenBSD, by design, is not a secure system. A secure system is much, much more than just a lack of vulnerabilities. It is the ability to have controls and lock down things, to prevent unauthorized access. Instead, the OpenBSD approach does it's very best to assume that people don't get in, but does little to help when something does go wrong. Or, you know, if you even wanted to actually restrict access with more than just the user/group scheme. Hell, they don't even have a basic ACL. VMS was a secure system. Very recent editions of Windows are well on their way to becoming secure systems. OpenBSD is not.
In fact, as it stands, Linux is a far, far more secure system, because of access to things like SELinux and RSBAC. These frameworks allow you to lock down and control every aspect of your system. Anything you want to restrict and how, you basically can. It takes the "everything is a file" philosophy to the next step. These systems are more secure for one simple reason. You should be prepared in case someone does, not simply try to eliminate all bugs all together, which while noble, is a flawed attempt. Not to mention the inability to restrict legitimate users on the system in a limiting way...
Instead, if someone successfully gets root on OpenBSD..then they have root, This is getting better with privilege separated stuff, but Linux had this in 3rd party patches about 10 years ago. With SELinux and RSBAC, you can remove the concept of root. If someone hacks a webserver...well, the webserver does not need write access, except maybe to tmp, it won't need execute access, it won't need to initiate outgoing connections, and it won't need write access, only append access to /var/log. The attacker can't do anything, and you simply can't do something similar with OpenBSD.
In fact, despite Theo being staunchly opposed to such attempts, there was one. Systrace. It was nowhere near as powerful or flexible as the aforementioned frameworks, but it was a start. Instead, The developers decided to use an insecure technique, system call interposition, shown to be insecure. After this they gave up.
OpenBSD is an extremely quality codebase, and it is more secure for small stuff and does make a good router or firewall. It is by no means a secure system though, and should not be hailed as one.
Yes, URL'S are not just for webpages, hence the Universal part.
As I said, there would be a default, and the protcol would be specified, as encessary.
For example, at the moment, you don't have to prefix http:/// to link to a webserver, because it is assumed to be http. That is what a webbrowser looks for, or https. However, we can manually specify mailto or ftp, and then it will be treated as defined.
The slashes help nothing, and the conclusion you drew from your examples is false, unless I am misunderstanding your point.
What?
How the hell does that make sense?
Your examples clear have a : separating the protocol and address. Without the protocol specified, it will default to http, as it does now. Considering that whatever you type in a webbrowser is really only going to be using http or tls/ssl, then there is no need to specifiy the protocol, unless it is something else, like rss or whatever.
Likewise, outside of a browser, the relevant programs will be used and the protocol to use will be obvious or can easily be specified.
The slashes have no merits, and nor does your example.
No they're not. And he was not doing any such thing.
Yes, they are. Who was not doing what? Parent said this fact could be argued, the first reply was stating his reply as a fact.
Sure. A minimal amount. Which was parents point.
No it wasn't.
Yes, it was. "doesn't really have much influence on popular culture", acknowledinging that it does have a small, or minimal influence.
They certainly did. Can you show how most sitcoms were not in some way influenced by them, or did not follow the same basic format?
Can you show me how most were?
It should not be necessary to explain the obvious. Most sitcoms follow the format followed be the aforrementioned show. Sitcoms that don't, tend to be the exception. A good example of an exception, would be seinfeld, and then perhaps peep show. For every exception, there is probably around 30 that follow the format of the aforementioned shows.
How can it not?
How can it?
So, you don't think the parents point can be debated? Why not?
The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes.
No they aren't.
Yes, they bloody well are. Besides, parents said arguably, and was not stating it as a fact.
MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture.
Yes it does.
Sure. A minimal amount. Which was parents point.
The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.
No they haven't.
They certainly did. Can you show how most sitcoms were not in some way influenced by them, or did not follow the same basic format?
Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.
No it couldn't.
How can it not?
[i]Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by the German Constitution.[/i]
Rubbish. Germany has Freedom of Expression like Iran has Freedom of Press. I know, I live in the damn place.
Honestly, it'S a joke, the grandparent is right, and the goverment needs to take a step back and stop babysitting the citizens. Except, that the Germans love it. We love to criticise over goverments that limit freedom of speech, but in germany, where the people want and accept it, it is quite a strange case, and not much can be said.
[i]Jeez, people, everytime anything related to this law comes up, everyone starts crying censorship. There is one small bloody set of symbols that's forbidden. One stupid verse of a song, and one stupid greeting.[/]
And with this, you completely miss the point. It is censorship, and it is completely retarded and unjustifed. While once it may not have been, there is no longer any excuse for it.
NO, not "loads and loads". Quite a few, but that does not make the term wrong. technically, Linux is just a kernel, as the term happens to be used, it tends to refer to the userspace as well.
Distros that go against the grain somewhat, with a different libc or without x or with busybox, are still very much considered linux. Android, is very much only a Linux kernel. It is not that they don't ship with X, it is that they have their own unique to android graphics server, their own libc not used anywhere else...its all new, unorthodox, and not part of the standard linux realm.
Android is as much Linux(as the term is used), as Debian running on a FreeBSD kernel is FreeBSD.
You can never stop people throwing stones, so you have to put a board over the window...
I love that some people still try to reclaim the word hacker. In a story about DEFCON no less.
There is absolutely no problem. Even RMS is fine with it.
The problem is these fanatics who embrace and extent the philosophy beyond a reasonable point because they lack a grasp of the real world. Charging for software is bad? Please. Unfortunately, the same thing happened with Linux, with all the MS IS EVIL idiots embracing it as their platform of choice. Which ultimately, is only holding back development.
People who try to enforce freedom by restricting freedom don't understand what freedom means.
Well, the Brittish people should have lobbied and had the idiot law removed with their votes.
Is it really surprising anyone the US is trying to enforce their laws and their ideals on other countries?
What he did was wrong. He broke a law in his own land. Let it be dealt with there.
What you may refer to as a greyhat, Others might a blackhat, while I may think there were doing the right thing. As I said, it's not so simple.
Don't be foolish. The world is not so simple, black and white as compared to the colours of imaginary hats. In the world we live in, there may be many justified reasons for breaking into a computer. Script kiddies don't just idolise blackhats, anyone interested in security research does, for coming up with the frequently ingenuous attacks they devise. Judging them for their actions is another issue altogether.
You only have to make the source available.
This does not have to be on the website. It can be via a CD mailed out to you.
Spending to have your birthday there would more than likely be to do with games.
It makes sense actually. Get some music playing, play some Xbox or games on LIVE...it's not a bad idea, and certainly not sinister in the least. Arcades have somewhat died in the last few years, so it could very well make sense to book something like this instead of an internet cafe, depending on what you get for the price...
It's just not.
PC hardware is cheaper. PC software is cheaper. PC software 'just works' despite people claiming it does not.
Windows is very stables these days, despite claims to the contrary. There is far more software available for it than any other hardware, and it will run on any hardware of my choosing(within range of course). When I use a PC, I know that I will have access to all the applications, have the freedoms to choose between operating systems and hardware, and that if I want to, I can make it look just as pretty as a Mac. Let's not mention Apple's atrocious security record....
The excuse that Apples just work is just crap. Stability is not the issue it once was, and those people have watched one too many "I'm a Mac" ads.
So basically you justify paying for overpriced hardware and style, by saying they look pretty and OS X is better than Windows.
Nice try.
A PC is what, half the cost, can run any number of OS's(even OS X, and it should be able to legally), and tends to use the exact same components.
No, it's not.
Premium in this case is referring to the hardware, not the entire system including software. You want to extent the definition being used so you can say it is no longer accurate. A top of the line PC is a premium system, and a premium price is payed for it. The software does not matter.