That's not intrustion detection.
It's change detection, yes. System integrity, yes... but not an IDS.
Just like that rather neat linux kernel patch that locks off files and doesn't allow them to be changed isn't an intrusion detection system.. it's a change prevention system.
THe case is about DMCA and 'distributing information / device/mechanism to circumvent a technological copy control mechanism'.
THe case is not about how they arrived with DECSS.. everyone, even the lawyers, like to try to bringn up the outside issues.
THe case is about decss, period, as a violation of the DMCA.
You look at it the wrong way.
A US court has 'jurisdiction' over someone not on US soil only in theri own is. The court believes it has the power to rule on what goes on.
There is a difference between what a given legal system/district/whatever feels it has the right to do, and what the law can actually enforce.
Remember.. they can rule all they want.. but foreign law enforcement would have to deal with it.
And the odds of extraditing based on somethign that is legal where the person is doing it are astronomical.
google made it's money by letting other portals/search engines use it as a back end. So it's hidden.
If you want to put up 'Bob's 'leet search page' and run a huge bob portal.... and use google's search engine as a backend, you can... you just have to pay google.
People have to get over the 'anyone can modify it' stuff.
'Anyone can modify it' means two things.
1) The source is available
2) It's LEGAL to modify it.
Nothing more. It doesn't mean that 'anyone can walk into your installation and 'modify' your stuff.
It means you have to take responsibility YOURSELF for ensuring that you stay consistant with whatever setup you want.
This article is not informative, and patently useless.
This guy is simply trying to argue semantics over the meaning of 'Operating System'.
If 'Operating System' equates (it doesn't) to 'All code which is responsible for providing the end user experience while using the computer', then, for joe average, linux (and unix), Sucks. Gee. No kidding.
If 'broke' equated to 'Having lots of money' then broke people would be very successfull in life.
If 'war' meant people running around hugging each other, the world would be a better place.
But neither is true...
No, money does not rule everything. The people and the courts rule everything. Money is certainly the most common, and usually, the most powerful influence on society.. but not always.
And big companies have *NEVER* had free rule over me..
I can't believe they would say this. I mean.. this could backfire *SO* bad on them.
What if sony tried to buy all the cable companies? ISPS? FTC anyone? class action lawsuit in multiple countries anyone? GOod luck sony.. good luck.
if mp3board.com can be sued for simply providing a search engine that, among other things, finds illegal mp3, then why can't gnutella be sued as well? They have a point.
It's amazing. Take a perfectly normal concept, like meshed networks, and apply it to wireless, and suddenly, you have made some kind of great advancement of science.
I don't see how this is any different than normal problems. Ther are using a wireless PHI.. fine.
The only point the article has made is that the price of optical open-air laser networking gear has come way down, so now it is feasible to build meshed networks with it, and hence, overcome some of the inherent problems with it.
And if the equipment used to cost $150,000.. how much do you think the monthly rental for that DS3 cost anyway? Not cheap. It will quickly dwarf the cost of equipment.
Of course, when we talk about canned networks for corporations (which *IS* a big deal these days), this gets more interesting.
So.. you are right. But..
If you don't get the job, and later work for someone else, and the company tries to sue you fro breach of NDA because they figure you gave information you learned during the interview, information protected by NDA, to the competitor, they have to take you to court.
And if they do so, they have to PROVE that you got this information from them. If you already knew it from somewhere else, what can they do?
No. Union + Tech = bad. We aren't a labour force. We are a technical job... more akin to science than labour. At least, my own career is.
(I find lumping all 'system adminsitrators' together is meaningless, there are SO many levels of competence and sophistication)
Sorry pal. If you came to an interview with me, to work in my department, you would sign an NDA. Why? Because.
a) I'm not going to hire you unless I first get to inform you about exactly how things are working at the shop, so I can see how you feel about it and decide for myself if I want you on the team and
b) I'm not showing you this stuff if you won't sign an NDA
and
c) If you won't sign an NDA, then why the hell should I trust you with anything? WHy would I want to work with you?
Why do people have this big problem with NDAs? They are limited in scope.... companies sign them to cover their ass, not to fuck you over.
What's the big deal with agreeing not to discolse confidential information?
And the universe, for the purposes of the second law, is assumed to be a closed system.
So, information 'disappearing' into a black hole *does* appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which means something else must balance it out.
What about hawking radiation though? Could that not be seen as increasing the entropy in the universe?
If you keep a mirror up to date, it would only take a minute or two to get whatever 'final' changes were necessary to be up to date to the release version.
Becuase.. windows doesn't, by default, use the GNU tools, wheras linux distros is almost exclusively built around gnu tools. Whether we like it or not, RMS has somewhat of a point. Somewhat.
If you removed all the GNU software from your box, it would be *useless*
?? IPSec? (perhaps this is what you describe?)
There are also a half dozen or so private protocols for doing such thing... everything from ppp over ssh, or ssltunnel, or what have you, to UDP versions, to privately encrypted IPIP.
And the public has to wake up and realize that the internet is more than just 'surfing the web' and email... that it's a data routing service. Other things they offer at higher layers like caches and such are conveniences, and may make their service more appealing, but in the end, they should *NOT* be able to tell you what application layers you can use. PERIOD.
If they want to cap bandwidth, and charge for bandwidth, that's just fine..but they must not tell me what I can and can't use as far as applications.
1) VPN != Private network. These changes have nothing whatsoever to do with 'multiple IP addresses' or 'running a private firewalled network' at home. They don't care one iota about this. A VPN is when a secure tunneling protocol is used to create virtual network connections to remote private networks, ie: your office network.
2) This is not an @home change, only a comcast@home change.. specific, it appears, to comcast, as it doesn't appear in any other cable provider's network. I believe individual providers are allowed to add their own restrictions if they wish.
VPN has nothing to do with NAT & local networks. They are not saying 'you must get additional IPs from us', they don't care. the IPs are there if you want; firewall off your own privat network if you want.
What they are trying to prevent is people using @home to VPN in to their office networks, and this should REALLY DISTURB PEOPLE.
It should *NOT* be @HOME's place to tell us what kind of traffic is acceptable, other than network abuse itself. If they want to up bandwidth fees, that's fine.
Hmm. I wonder why @home is so insistant on forcing people to web surf and email only... could it be they are tracking statistics?
Documentation is certainly the major issue, however..
It seems to me that the author is missing the fact that Unix shops tend to have a lot less admins. Usually one main admin, and then several others who work under him (under being a lose term, they are usually a tightly knit group, as they have to be to run a clean shop). The odds of 'small changes' that would cause problems being made are not as likely.
NT shops, on the other hand, tend to have one admin per 5 servers or so. Unix shops tend to have one admin for several dozen servers.
Also, on the unix/NT side of things, all would agree, it is much *easier* to locate an unknown change in a unix system than it is in an NT system, by a longshot.
I think the point is that the tubes can rotate around one another, without contact, due to the fact that we're at a molecular level. THere are molecular forces, Vand-der Waals forces or whatever, but essentially, they won't 'wear'.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not intrustion detection.
It's change detection, yes. System integrity, yes... but not an IDS.
Just like that rather neat linux kernel patch that locks off files and doesn't allow them to be changed isn't an intrusion detection system.. it's a change prevention system.
THe case is not about 'reverse engineering'.
/mechanism to circumvent a technological copy control mechanism'.
THe case is about DMCA and 'distributing information / device
THe case is not about how they arrived with DECSS.. everyone, even the lawyers, like to try to bringn up the outside issues.
THe case is about decss, period, as a violation of the DMCA.
You look at it the wrong way. A US court has 'jurisdiction' over someone not on US soil only in theri own is. The court believes it has the power to rule on what goes on. There is a difference between what a given legal system/district/whatever feels it has the right to do, and what the law can actually enforce. Remember.. they can rule all they want.. but foreign law enforcement would have to deal with it. And the odds of extraditing based on somethign that is legal where the person is doing it are astronomical.
google made it's money by letting other portals/search engines use it as a back end. So it's hidden.
If you want to put up 'Bob's 'leet search page' and run a huge bob portal.... and use google's search engine as a backend, you can... you just have to pay google.
People have to get over the 'anyone can modify it' stuff.
'Anyone can modify it' means two things.
1) The source is available
2) It's LEGAL to modify it.
Nothing more. It doesn't mean that 'anyone can walk into your installation and 'modify' your stuff.
It means you have to take responsibility YOURSELF for ensuring that you stay consistant with whatever setup you want.
I don't know about the fingerprint.. but the point was, the second key is not part of the 'signed' portion of the key.. so it would go unnoticed.
This article is not informative, and patently useless. This guy is simply trying to argue semantics over the meaning of 'Operating System'. If 'Operating System' equates (it doesn't) to 'All code which is responsible for providing the end user experience while using the computer', then, for joe average, linux (and unix), Sucks. Gee. No kidding. If 'broke' equated to 'Having lots of money' then broke people would be very successfull in life. If 'war' meant people running around hugging each other, the world would be a better place. But neither is true...
No, money does not rule everything. The people and the courts rule everything. Money is certainly the most common, and usually, the most powerful influence on society.. but not always.
And big companies have *NEVER* had free rule over me..
I can't believe they would say this. I mean.. this could backfire *SO* bad on them. What if sony tried to buy all the cable companies? ISPS? FTC anyone? class action lawsuit in multiple countries anyone? GOod luck sony.. good luck.
if mp3board.com can be sued for simply providing a search engine that, among other things, finds illegal mp3, then why can't gnutella be sued as well? They have a point.
The point is, both are rediculous.
And what will the HR dude do with your perl app?
Won't it be hard to do feedback mouse using an optical mouse?
It's amazing. Take a perfectly normal concept, like meshed networks, and apply it to wireless, and suddenly, you have made some kind of great advancement of science.
I don't see how this is any different than normal problems. Ther are using a wireless PHI.. fine.
The only point the article has made is that the price of optical open-air laser networking gear has come way down, so now it is feasible to build meshed networks with it, and hence, overcome some of the inherent problems with it.
And if the equipment used to cost $150,000.. how much do you think the monthly rental for that DS3 cost anyway? Not cheap. It will quickly dwarf the cost of equipment.
Of course, when we talk about canned networks for corporations (which *IS* a big deal these days), this gets more interesting.
So.. you are right. But..
If you don't get the job, and later work for someone else, and the company tries to sue you fro breach of NDA because they figure you gave information you learned during the interview, information protected by NDA, to the competitor, they have to take you to court.
And if they do so, they have to PROVE that you got this information from them. If you already knew it from somewhere else, what can they do?
No. Union + Tech = bad. We aren't a labour force. We are a technical job... more akin to science than labour. At least, my own career is.
(I find lumping all 'system adminsitrators' together is meaningless, there are SO many levels of competence and sophistication)
Sorry pal. If you came to an interview with me, to work in my department, you would sign an NDA. Why? Because.
a) I'm not going to hire you unless I first get to inform you about exactly how things are working at the shop, so I can see how you feel about it and decide for myself if I want you on the team and
b) I'm not showing you this stuff if you won't sign an NDA
and
c) If you won't sign an NDA, then why the hell should I trust you with anything? WHy would I want to work with you?
Why do people have this big problem with NDAs? They are limited in scope.... companies sign them to cover their ass, not to fuck you over.
What's the big deal with agreeing not to discolse confidential information?
And the universe, for the purposes of the second law, is assumed to be a closed system.
So, information 'disappearing' into a black hole *does* appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which means something else must balance it out.
What about hawking radiation though? Could that not be seen as increasing the entropy in the universe?
If you keep a mirror up to date, it would only take a minute or two to get whatever 'final' changes were necessary to be up to date to the release version.
Becuase.. windows doesn't, by default, use the GNU tools, wheras linux distros is almost exclusively built around gnu tools. Whether we like it or not, RMS has somewhat of a point. Somewhat.
If you removed all the GNU software from your box, it would be *useless*
?? IPSec? (perhaps this is what you describe?)
There are also a half dozen or so private protocols for doing such thing... everything from ppp over ssh, or ssltunnel, or what have you, to UDP versions, to privately encrypted IPIP.
And the public has to wake up and realize that the internet is more than just 'surfing the web' and email... that it's a data routing service. Other things they offer at higher layers like caches and such are conveniences, and may make their service more appealing, but in the end, they should *NOT* be able to tell you what application layers you can use. PERIOD.
If they want to cap bandwidth, and charge for bandwidth, that's just fine..but they must not tell me what I can and can't use as far as applications.
1) VPN != Private network. These changes have nothing whatsoever to do with 'multiple IP addresses' or 'running a private firewalled network' at home. They don't care one iota about this. A VPN is when a secure tunneling protocol is used to create virtual network connections to remote private networks, ie: your office network.
2) This is not an @home change, only a comcast@home change.. specific, it appears, to comcast, as it doesn't appear in any other cable provider's network. I believe individual providers are allowed to add their own restrictions if they wish.
There is no 'standard' VPN protocol. All you would see is an encrypted datastream.
VPN has nothing to do with NAT & local networks. They are not saying 'you must get additional IPs from us', they don't care. the IPs are there if you want; firewall off your own privat network if you want.
What they are trying to prevent is people using @home to VPN in to their office networks, and this should REALLY DISTURB PEOPLE.
It should *NOT* be @HOME's place to tell us what kind of traffic is acceptable, other than network abuse itself. If they want to up bandwidth fees, that's fine.
Hmm. I wonder why @home is so insistant on forcing people to web surf and email only... could it be they are tracking statistics?
Documentation is certainly the major issue, however..
It seems to me that the author is missing the fact that Unix shops tend to have a lot less admins. Usually one main admin, and then several others who work under him (under being a lose term, they are usually a tightly knit group, as they have to be to run a clean shop). The odds of 'small changes' that would cause problems being made are not as likely.
NT shops, on the other hand, tend to have one admin per 5 servers or so. Unix shops tend to have one admin for several dozen servers.
Also, on the unix/NT side of things, all would agree, it is much *easier* to locate an unknown change in a unix system than it is in an NT system, by a longshot.
Yes
I think the point is that the tubes can rotate around one another, without contact, due to the fact that we're at a molecular level. THere are molecular forces, Vand-der Waals forces or whatever, but essentially, they won't 'wear'.