And btw, I recently switched from Linux to OpenBSD 2.8 on my world-visible box. Like the article said, because it's secure by default, I don't have to constantly keep up with BUGTRAQ to make sure I'm not going to get whacked. My personal computer is still Linux though. Different tools for different jobs.
Yes, but if an analysis of the software shows that it can't detect or doesn't recognize say, tanks arranged into a 'L' shaped pattern, that knowledge would provide an advantage to the enemy. (This is precisely the logic behind the DoD's reluctance to use OSS solutions; the enemy can see what we're doing...)
Is OSS really an appropriate solution for somebody like NIMA? It's not they're going to be releasing this code to the community-at-large, and they probably don't want the adversary (whomever that is on any given day) to be able to know their limits and capabilities. Yes, the product itself might benefit from having more eyeballs run over it, but is that worth the exposure to the adversary? NIMA isn't exactly doing research on global warming...
First, let's stop foaming at the mouth and look at reality: The US government cannot make encryption go away. The crooks are going to keep using it whether it's legal or not. You can't make a technology disappear. Even if it was "illegal" in the US, you could get it from places overseas. (The same way even though it wasn't supposed to be exported you could get it on the Internet.)
The current DOJ Policy on Encryption says that what they want is third party escrow of private keys. Now I'm not vouching for that system at all, but just keep that in mind. The idea, of course, is that the "big" companies will put escrow in their products, and then only the escrow'ed products will be approved for export.
Yes, but the rhetoric will be something along the lines of, "America is the most technologically superior nation in the world, so of course they're just getting this stuff from us. If we stop exporting it, they won't be able to get it anymore." It's totally flawed thanks to this @#!# Information Superhighway thingy, but that's what they'll say. (Maybe if we just cut the Transportation Department funding?)
Any technology, the oldest (fire) included, can be used for the good of all or to destroy.
I absolutely agree with you. There are some technologies, however, such as explosives, which although they have good uses, are mostly used for destructive purposes. Thus, they are tightly controlled by governments to restrict their getting into the wrong hands. Perhaps part of the problem is that because encryption, like explosives technology, is not widely used, many people see it as being only weapon. Most people still assume their e-mail is private (after all, it's illegal, according to the wiretap laws to run a sniffer if you're not authorized) so what's the need for encryption?
They may not be pro calliber players, no, but a lot of people still very seriously enjoy good college football. The players in the XFL were all very good college football players. (Whether another college football league is viable is another question, of course, but I think the XFL is supposed to be more about the spectacle than the sport. I was just saying that the XFL's ad campaign was misleading in that regard. They promoted the sport when they're really trying to sell the flashy/jiggly things.
RedHat would win that one. I can see the billboard ads now: A shot of a woman wearing a penguin baseball hat (and nothing else), from the waist up, her arms crossed over her chest. The words next to her, "I like RedHat, and nothing else."
Like the USFL and the World League of American Football, these are just the good college football players that couldn't make it into the NFL.
Personally, I can't wait until one of the camermen gets run over. (I have a feeling that would be more in line with what many of the WWF/XFL viewers are looking for anyway...)
As an ex-offensive lineman, "real" football isn't about the 80 yard touchdown catches or wild high scoring games that the XFL promised. Real football is about who has the bigger, faster, stronger guys who can push, shove, and outsmart the other team. That isn't always very exciting to watch; running plays that get five or six yards per carry that form consistent drives that eat up the clock. Don't get me wrong, flashy camera work and buxom cheerleaders are all well and good, but the roots of football don't involve that sort of stuff.
While it's difficult to justify blind faith in a newspaper in a foreign country, one does put at least a little bit of faith in ZDNet. From the movie Sneakers, "You won't know who to trust..."
the fact that God isn't filing a lawsuit would seem to indicate that he doesn't exist
I dunno. Although it had more to do with copyright infringement rather than reverse engineering, the church of scientology had a pretty big lawsuit a while back...
M$ posted the specs to Word documents for version 8 (aka Word97) on the MSDN site and on the MSDN CDs. The documentation has since been pulled from the web site, but is now available from other sites such as wotsit. The program wvWare is an open source program that can read "word
2000, 97, 95 and 6 file formats." I assume that the ability to read Word2000 files is based on reverse engineering.
Although not a book, A Few Good Men was originally a stage play. The play's author, Aaron Sorkin, reworked his script to develop the screenplay, and in IMHO, did an excellent job. Although the play itself is good, it doesn't carry the power and drama that the screenplay does. The film version combined a good script with an outstanding cast (including our friend Mr. Nicholson in a role that many people now know him by) to create a truly outstanding film. It both entertains and leaves the audience thinking afterwards.
Actually, when I first read the article I thought it said the movie was done by Michael Moore of Roger and Me fame. That might have been cute: Roger trying to get an interview with Bill Gates and in the meantime showing the downtrodden IT workers that have to deal with the crap his company spews...
Yes, but how many novices think "I want to be a POWERuser! Make my computer a server!" Yes, I know, you can't help people who don't RTFM, but does the install screen at least display that information too?
Ditto for Netscape Messenger. The problem lies in the 'features' of Outlook that let an attachment access the addressbook? Too many of these insecure features are what enemies call 'weaknesses' (which is a frightening prospect when you realize that the DoD and the US Government use M$ products almost exclusively...)
No, it's more like saying I'd rather use a lower technology car because the high-tech car, which thought it knew I "where I wanted to go" kept driving itself into walls. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the features of Outlook et al, but I can't stand it when software thinks it knows what I want. That leads to problems, especially when it starts opening holes in the system.
PS. Don't talk to me about security or whatever. There is a tradeoff here. There are security problems, but the overall gain is to productivity.
Although I agree that Outlook does have some advantages, my office wasn't very productive during the WEEK we lost while they tried to fix the ILOVEYOU mess.
Aside from the hacked/Kerberized version of POP (which not that many people support), isn't IMAP more secure by allowing SSL connections?
Re:DOD also targets those with high SATs too
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
I dunno. Areas that constantly browse to http://www.iWannaBeARealMan.com/ and http://www.GIJoeisCool.com/ are probably better recruiting targets for the DoD than http://www.PutGaysInTheMilitary.com/ and http://www.GivePeaceAChance.com/
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you're in outer space does not put you beyond the reach of lawyers. Same for death.
You can order an OpenBSD CD from here: http://www.openbsd.org/orders.html.
And btw, I recently switched from Linux to OpenBSD 2.8 on my world-visible box. Like the article said, because it's secure by default, I don't have to constantly keep up with BUGTRAQ to make sure I'm not going to get whacked. My personal computer is still Linux though. Different tools for different jobs.
Yes, but if an analysis of the software shows that it can't detect or doesn't recognize say, tanks arranged into a 'L' shaped pattern, that knowledge would provide an advantage to the enemy. (This is precisely the logic behind the DoD's reluctance to use OSS solutions; the enemy can see what we're doing...)
Is OSS really an appropriate solution for somebody like NIMA? It's not they're going to be releasing this code to the community-at-large, and they probably don't want the adversary (whomever that is on any given day) to be able to know their limits and capabilities. Yes, the product itself might benefit from having more eyeballs run over it, but is that worth the exposure to the adversary? NIMA isn't exactly doing research on global warming...
The current DOJ Policy on Encryption says that what they want is third party escrow of private keys. Now I'm not vouching for that system at all, but just keep that in mind. The idea, of course, is that the "big" companies will put escrow in their products, and then only the escrow'ed products will be approved for export.
But so long as there is freeware PGP...
Yes, but the rhetoric will be something along the lines of, "America is the most technologically superior nation in the world, so of course they're just getting this stuff from us. If we stop exporting it, they won't be able to get it anymore." It's totally flawed thanks to this @#!# Information Superhighway thingy, but that's what they'll say. (Maybe if we just cut the Transportation Department funding?)
I absolutely agree with you. There are some technologies, however, such as explosives, which although they have good uses, are mostly used for destructive purposes. Thus, they are tightly controlled by governments to restrict their getting into the wrong hands. Perhaps part of the problem is that because encryption, like explosives technology, is not widely used, many people see it as being only weapon. Most people still assume their e-mail is private (after all, it's illegal, according to the wiretap laws to run a sniffer if you're not authorized) so what's the need for encryption?
They may not be pro calliber players, no, but a lot of people still very seriously enjoy good college football. The players in the XFL were all very good college football players. (Whether another college football league is viable is another question, of course, but I think the XFL is supposed to be more about the spectacle than the sport. I was just saying that the XFL's ad campaign was misleading in that regard. They promoted the sport when they're really trying to sell the flashy/jiggly things.
RedHat would win that one. I can see the billboard ads now: A shot of a woman wearing a penguin baseball hat (and nothing else), from the waist up, her arms crossed over her chest. The words next to her, "I like RedHat, and nothing else."
Personally, I can't wait until one of the camermen gets run over. (I have a feeling that would be more in line with what many of the WWF/XFL viewers are looking for anyway...)
As an ex-offensive lineman, "real" football isn't about the 80 yard touchdown catches or wild high scoring games that the XFL promised. Real football is about who has the bigger, faster, stronger guys who can push, shove, and outsmart the other team. That isn't always very exciting to watch; running plays that get five or six yards per carry that form consistent drives that eat up the clock. Don't get me wrong, flashy camera work and buxom cheerleaders are all well and good, but the roots of football don't involve that sort of stuff.
"Tank I need a pilot program for a B2-12 helicopter-- hurry."
While it's difficult to justify blind faith in a newspaper in a foreign country, one does put at least a little bit of faith in ZDNet. From the movie Sneakers, "You won't know who to trust..."
I dunno. Although it had more to do with copyright infringement rather than reverse engineering, the church of scientology had a pretty big lawsuit a while back...
M$ posted the specs to Word documents for version 8 (aka Word97) on the MSDN site and on the MSDN CDs. The documentation has since been pulled from the web site, but is now available from other sites such as wotsit. The program wvWare is an open source program that can read "word 2000, 97, 95 and 6 file formats." I assume that the ability to read Word2000 files is based on reverse engineering.
Although not a book, A Few Good Men was originally a stage play. The play's author, Aaron Sorkin, reworked his script to develop the screenplay, and in IMHO, did an excellent job. Although the play itself is good, it doesn't carry the power and drama that the screenplay does. The film version combined a good script with an outstanding cast (including our friend Mr. Nicholson in a role that many people now know him by) to create a truly outstanding film. It both entertains and leaves the audience thinking afterwards.
Actually, when I first read the article I thought it said the movie was done by Michael Moore of Roger and Me fame. That might have been cute: Roger trying to get an interview with Bill Gates and in the meantime showing the downtrodden IT workers that have to deal with the crap his company spews...
Hey, it's America. Why admire somebody with brains, talent and drive when you can admire somebody who's tall and handsome/thin and beautiful?
Yes, but how many novices think "I want to be a POWERuser! Make my computer a server!" Yes, I know, you can't help people who don't RTFM, but does the install screen at least display that information too?
Ditto for Netscape Messenger. The problem lies in the 'features' of Outlook that let an attachment access the addressbook? Too many of these insecure features are what enemies call 'weaknesses' (which is a frightening prospect when you realize that the DoD and the US Government use M$ products almost exclusively...)
No, it's more like saying I'd rather use a lower technology car because the high-tech car, which thought it knew I "where I wanted to go" kept driving itself into walls. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the features of Outlook et al, but I can't stand it when software thinks it knows what I want. That leads to problems, especially when it starts opening holes in the system.
Although I agree that Outlook does have some advantages, my office wasn't very productive during the WEEK we lost while they tried to fix the ILOVEYOU mess.
Aside from the hacked/Kerberized version of POP (which not that many people support), isn't IMAP more secure by allowing SSL connections?
It's just a way to recruit future soldiers...
Not everybody on slashdot is a registered user. Many people just lurk.