That'll come as a relief to Beddoe, who until now assumed that biologists wouldn't pay much heed to his project.
"They're working on uncovering the mysteries of life itself; we're just hacking network protocols," he said. "Which sounds more important to you?"
I don't think Beddoe should cheapen the reverse engineering aspects of networking compared to biology. We may still be years away from finding a cure to cancer, AIDs, etc. and there's a good chance that biology work in this area might not be as fruitful. After all, (without getting into a religious debate, here) man was not created by man, whereas network protocols are. Because of this, it is relatively easier for us to reverse-engineer something that was created by another human, because we know how they think. Evolution or creation, we don't know much about our own building blocks, because we don't know how either God thinks, or the universe fully works.
While his software is great for "hacking network protocols", the biologists paying attention to his work might not find what they are looking for. The inputs very well may be just too vast for his ideas to provide any help.
On the other hand, the Samba team and the Spam Assasin author will most likely enjoy this.
Actually, the ease of use and portability is what will eventually make Jabber the new thing. Don't get me wrong, Yahoo, AIM, and Microsoft's alternative have a lot more functionality, but that same functionality can be easily integrated into Jabber. In fact, many have done so already.
I interpretted "corporate America" to be the RIAA. Maybe that was wrong of me. But it would make sense that a year after MS should have had a player in the market to compete with the iPod they would come out and say something along the lines of: "Don't you see that Apple is promoting stealing with their device?"
The response the RIAA has been forced to give is: "Sure, but *they* have the users." I think some of the big boys would like to switch over to a more secure way of storing their music, but if that's not where the users are, they aren't going to do it. Money is what matters here, they can always sue the people that steal, but they *have* to be able to market to them.
I don't know if Ballmer has been paying attention.
My roommate is a die-hard Microsoft fan. I don't just mean he uses Windows over Linux, either. I mean he will get compromised because of a failed update, have to reformat and reinstall, and he *still* favors MS. Why? Because of usability. Linux does not cater towards him and it certainly doesn't offer the gameplay. Mozilla/Firefox, despite what I try to tell him about security, is laughable. After all, why should he use a browser that takes 4 seconds to load a 2 second page?
Now, despite all of that, he uses iTunes. Why? Because where other "free software" fails, Apple does not. They provide a method for him to get what he needs when he needs it. And not only that, but he pays money hand over fist for services/music through iTunes.
So my question to Ballmer would have to be: If you've lost even your fanbois to Apple, who also has DRM, how exactly do you intend to actually gain a foothold in this market?
On a perfectly safe side note, the percentage of my "stolen" music collection used to be 100% MP3, now it's 80% MP3. Any MS representative want to take a guess as to what the other format is for my stolen music?
This is quite possibly the most overused start to any phrase on the planet. Let me tell you a bit about the people that use this phrase:
1) They seem to think that they are "one of many" and that there is some collective of independant thought that will agree with them.
2) They are pompous and so full of themselves that they think their opinion matters. What they don't understand is someone can easily use it in reverse.
So that being said, let me kill the idea that this phrase could possibly be used again while you keep a straight face:
I, for one, feel that female circumsion is a spectacular idea. I, for one, enjoy my right to own a submachine gun. I, for one, am not looking forward to world of warcraft.
Most of the time, you will see this phrase as "I for one" with no commas, which usually indicates just how popular the phrase is, while being used by completed idiots that think they are "one of many that feel the same way". The reality is, the people who are in the minority opinion (yet believe they need majority opinion in order to win the argument) abuse this phrase the most.
Hmm... Let's see here. Name, Address, Email, and Phone. Yeah okay, filled out. After all, when the German government required registration for gun owners in 1938, they didn't immediately turn around and seek those people out when they banned guns. Err wait.
I would highly advise you to *not* fill out this form with any legitimate info (which is probably required for the comment to be considered). In fact, I would falsly fill it out with the personal information of your state auditor, governor, or other public figure.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it should bother *anyone* that they request all this ridiculous information for simply leaving a comment.
(Note: 1928 was the first gun registration, but it was "improved" in 1938 to include mandatory registration for any type of weapon)
The problem I have is that a huge portion of population believes "you don't have the right..." before even considering that I have ALL rights save those taken away from me.
If the government suspects me of a crime, as a citizen, I should be made aware of such. If I'm thrown into a database of "rebels" than that is hardly justice.
I'm for freedom, just a different kind than it appears our political leaders think we value. I don't want freedom *from*, I want freedom *to*. I don't see how my purchasing of say, a weapon, needs to be recorded, registered, and thrown into a database. I have no qualms with the government, I'd only want a weapon to protect myself in the instances that the government was unable to.
The local cops have the "protect and serve" insignia. I appreciate that, but there is little protection that can be afforded when they are spending their time filling quotas for traffic violations and DWIs. I guess what I'm getting at is that based upon ones origins or political views, there is now a database or reason to suspect of a crime that has not (and in my case, will not) come to fruition. It just doesn't make sense.
"We're confident that DNF will be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, game of 1998. And this confidence is not misplaced." -Scott Miller, 1997
"Duke Nukem Forever is a 1999 game and we think that timeframe matches very well with what we have planned for the game." - George Broussard, 1998
"Trust us, Duke Nukem Forever will rock when it comes out next year." -Joe Siegler, 1999
"When it's done in 2001." -2000 Christmas card
"DNF will come out before Unreal 2." -George Broussard, 2001
"If DNF is not out in 2001, something's very wrong." -George Broussard, 2001
"DNF will come out before Doom 3." -George Broussard, 2002
...
The Voyager 1 spacecraft has travelled approximately 2.5 billion miles since the announcement of Duke Nukem Forever.
The rovers Spirit and Opportunity were proposed, authorized, announced, designed, launched and successfully landed upon Mars within the timeframe of Duke Nukem Forever's development.
The majority of the children who were entering high school the school year following Duke Nukem Forever's announcement are now eligible to drink.
I understand that when I am in a public venue I have no right to privacy. I think everybody understands that.
I don't.
I don't understand what it is about the ninth amendment that the US Government fails to comprehend. I have a right to privacy. I would *hope* that would mean that I have a right to not have any identifying information stored in a public record if I did not desire such.
If they suspect me of a crime, then by God, they should charge me with one. Not follow me around till I forget to signal when making a left turn. Speaking of which, why the hell do the ninth and tenth amendments never get mentioned and are repeatedly ignored? Ambiguity? What sane person could possibly imagine having your name in any database without his or her knowledge would not be a violation of their privacy?
According to Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, members of the U.S. intelligence community can collect, retain and pass along information about U.S. companies or people only in certain cases.
I thought to myself: Why was this order originally imposed?
I mean, after all, we're talking about spying on US citizens here. Turns out, the law was passed in response to the intelligence agencies already spying on citizens. Reagan, and others, wanted to establish what reasons were legitimate to spy on their own citizens. Where were the citizens of the country involved in the process of making this?
Here's an idea. How about we quit giving current Presidents and congressional leaders the means through which they can enslave us? Everyone here does realize that the President can legitimately declare martial law right now as there are enough men and women in the armed forces right now that would not find this disturbing or even questionable. Very few Americans are exercising their right to own a gun, so there is nothing that can be done about it.
I've read parts of Niven, who seems to hit on a lot of your points. I have this crazy feeling that a whole slew of SF writers are closet libertarians who vote but don't comment politically. I think a good deal of them are concerned about the environment but see the government stepping in as a totally backwards way of solving the problem.
I'm inclined to agree. I just wish there was a happy middle-ground. Just as I imagine a few atheists wish there was a happy middle-ground they could reach with fanatical Christians.
Plutonium has a half time of 44.000 years. If you put 1 kg plutonium in a glass block, after 44.000 years 500 grams are still there. After 88.000 its down to 250 grams, after 200000 years still 30 grams are left. So if you put 10 kg into such a block, after 200000 years still 300 grams are left.
Uhh.. maybe it is just me, but your math isn't adding up. after just 88 years it's down to 250. My assumption would be that 250 could get halved another 3 times: 250 / 2 = 125, 125 / 2 = 62.5, 63 / 2 = 31.5
So that puts us from 88 through another 3 half lifes, 3 * 44 = 132 years. Plus the original 88, 220 years or so to get to the 30 grams you were talking about. And this stuff lasts 200,000 years.
The actual amount, given a 44 year half-life, of waste left over after using this method on 10 kg is going to be: (10,000grams) / (200,000 years/44 year half-life) = 10,000 / 4545 = 2.2 grams.
2.2 grams from 10kg is negligible. Also, in 200,000 years I would hope Earth has been abandoned. We'll probably kill ourselves well before nuclear waste, global warming, or any other countless "invisible threats" occur.
Until such a site exists AND IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE,
It's funny how far the world has come to go from a time when you never asked permission to try out a new idea, you just did it, to a nanny state where every single thing we do is critized and scrutinized just to make sure we don't offend anyone or step on anyone's toes.
Really simple solution for the registrars: I give them my real info, they provide fake info. Or I get to continue to fake mine.
IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG the authorities can leave a message with the registrar who will contact me and tell me to check my messages. I will gladly talk to them if I hear of any problems. In the meantime, sorry Dotster, your monthly newsletters don't even show up in my Inbox anymore.
If the authorities want, they can yank the website after two weeks of no response from the owner. Or the registrar can choose to give up the owner's info at any time. Who would you register with? Someone that promised to keep your info private or someone that handed it over the very second the feds asked for it?
And yes, I mentioned Germany as DDoS'rs above, because while Canada has still had the most, Canada is more moving to FXP while with the loss of Ago and Sven Jasen (Sasser author) there aren't really admirable "hackers" in Germany anymore. (save a few that are *really* quiet and scared to death)
The middle eastern countries have a wide range of expertise. For the most part, the idea of terrorist hackers is a joke, however, both Israeli and Palestinian geniuses in this area have been doing phreaking and not hacking as teens. The more experienced have jobs. The only malicious hackers I know of in the Middle East and India are web based application attackers.
Don't get me wrong, they're not bad, it's just that, generally speaking, I have not yet met anyone from the Middle East or India/Pakistan that is the least bit quiet about their attacks. Even the Germans, with all their loud and obnoxious DDoS's, still take the time to hide their identity.
I mean how many of these people who obtain the free software/movies early actually pay for them the day they come out?
You'd be surprised. A lot of groups are run/handled buy computer administrators in their early thirties or late twenties, have no family, and have tons and tons of money. They spend it on games, DVDs, etc, and make friends online by filesharing and filetransferring. (FXPing)
And why would someone not share files on their computer?
Bandwidth is the main issue. Why kill your own bandwidth when you have a fat college T-1 or OC-48 (public university) right there?
Is it because of anonymity or maybe they dont have enough hard drive space and don't want to buy more?
Anonymity does play a huge role, in fact, a number of the groups hide who they are by using networks of the bots they've taken over to hide their origin. And no, they do *not* have problems with hard drive space. The ones working out of their parent's basements might, but for the most part, I've heard of guys that have anywhere between 160 to 250 gig hard drives as their main drive.
Most of them are also casual to mediocre gamers. Indeed, a huge number of the zombie herders are. Their only skill is in divying up who gets what.
I disagree entirely with the conclusions the media proposes on a regular basis. I suppose being a moderator of a "script kiddie" security forum (or so it has been called by those that don't like our audience) at www.governmensecurity.org means that I'm out of the loop as to what true hackers are doing.
The reality is that North and South American hackers are primarily motivated to participate in FXP, or file-sharing using their compromised computers. Russian hackers work with US companies to sell spam drones. German hackers do a mix of both but mainly use their computers to compromise more. Canadians DDoS other hackers. I don't intend to generalize, but it is important to note that the primary objective here is *still* file sharing.
Sites like www.packetnews.com and the like have XDCC searches that help people find free software, like Sims2 the week it comes it. Some movies come out before they are in theatre. I remember seeing Mr. Deeds a month before it came out and Signs about two weeks before it came out.
You don't get that kind of dedication from most hackers. In fact, I would venture to guess that the Russian groups that are doing the majority of the spambot installations have one or two knowledgable people in them, and that is essentially it. The others that work with them are just trying to siphon money. Still, there are a good deal of them with 0-day IE exploits, but unfortunately they haven't been well to adapt to one of the changes Microsoft made blocking an easy way to get files to your computer.
Now, if these guys were bright, they'd keep using the same method and just change the registry so that they can use that method. But it would appear that they don't know how to do that. SP2 also seems to be causing some trouble.
For those of you scratching your heads for a reason to implement this over SIP when established protocols exist out there, here's what you were looking for:
Companies and universities use packet-shaping to stop and block P2P from taking up too much bandwidth. They wouldn't dare touch the data over SIP though, their bosses would kill them if the conference calls ever died.
The Underpants Gnomes had 3 steps. If you make it into more, or don't end in "PROFIT!!!" then you aren't doing it for the right reasons. The goal is profit. The goal is ALWAYS profit.
Just to give you an idea of how much the/. editors missed the point of the article (it's based on what % of errors require a reboot, not sessions), I've decided to give an analogy.
It's like saying that 8% of the links on/. point to Windows servers when in reality it is 8% of the links point to slashdotted windows servers.
12% of sessions in Windows XP simply do not lead to crashes. That is, if you actively scan for spyware and adware and don't just rely on your AV software. 8% *does* sound like a good percentage for Windows 98 sessions, which crashed on a ridiculous basis (the only saving grace was that it took 15 seconds to reboot in most cases).
The original poster doesn't win anything; a search on google found more than 17500 results for this collision.
Well, of course it did. That's how I found it. I didn't claim to have CREATED it. Though I'm sorry if it implied such.
MD5 is *NOT* dead. Collisions exists since md5's hash size is of course fixed./AGREE
With a salt, the latest way to generate hashes is nothing. Unless they eventually develop a way to predict the salt too.
MD5 will be in real trouble when you can find a collision for a any plaintext, expecially if you can find a way to alter at a minimum the plaintext to get it to give the same md5 hash again.
Actually, that's the point of the research that led to that md5 hash I used as an example.
Given one hash, the researchers believe it would take a modern computer 2 to 3 hours to generate another hash. Modern was under 3 ghz.
Slashdot Mirror
A car with a mind of its own?
I remember Bruce Campell having this same problem in 1997.
That'll come as a relief to Beddoe, who until now assumed that biologists wouldn't pay much heed to his project.
"They're working on uncovering the mysteries of life itself; we're just hacking network protocols," he said. "Which sounds more important to you?"
I don't think Beddoe should cheapen the reverse engineering aspects of networking compared to biology. We may still be years away from finding a cure to cancer, AIDs, etc. and there's a good chance that biology work in this area might not be as fruitful. After all, (without getting into a religious debate, here) man was not created by man, whereas network protocols are. Because of this, it is relatively easier for us to reverse-engineer something that was created by another human, because we know how they think. Evolution or creation, we don't know much about our own building blocks, because we don't know how either God thinks, or the universe fully works.
While his software is great for "hacking network protocols", the biologists paying attention to his work might not find what they are looking for. The inputs very well may be just too vast for his ideas to provide any help.
On the other hand, the Samba team and the Spam Assasin author will most likely enjoy this.
Actually, the ease of use and portability is what will eventually make Jabber the new thing. Don't get me wrong, Yahoo, AIM, and Microsoft's alternative have a lot more functionality, but that same functionality can be easily integrated into Jabber. In fact, many have done so already.
I interpretted "corporate America" to be the RIAA. Maybe that was wrong of me. But it would make sense that a year after MS should have had a player in the market to compete with the iPod they would come out and say something along the lines of: "Don't you see that Apple is promoting stealing with their device?"
The response the RIAA has been forced to give is: "Sure, but *they* have the users." I think some of the big boys would like to switch over to a more secure way of storing their music, but if that's not where the users are, they aren't going to do it. Money is what matters here, they can always sue the people that steal, but they *have* to be able to market to them.
I don't know if Ballmer has been paying attention.
My roommate is a die-hard Microsoft fan. I don't just mean he uses Windows over Linux, either. I mean he will get compromised because of a failed update, have to reformat and reinstall, and he *still* favors MS. Why? Because of usability. Linux does not cater towards him and it certainly doesn't offer the gameplay. Mozilla/Firefox, despite what I try to tell him about security, is laughable. After all, why should he use a browser that takes 4 seconds to load a 2 second page?
Now, despite all of that, he uses iTunes. Why? Because where other "free software" fails, Apple does not. They provide a method for him to get what he needs when he needs it. And not only that, but he pays money hand over fist for services/music through iTunes.
So my question to Ballmer would have to be: If you've lost even your fanbois to Apple, who also has DRM, how exactly do you intend to actually gain a foothold in this market?
On a perfectly safe side note, the percentage of my "stolen" music collection used to be 100% MP3, now it's 80% MP3. Any MS representative want to take a guess as to what the other format is for my stolen music?
Actually, no. I realize that the "I, for one, welcome our * overlords" is a popular phrase on /.
The fact that people overuse this phrase when talking in general simply astounds me, however.
I, for one
This is quite possibly the most overused start to any phrase on the planet. Let me tell you a bit about the people that use this phrase:
1) They seem to think that they are "one of many" and that there is some collective of independant thought that will agree with them.
2) They are pompous and so full of themselves that they think their opinion matters. What they don't understand is someone can easily use it in reverse.
So that being said, let me kill the idea that this phrase could possibly be used again while you keep a straight face:
I, for one, feel that female circumsion is a spectacular idea. I, for one, enjoy my right to own a submachine gun. I, for one, am not looking forward to world of warcraft.
Most of the time, you will see this phrase as "I for one" with no commas, which usually indicates just how popular the phrase is, while being used by completed idiots that think they are "one of many that feel the same way". The reality is, the people who are in the minority opinion (yet believe they need majority opinion in order to win the argument) abuse this phrase the most.
Oh, like the left wing respects, say:
smokers
gun owners
corporations
Excuse me while I laugh.
Hmm... Let's see here. Name, Address, Email, and Phone. Yeah okay, filled out. After all, when the German government required registration for gun owners in 1938, they didn't immediately turn around and seek those people out when they banned guns. Err wait.
I would highly advise you to *not* fill out this form with any legitimate info (which is probably required for the comment to be considered). In fact, I would falsly fill it out with the personal information of your state auditor, governor, or other public figure.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it should bother *anyone* that they request all this ridiculous information for simply leaving a comment.
(Note: 1928 was the first gun registration, but it was "improved" in 1938 to include mandatory registration for any type of weapon)
yes. I agree.
The problem I have is that a huge portion of population believes "you don't have the right..." before even considering that I have ALL rights save those taken away from me.
If the government suspects me of a crime, as a citizen, I should be made aware of such. If I'm thrown into a database of "rebels" than that is hardly justice.
I'm for freedom, just a different kind than it appears our political leaders think we value. I don't want freedom *from*, I want freedom *to*. I don't see how my purchasing of say, a weapon, needs to be recorded, registered, and thrown into a database. I have no qualms with the government, I'd only want a weapon to protect myself in the instances that the government was unable to.
The local cops have the "protect and serve" insignia. I appreciate that, but there is little protection that can be afforded when they are spending their time filling quotas for traffic violations and DWIs. I guess what I'm getting at is that based upon ones origins or political views, there is now a database or reason to suspect of a crime that has not (and in my case, will not) come to fruition. It just doesn't make sense.
"Duke Nukem Forever is a 1999 game and we think that timeframe matches very well with what we have planned for the game." - George Broussard, 1998
"Trust us, Duke Nukem Forever will rock when it comes out next year." -Joe Siegler, 1999
"When it's done in 2001." -2000 Christmas card
"DNF will come out before Unreal 2." -George Broussard, 2001
"If DNF is not out in 2001, something's very wrong." -George Broussard, 2001
"DNF will come out before Doom 3." -George Broussard, 2002
The Voyager 1 spacecraft has travelled approximately 2.5 billion miles since the announcement of Duke Nukem Forever.
The rovers Spirit and Opportunity were proposed, authorized, announced, designed, launched and successfully landed upon Mars within the timeframe of Duke Nukem Forever's development.
The majority of the children who were entering high school the school year following Duke Nukem Forever's announcement are now eligible to drink.
I understand that when I am in a public venue I have no right to privacy. I think everybody understands that.
I don't.
I don't understand what it is about the ninth amendment that the US Government fails to comprehend. I have a right to privacy. I would *hope* that would mean that I have a right to not have any identifying information stored in a public record if I did not desire such.
If they suspect me of a crime, then by God, they should charge me with one. Not follow me around till I forget to signal when making a left turn. Speaking of which, why the hell do the ninth and tenth amendments never get mentioned and are repeatedly ignored? Ambiguity? What sane person could possibly imagine having your name in any database without his or her knowledge would not be a violation of their privacy?
According to Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, members of the U.S. intelligence community can collect, retain and pass along information about U.S. companies or people only in certain cases.
I thought to myself: Why was this order originally imposed?
I mean, after all, we're talking about spying on US citizens here. Turns out, the law was passed in response to the intelligence agencies already spying on citizens. Reagan, and others, wanted to establish what reasons were legitimate to spy on their own citizens. Where were the citizens of the country involved in the process of making this?
Sources that would seem to support this.
Here's an idea. How about we quit giving current Presidents and congressional leaders the means through which they can enslave us? Everyone here does realize that the President can legitimately declare martial law right now as there are enough men and women in the armed forces right now that would not find this disturbing or even questionable. Very few Americans are exercising their right to own a gun, so there is nothing that can be done about it.
I've read parts of Niven, who seems to hit on a lot of your points. I have this crazy feeling that a whole slew of SF writers are closet libertarians who vote but don't comment politically. I think a good deal of them are concerned about the environment but see the government stepping in as a totally backwards way of solving the problem.
I'm inclined to agree. I just wish there was a happy middle-ground. Just as I imagine a few atheists wish there was a happy middle-ground they could reach with fanatical Christians.
Plutonium has a half time of 44.000 years.
If you put 1 kg plutonium in a glass block, after 44.000 years 500 grams are still there. After 88.000 its down to 250 grams, after 200000 years still 30 grams are left. So if you put 10 kg into such a block, after 200000 years still 300 grams are left.
Uhh.. maybe it is just me, but your math isn't adding up. after just 88 years it's down to 250. My assumption would be that 250 could get halved another 3 times: 250 / 2 = 125, 125 / 2 = 62.5, 63 / 2 = 31.5
So that puts us from 88 through another 3 half lifes, 3 * 44 = 132 years. Plus the original 88, 220 years or so to get to the 30 grams you were talking about. And this stuff lasts 200,000 years.
The actual amount, given a 44 year half-life, of waste left over after using this method on 10 kg is going to be:
(10,000grams) / (200,000 years/44 year half-life) = 10,000 / 4545 = 2.2 grams.
2.2 grams from 10kg is negligible. Also, in 200,000 years I would hope Earth has been abandoned. We'll probably kill ourselves well before nuclear waste, global warming, or any other countless "invisible threats" occur.
Until such a site exists AND IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE,
It's funny how far the world has come to go from a time when you never asked permission to try out a new idea, you just did it, to a nanny state where every single thing we do is critized and scrutinized just to make sure we don't offend anyone or step on anyone's toes.
Really simple solution for the registrars:
I give them my real info, they provide fake info. Or I get to continue to fake mine.
IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG the authorities can leave a message with the registrar who will contact me and tell me to check my messages. I will gladly talk to them if I hear of any problems. In the meantime, sorry Dotster, your monthly newsletters don't even show up in my Inbox anymore.
If the authorities want, they can yank the website after two weeks of no response from the owner. Or the registrar can choose to give up the owner's info at any time. Who would you register with? Someone that promised to keep your info private or someone that handed it over the very second the feds asked for it?
And yes, I mentioned Germany as DDoS'rs above, because while Canada has still had the most, Canada is more moving to FXP while with the loss of Ago and Sven Jasen (Sasser author) there aren't really admirable "hackers" in Germany anymore. (save a few that are *really* quiet and scared to death)
The middle eastern countries have a wide range of expertise. For the most part, the idea of terrorist hackers is a joke, however, both Israeli and Palestinian geniuses in this area have been doing phreaking and not hacking as teens. The more experienced have jobs. The only malicious hackers I know of in the Middle East and India are web based application attackers.
Don't get me wrong, they're not bad, it's just that, generally speaking, I have not yet met anyone from the Middle East or India/Pakistan that is the least bit quiet about their attacks. Even the Germans, with all their loud and obnoxious DDoS's, still take the time to hide their identity.
I mean how many of these people who obtain the free software/movies early actually pay for them the day they come out?
You'd be surprised. A lot of groups are run/handled buy computer administrators in their early thirties or late twenties, have no family, and have tons and tons of money. They spend it on games, DVDs, etc, and make friends online by filesharing and filetransferring. (FXPing)
And why would someone not share files on their computer?
Bandwidth is the main issue. Why kill your own bandwidth when you have a fat college T-1 or OC-48 (public university) right there?
Is it because of anonymity or maybe they dont have enough hard drive space and don't want to buy more?
Anonymity does play a huge role, in fact, a number of the groups hide who they are by using networks of the bots they've taken over to hide their origin. And no, they do *not* have problems with hard drive space. The ones working out of their parent's basements might, but for the most part, I've heard of guys that have anywhere between 160 to 250 gig hard drives as their main drive.
Most of them are also casual to mediocre gamers. Indeed, a huge number of the zombie herders are. Their only skill is in divying up who gets what.
I disagree entirely with the conclusions the media proposes on a regular basis. I suppose being a moderator of a "script kiddie" security forum (or so it has been called by those that don't like our audience) at www.governmensecurity.org means that I'm out of the loop as to what true hackers are doing.
The reality is that North and South American hackers are primarily motivated to participate in FXP, or file-sharing using their compromised computers. Russian hackers work with US companies to sell spam drones. German hackers do a mix of both but mainly use their computers to compromise more. Canadians DDoS other hackers. I don't intend to generalize, but it is important to note that the primary objective here is *still* file sharing.
Sites like www.packetnews.com and the like have XDCC searches that help people find free software, like Sims2 the week it comes it. Some movies come out before they are in theatre. I remember seeing Mr. Deeds a month before it came out and Signs about two weeks before it came out.
You don't get that kind of dedication from most hackers. In fact, I would venture to guess that the Russian groups that are doing the majority of the spambot installations have one or two knowledgable people in them, and that is essentially it. The others that work with them are just trying to siphon money. Still, there are a good deal of them with 0-day IE exploits, but unfortunately they haven't been well to adapt to one of the changes Microsoft made blocking an easy way to get files to your computer.
Now, if these guys were bright, they'd keep using the same method and just change the registry so that they can use that method. But it would appear that they don't know how to do that. SP2 also seems to be causing some trouble.
For those of you scratching your heads for a reason to implement this over SIP when established protocols exist out there, here's what you were looking for:
Companies and universities use packet-shaping to stop and block P2P from taking up too much bandwidth. They wouldn't dare touch the data over SIP though, their bosses would kill them if the conference calls ever died.
I like how everyone screws up the South Park quote. For those of you that don't know, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes
The Underpants Gnomes had 3 steps. If you make it into more, or don't end in "PROFIT!!!" then you aren't doing it for the right reasons. The goal is profit. The goal is ALWAYS profit.
Just to give you an idea of how much the /. editors missed the point of the article (it's based on what % of errors require a reboot, not sessions), I've decided to give an analogy.
/. point to Windows servers when in reality it is 8% of the links point to slashdotted windows servers.
It's like saying that 8% of the links on
12% of sessions in Windows XP simply do not lead to crashes. That is, if you actively scan for spyware and adware and don't just rely on your AV software. 8% *does* sound like a good percentage for Windows 98 sessions, which crashed on a ridiculous basis (the only saving grace was that it took 15 seconds to reboot in most cases).
The original poster doesn't win anything; a search on google found more than 17500 results for this collision.
/AGREE
Well, of course it did. That's how I found it. I didn't claim to have CREATED it. Though I'm sorry if it implied such.
MD5 is *NOT* dead. Collisions exists since md5's hash size is of course fixed.
With a salt, the latest way to generate hashes is nothing. Unless they eventually develop a way to predict the salt too.
MD5 will be in real trouble when you can find a collision for a any plaintext, expecially if you can find a way to alter at a minimum the plaintext to get it to give the same md5 hash again.
Actually, that's the point of the research that led to that md5 hash I used as an example.
Given one hash, the researchers believe it would take a modern computer 2 to 3 hours to generate another hash. Modern was under 3 ghz.