I distinctly remember seeing a story about something like this on the Canadian TV show Daily Planet over a year ago. Our host, Jay Ingram, demonstrated it by actually swallowing the pill, and they showed the video on national TV.
I'd post the link, but this doesn't exactly sound like new stuff and I'm at work so I can't do the research. This was back when he was still co-hosting with Natasha Stilwell, which places it between 2004-2006. She's been replaced in the 2006-2007 season.
Obligatory disclaimer: This is my opinion, and may not reflect that of my employers. If you have a problem with it, take it up with me, not them.
I work for Dell. I can tell you for a fact that we take the environment seriously. The building I work in houses a 24/7 call center, but certain areas of the building are not 24/7. Corporate sales for the country are here, and take up half of the 3rd floor, for example. I happen to be in the sales department myself, and there's a piece of software installed on every desktop that hibernates the computer at 20:30 EST (with a half-hour countdown to that point). My department shuts down at 19:00, no other sales department is open past 20:00. We all open at 08:00 the next day, and the automatic hibernation sets an alarm to wake up the computer at 07:45. Alternately, if you turn your own system off through the start button and shut down, it'll stay off until you turn it back on.
We've also got computer recycling programs in place, and the "plant a tree" initiative where you can have us plant a tree for every computer you buy.
Sure. Some companies don't take going green seriously. But some do. And the number of companies that are taking it seriously is growing. Besides which, every little bit helps. Do you know the amount of energy that could be saved if everybody unplugged those electronic devices that "sleep" when they're not being used? 2W doesn't sound like much, until you multiply it by half a billion devices.
Indeed. Seeing as the browser it's running is based off Firefox, my first suggestion would be Thunderbird. It already has Gecko running, so the amount of data they'd have to add to the micro OS would be significantly smaller.
The only problem I see with that is that any mail client requires hard drive access to store your e-mail. Well, any POP3 e-mail client. Wouldn't affect me, because I use IMAP. But if you're stuck using POP3, as most of us are, then you may run into problems. I wouldn't be surprised if this micro OS stores configuration options on a small flash chip on the motherboard itself and can't even access the hard drive. That would make it unfeasible for a mail client.
I can remember coming across a book about the entire Y2K thing back in the late '70s, filled with both dire warnings and algorithms. And I remember thinking, "Jeez, that's over 20 years away. Nobody's going to be using any software around today that far in the future."
My dad was actually hired by the Bank of Canada in the early 1970's to update their software to be Y2K compliant....
So yes... they were well aware of it back then. Likewise, they've been aware of the 32-bit Unix time expiry since they introduced Unix time. I'd be surprised if they weren't already working on a solution. Actually... I'd be surprised if they hadn't already implemented a solution to it.
Considering that they were making 8-bit chips in 1972, 16-bit chips in 1979, 32-bit chips in 1986 ('386 was a 32-bit chip... SX was 32-bit internally on a 16-bit bus, and DX was 32-bit bus too), and by 1991 64-bit chips (the DEC Alpha leaps to mind). Even today, most graphics processors are 128-bit chips, and I believe there's even some 256-bit processors on the horizon for NVidia/ATI if they aren't already here. I suspect that by that time 2038 rolls around nobody will still be producing lowly 64-bit chips. Probably by that time even 256-bit chips will be considered antiques.
That's all. A deterrent. Kinda like encryption or MAC address protection on a wireless network. It's not going to keep out somebody who wants in. No amount of encryption is going to keep them out if they really want to cause me grief. But it is going to keep out the casual drive-by.
Likewise, copy protection on DVDs or CD's.... it's not going to keep out the people who want to copy it. Nothing's going to keep them out in the long run. But the overwhelming majority of users don't know how to circumvent it. They don't even know how to circumvent DVD's CSS system, despite it being broken a decade ago. Basic copy protection will significantly reduce the sales lost from having no copy protection at all.
They could also go a different route entirely. On the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix DVD, the 2nd disc contains a DRM'd WMV of the movie, and there's a code printed on an insert in the box that can be used to license it. It's a step away from having a full DVD rip on the 2nd disc, but when a lot of the "piracy" that's happening is so that people can play their movies on their portable devices or media center PC's (and other Fair Use/Fair Dealings "violations"), it will help reduce the problem.
Likewise, even a power supply would smoulder for hours if not days before it stood a chance of bursting into flames. Silicon doesn't burn quite as well as, say, oil. And unless there's a massive overvoltage on a wire, even the plastic insulation will smoulder a while before it reaches its flash point. That smouldering would produce a distinctive smell that would have anybody who's even halfway sane calling tech. support. If there's a massive overvoltage on the line, good luck suing them for defective hardware.
I don't speak for HP, but I do know that Dell has a trap policy in place. If you call them and say your computer is catching fire on its own, they'll replace it no questions asked. (they'll bill you if it turns out you're just lying to get a new computer, mind you)
Obligatory disclaimer: the above represents my opinion, not that of the people I work for.
I'll never buy anything sold with this model, it's stupid and meaningless.
Thankfully, you don't speak for the whole market.
The reason they do this is because production isn't 100% rock solid. It's not possible. There is *always* going to be some attrition. The ones they sell for x-y, at the lower price, are failed products from the original x production line. In more real terms... they build a 3.2GHz CPU, but it's defective. It doesn't run stably at 3.2GHz: maybe it crashes, maybe it runs too hot, maybe there's problems with EM interference and bit bleeding, we don't know. But they discover that it does run perfectly stably at 2.2GHz. Rather than tossing it in the bin, losing 100% of the production costs for that particular chip, they can clock it down to 2.2GHz and sell it as that.
This recoups some of the cost, lowering production costs for the manufacturer, which in turn lowers purchase costs for the consumer.
You're forgetting that MS doesn't spy on a Windows Terminal server to determine how many licenses you've paid for, though. You install the server with a license for X connections (the version on MSDN allows up to 10 connections, for example), and the server itself simply refuses any connections beyond that.
Yes, it's the same software. Yes, you can purchase a license from MS to activate more connections. But that's a one-time cost. Once you've bought it, you've got it, and you're not going to be able to deactivate those connections to get a refund, either. And the reason MS does it that way is the same reason that there's a difference in pricing between MS Office Student & Teacher versus MS Office Enterprise edition: people aren't going to pay $600 for software when they only want Word/Excel.
The other thing you're forgetting is that the costs to reproduce the Office or Windows CDs is negligible. In fact, with Windows Vista, it's the *same* DVD for all versions. The add-ons that get installed are determined by the software key you use. But once the software itself is developped, the ongoing development costs for the basic version are non-existant, because it's the same software. If they develop a software patch to fix a bug, there is zero difference in cost between the super-ultra-basic-cheapass version and the i've-got-more-money-than-brains version.
Not the same with hardware. With hardware, they need to properly test and vet the hardware, and certify it. The reason the Quad Core Extreme processors cost more than the Core 2 Duo processors isn't because they're more powerful, it's because they're more expensive to produce. Quality assurance is the dealbreaker. Yes, there's going to be some reduction in manufacturing costs if they drop the low end from the equation, but not enough to offset the increased manufacturing costs from QA on the high end. Even if it ships with only 2 out of 8 cores enabled, all 8 cores on the processor have to be vetted for that kind of business model to work. Plus, adding the logic to dynamically enable/disable those 8 cores is going to increase production costs further. In the end, it's going to drive up costs across the board. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but people aren't buying nearly as many computers as they used to... computer manufacturers have had to lower prices to even sell product. Increasing the price is going to dry it up even more.
Even at a vendor level, it seems like a pretty stupid idea. Not quite monumentally stupid... implementing it would be monumentally stupid. Just suggesting it shows a complete lack of understanding of the economics behind the game, though.
Obligatory disclaimer: I work for a computer manufacturer. We resell Intel and AMD hardware in our product lines.
It's also worth pointing out that with the exception of file transfer devices (thumb drives, external hard drives, cameras), Bluetooth is plenty fast enough. It's only 700kbit maximum speed, but for your laptop to connect through the cellular network, for a keyboard/mouse, for a game controller, for a stereo headset, that's plenty fast enough. Hell, the Nintendo Wii controllers even play some sound over it while working as a game controller. There's a wide array of devices for which BT is plenty fast enough.
It's unlikely that something like a cell phone will be trying to implement wireless USB when Bluetooth is working and fast enough for virtually every function they have. Likewise, as long as BT is ubiquitous, it's unlikely that you're going to stop seeing keyboards/rodents and other devices that take advantage of the technology.
Other than that, I agree with you completely. It's a totally different technology, and the only thing BT can bring to the table is brand recognition.
Don't tend to see a lot of foreigners coming to countries like France, the UK, Germany, or Canada to take advantage of the public health care... that's because while we do have public health systems where, in Canada at least, the majority of necessary services are actually free, they aren't for people who don't pay the taxes. Americans would have to pay, and in some cases it'd cost more than it would to get it done locally.
Get it done in a country which is commercialized, but very poor. For example, it costs thousands to get a cataract done in Canada. It costs $46 to get it done in India. Now, I wouldn't go to India, because it's covered by public health care in Canada (and because at 26, if I have cataracts then I have some serious problems). But it's an example. The same holds for elective surgeries... a procedure that's as much as $20,000 in Canada could be as little as $5,000 in Thailand or India.
Also.. the "does it run on linux" thing is a/. meme... I wasn't seriously asking the question
Oh, I know... I've been around a long time.... But you're supposed to be asking that about things like new video games that get announced, or some great toaster that's being marketed.... Asking it about something that's actually a Linux project... *shrugs*
And clearly, some moderator has a bug up his butt, because neither your post nor mine were offtopic. *shrugs*
Oh, I can too. But I'm having too much fun with the games I have, and I have a birthday in a month so I'm rather hoping somebody will take pity on me and buy me one.:P
That, and I am actually waiting on a new VISA card. They upgraded me to a new card, which means issuing a new number. It hasn't arrived yet.
The SNES version was a port of the PC version, with a few changes.
If you're looking for a legal/legit version of the SNES version, it's 500 Wii Points on the Nintendo Wii VC.:) (that and the Internet browser are first on my list for when I get off my butt and buy a points card)
In the world of computer security, there's no such thing as paranoia. They really are all out to get you.
I can't really suggest more than I have, then. But you may want to look into whether or not your other half needs access to the server remotely through SSH. If not, then disable it.:) If yes, but not through the firewall, then run a second SSH server on an unforwarded port, though which it's allowed, and disable it on the public one.
It's not difficult to secure, really. Just gotta treat it like driving: everybody else sucks and is going to try to get you killed.
I am only running a file server at home that I like to be able to remote into, so I am not so much worried about targeted attacks against my system... not sure why someone would take the effort to do that to get a hold of my open office documents and music files. I am more concerned about making sure it isn't "easy" to do.
It's not what they can do with your files. It's what they can do with your computer.:)
And yes, that was in reference to the key itself. The size, but also the algorithm used to implement it. Generally, limiting which user can actually log in and how many attempts are allowed is much more secure. The problem with passphrases is the same problem as with passwords, though. That's the user. I personally prefer passwords, because they're variable length. Much harder to dictionary your way through it when you're only allowed one attempt to break in before you get disconnected and the password could be anywhere between 6-50 characters long. The number of permutations is lower when you know for a fact that it's going to be exactly 128 characters hexadecimal, because that removes all of the possibilities from 1-127 characters long, all the letters from G-Z, all of the special characters, and all lower case letters.
That isn't to say that a passkey is insecure. Just that it's really not any more secure than a password.* Going through an encrypted channel (which is done with SSH), and making sure that your system is properly locked down as suggested above is a much better way to go about securing yourself.
Can I ask how many usernames you have that actually need shell access?
* - Math moment.... 1024-bit key = 2^1024 possible permutations, ~= 1.78 * 10^308. Well into the numbers we don't have a name for. With a password, each character has a choice from a dictionary of 32 (special characters) + 52 (letters) + 10 (numbers) = 94 possible characters. Not counting alt scancodes which can actually be used in some implementations. To make the math easy, though, we'll keep it that way. 1 character = 94 possibilities. 2 characters = 94^2 possibilities = 8836 3 characters = 94^3 possibilities = 830584 4 characters = 94^4 possibilities = 78074896 And so forth. Note, however, that this only works if you know exactly how many characters are in the password. If you don't know, then the number of possibilities comes out to the sum of all possible lengths up to the maximum. So if the password could be 1-2 characters long, it'd be 8836 + 94 = 8930 possible passwords. When you make it 1-3, it becomes 830584 + 8930 = 839514 possible passwords, and so on.
Let's skip a few lines of the dissertation, and get to the end of what I'm trying to say: When you get to 1-15 characters in length, you're already at 399542248261999180586863282762 possible passwords.... 1-30 characters, you're up to 1.579357739749060926392038684028e+59 passwords.... Going much further than that crashes Calculator.... (well, it crashes at 41).
Mathematically speaking, a 1024-bit key = 128-bytes... a dictionary of 256 characters for a key that's known to be 128-characters long. For a dictionary of 94 characters, you need a password that can be from 1-155 characters long to be in the same ballpark.
So no. A 1024-bit key is going to be pretty difficult to dictionary. Much more difficult than a password, since most of us aren't going to have a 150-character password. (At work, I use a 42-character password right now, but I'm a freak. It's actually a sentence, translated into Japanese and written in Romaji, using roman numerals for places where the syllable sounds like the number... like 4 for "yo", and 7 for "shi".) But when you're limited to one attempt every 30s without even knowing if you have the right username in the first place, it's going to take a *very* long time to dictionary it.
All that said, real dictionary attacks against an SSH host are extremely rare anyway. They're too obvious in the security logs. Most of them are exploits, and that's why you need to keep the server up to date and subscribe to the mailing lists for all of the daemons you run.:)
The only truly secure method is to make it terminal access only and accessible only by passcard or some other physical means. (IOW, to turn SSH off) Not exactly feasible for something you want to access remotely.
Passkeys can be relatively secure, or they can be relatively insecure. It depends on the level of security you're implementing in them. Another really easy way to secure it is to make it more trouble than it's worth to break into it. I have my SSH on the standard port of 22 on my server, and am not worried about security at all. I subscribe to the mailing list and it's kept up to date every time a new release comes out. More importantly, my SSH server is configured to only allow one user ID to log in, and to only allow one password attempt before disconnecting. It also doesn't disconnect until after you've entered the password, and will give the same error message no matter what, so you've got no way of knowing why it is that you're not getting through. Finally, the user name in particular that's allowed to log in through SSH doesn't have an e-mail account or home directory, and isn't published anywhere.
No, that isn't going to secure it entirely. It is, however, going to make breaking into it incredibly time consuming and generally not worth it unless you have a personal vendetta or other reason to go after me specifically. Security through obscurity. In this case, get away from Default Pass, and towards Default Reject security model.
Likewise... I switched from a 21" CRT @ 1920x1440 3 years ago, when I bought a Gateway 2185W 21" widescreen LCD at 1680x1050. I love it. My new laptop has a 15.4" screen at the same resolution...
It's not that resolutions are going down. It's that the standard aspect ratio has changed. I can't remember the exact name of it, but there's a general rule out there which describes how a widescreen aspect ratio is more aesthetically pleasing than the old standard 4:3. Has something to do with how the eyes themselves see images... while you still have peripheral vision, your world perception is pretty much in the widescreen aspect ratio. Seeing something in 4:3 is jarring, because you have a *lot* more unoccupied space to either side than you do above and below.
That said... later this week I'm taking delivery of a 47" screen at 1920x1080 resolution.... Converting my old desktop to a Media Center since I've moved all my gaming and other things to the laptop.:)
Thanks to the Internet, they're not nearly as important as they were in the 1980's.
Granted, I haven't ever been in such a store in my life, but given that High Definition would allow you to see things like blemishes, bruises, and scars from plastic surgery much more easily than before, my guess would be that they'd rather stick to DVD.
Slashdot Mirror
I distinctly remember seeing a story about something like this on the Canadian TV show Daily Planet over a year ago. Our host, Jay Ingram, demonstrated it by actually swallowing the pill, and they showed the video on national TV.
I'd post the link, but this doesn't exactly sound like new stuff and I'm at work so I can't do the research. This was back when he was still co-hosting with Natasha Stilwell, which places it between 2004-2006. She's been replaced in the 2006-2007 season.
Obligatory disclaimer: This is my opinion, and may not reflect that of my employers. If you have a problem with it, take it up with me, not them.
I work for Dell. I can tell you for a fact that we take the environment seriously. The building I work in houses a 24/7 call center, but certain areas of the building are not 24/7. Corporate sales for the country are here, and take up half of the 3rd floor, for example. I happen to be in the sales department myself, and there's a piece of software installed on every desktop that hibernates the computer at 20:30 EST (with a half-hour countdown to that point). My department shuts down at 19:00, no other sales department is open past 20:00. We all open at 08:00 the next day, and the automatic hibernation sets an alarm to wake up the computer at 07:45. Alternately, if you turn your own system off through the start button and shut down, it'll stay off until you turn it back on.
We've also got computer recycling programs in place, and the "plant a tree" initiative where you can have us plant a tree for every computer you buy.
Sure. Some companies don't take going green seriously. But some do. And the number of companies that are taking it seriously is growing. Besides which, every little bit helps. Do you know the amount of energy that could be saved if everybody unplugged those electronic devices that "sleep" when they're not being used? 2W doesn't sound like much, until you multiply it by half a billion devices.
I would like to play Global Nuclear War. :)
Indeed. Seeing as the browser it's running is based off Firefox, my first suggestion would be Thunderbird. It already has Gecko running, so the amount of data they'd have to add to the micro OS would be significantly smaller.
The only problem I see with that is that any mail client requires hard drive access to store your e-mail. Well, any POP3 e-mail client. Wouldn't affect me, because I use IMAP. But if you're stuck using POP3, as most of us are, then you may run into problems. I wouldn't be surprised if this micro OS stores configuration options on a small flash chip on the motherboard itself and can't even access the hard drive. That would make it unfeasible for a mail client.
My dad was actually hired by the Bank of Canada in the early 1970's to update their software to be Y2K compliant....
So yes... they were well aware of it back then. Likewise, they've been aware of the 32-bit Unix time expiry since they introduced Unix time. I'd be surprised if they weren't already working on a solution. Actually... I'd be surprised if they hadn't already implemented a solution to it.
Pure alarmism. Just like we had in 1999.
Considering that they were making 8-bit chips in 1972, 16-bit chips in 1979, 32-bit chips in 1986 ('386 was a 32-bit chip... SX was 32-bit internally on a 16-bit bus, and DX was 32-bit bus too), and by 1991 64-bit chips (the DEC Alpha leaps to mind). Even today, most graphics processors are 128-bit chips, and I believe there's even some 256-bit processors on the horizon for NVidia/ATI if they aren't already here. I suspect that by that time 2038 rolls around nobody will still be producing lowly 64-bit chips. Probably by that time even 256-bit chips will be considered antiques.
That's all. A deterrent. Kinda like encryption or MAC address protection on a wireless network. It's not going to keep out somebody who wants in. No amount of encryption is going to keep them out if they really want to cause me grief. But it is going to keep out the casual drive-by.
Likewise, copy protection on DVDs or CD's.... it's not going to keep out the people who want to copy it. Nothing's going to keep them out in the long run. But the overwhelming majority of users don't know how to circumvent it. They don't even know how to circumvent DVD's CSS system, despite it being broken a decade ago. Basic copy protection will significantly reduce the sales lost from having no copy protection at all.
They could also go a different route entirely. On the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix DVD, the 2nd disc contains a DRM'd WMV of the movie, and there's a code printed on an insert in the box that can be used to license it. It's a step away from having a full DVD rip on the 2nd disc, but when a lot of the "piracy" that's happening is so that people can play their movies on their portable devices or media center PC's (and other Fair Use/Fair Dealings "violations"), it will help reduce the problem.
Likewise, even a power supply would smoulder for hours if not days before it stood a chance of bursting into flames. Silicon doesn't burn quite as well as, say, oil. And unless there's a massive overvoltage on a wire, even the plastic insulation will smoulder a while before it reaches its flash point. That smouldering would produce a distinctive smell that would have anybody who's even halfway sane calling tech. support. If there's a massive overvoltage on the line, good luck suing them for defective hardware.
I don't speak for HP, but I do know that Dell has a trap policy in place. If you call them and say your computer is catching fire on its own, they'll replace it no questions asked. (they'll bill you if it turns out you're just lying to get a new computer, mind you)
Obligatory disclaimer: the above represents my opinion, not that of the people I work for.
Thankfully, you don't speak for the whole market.
The reason they do this is because production isn't 100% rock solid. It's not possible. There is *always* going to be some attrition. The ones they sell for x-y, at the lower price, are failed products from the original x production line. In more real terms... they build a 3.2GHz CPU, but it's defective. It doesn't run stably at 3.2GHz: maybe it crashes, maybe it runs too hot, maybe there's problems with EM interference and bit bleeding, we don't know. But they discover that it does run perfectly stably at 2.2GHz. Rather than tossing it in the bin, losing 100% of the production costs for that particular chip, they can clock it down to 2.2GHz and sell it as that.
This recoups some of the cost, lowering production costs for the manufacturer, which in turn lowers purchase costs for the consumer.
You're forgetting that MS doesn't spy on a Windows Terminal server to determine how many licenses you've paid for, though. You install the server with a license for X connections (the version on MSDN allows up to 10 connections, for example), and the server itself simply refuses any connections beyond that.
Yes, it's the same software. Yes, you can purchase a license from MS to activate more connections. But that's a one-time cost. Once you've bought it, you've got it, and you're not going to be able to deactivate those connections to get a refund, either. And the reason MS does it that way is the same reason that there's a difference in pricing between MS Office Student & Teacher versus MS Office Enterprise edition: people aren't going to pay $600 for software when they only want Word/Excel.
The other thing you're forgetting is that the costs to reproduce the Office or Windows CDs is negligible. In fact, with Windows Vista, it's the *same* DVD for all versions. The add-ons that get installed are determined by the software key you use. But once the software itself is developped, the ongoing development costs for the basic version are non-existant, because it's the same software. If they develop a software patch to fix a bug, there is zero difference in cost between the super-ultra-basic-cheapass version and the i've-got-more-money-than-brains version.
Not the same with hardware. With hardware, they need to properly test and vet the hardware, and certify it. The reason the Quad Core Extreme processors cost more than the Core 2 Duo processors isn't because they're more powerful, it's because they're more expensive to produce. Quality assurance is the dealbreaker. Yes, there's going to be some reduction in manufacturing costs if they drop the low end from the equation, but not enough to offset the increased manufacturing costs from QA on the high end. Even if it ships with only 2 out of 8 cores enabled, all 8 cores on the processor have to be vetted for that kind of business model to work. Plus, adding the logic to dynamically enable/disable those 8 cores is going to increase production costs further. In the end, it's going to drive up costs across the board. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but people aren't buying nearly as many computers as they used to... computer manufacturers have had to lower prices to even sell product. Increasing the price is going to dry it up even more.
Even at a vendor level, it seems like a pretty stupid idea. Not quite monumentally stupid... implementing it would be monumentally stupid. Just suggesting it shows a complete lack of understanding of the economics behind the game, though.
Obligatory disclaimer: I work for a computer manufacturer. We resell Intel and AMD hardware in our product lines.
It's also worth pointing out that with the exception of file transfer devices (thumb drives, external hard drives, cameras), Bluetooth is plenty fast enough. It's only 700kbit maximum speed, but for your laptop to connect through the cellular network, for a keyboard/mouse, for a game controller, for a stereo headset, that's plenty fast enough. Hell, the Nintendo Wii controllers even play some sound over it while working as a game controller. There's a wide array of devices for which BT is plenty fast enough.
It's unlikely that something like a cell phone will be trying to implement wireless USB when Bluetooth is working and fast enough for virtually every function they have. Likewise, as long as BT is ubiquitous, it's unlikely that you're going to stop seeing keyboards/rodents and other devices that take advantage of the technology.
Other than that, I agree with you completely. It's a totally different technology, and the only thing BT can bring to the table is brand recognition.
The monitor in question was a 0.21dp Compaq P1100. Feel free to Google the specs. It did 1920x1440 @ 75Hz.
Don't tend to see a lot of foreigners coming to countries like France, the UK, Germany, or Canada to take advantage of the public health care... that's because while we do have public health systems where, in Canada at least, the majority of necessary services are actually free, they aren't for people who don't pay the taxes. Americans would have to pay, and in some cases it'd cost more than it would to get it done locally.
Get it done in a country which is commercialized, but very poor. For example, it costs thousands to get a cataract done in Canada. It costs $46 to get it done in India. Now, I wouldn't go to India, because it's covered by public health care in Canada (and because at 26, if I have cataracts then I have some serious problems). But it's an example. The same holds for elective surgeries... a procedure that's as much as $20,000 in Canada could be as little as $5,000 in Thailand or India.
Oh, I know... I've been around a long time.... But you're supposed to be asking that about things like new video games that get announced, or some great toaster that's being marketed.... Asking it about something that's actually a Linux project... *shrugs*
And clearly, some moderator has a bug up his butt, because neither your post nor mine were offtopic. *shrugs*
Oh, I can too. But I'm having too much fun with the games I have, and I have a birthday in a month so I'm rather hoping somebody will take pity on me and buy me one. :P
That, and I am actually waiting on a new VISA card. They upgraded me to a new card, which means issuing a new number. It hasn't arrived yet.
You didn't RTFA, clearly... it runs on Linux, and *not* win32....
funny thing about the source code being open source...
somebody can go to the copyright check function and change it to something like this:
boolean is_valid_copy() {
return TRUE;
}
(or just comment out the copyright check in the first place)
The SNES version was a port of the PC version, with a few changes.
:) (that and the Internet browser are first on my list for when I get off my butt and buy a points card)
If you're looking for a legal/legit version of the SNES version, it's 500 Wii Points on the Nintendo Wii VC.
In the world of computer security, there's no such thing as paranoia. They really are all out to get you.
:) If yes, but not through the firewall, then run a second SSH server on an unforwarded port, though which it's allowed, and disable it on the public one.
I can't really suggest more than I have, then. But you may want to look into whether or not your other half needs access to the server remotely through SSH. If not, then disable it.
It's not difficult to secure, really. Just gotta treat it like driving: everybody else sucks and is going to try to get you killed.
.... I think the suggestion was that you put something like that in an infinite loop and see how long it takes for NSI to go bankrupt....
.com TLD and that it doesn't actually cost them anything to register a domain probably slipped his mind.
Of course, the fact that NSI administers the
It's not what they can do with your files. It's what they can do with your computer.
And yes, that was in reference to the key itself. The size, but also the algorithm used to implement it. Generally, limiting which user can actually log in and how many attempts are allowed is much more secure. The problem with passphrases is the same problem as with passwords, though. That's the user. I personally prefer passwords, because they're variable length. Much harder to dictionary your way through it when you're only allowed one attempt to break in before you get disconnected and the password could be anywhere between 6-50 characters long. The number of permutations is lower when you know for a fact that it's going to be exactly 128 characters hexadecimal, because that removes all of the possibilities from 1-127 characters long, all the letters from G-Z, all of the special characters, and all lower case letters.
That isn't to say that a passkey is insecure. Just that it's really not any more secure than a password.* Going through an encrypted channel (which is done with SSH), and making sure that your system is properly locked down as suggested above is a much better way to go about securing yourself.
Can I ask how many usernames you have that actually need shell access?
* - Math moment....
1024-bit key = 2^1024 possible permutations, ~= 1.78 * 10^308. Well into the numbers we don't have a name for.
With a password, each character has a choice from a dictionary of 32 (special characters) + 52 (letters) + 10 (numbers) = 94 possible characters. Not counting alt scancodes which can actually be used in some implementations. To make the math easy, though, we'll keep it that way.
1 character = 94 possibilities.
2 characters = 94^2 possibilities = 8836
3 characters = 94^3 possibilities = 830584
4 characters = 94^4 possibilities = 78074896
And so forth.
Note, however, that this only works if you know exactly how many characters are in the password. If you don't know, then the number of possibilities comes out to the sum of all possible lengths up to the maximum. So if the password could be 1-2 characters long, it'd be 8836 + 94 = 8930 possible passwords. When you make it 1-3, it becomes 830584 + 8930 = 839514 possible passwords, and so on.
Let's skip a few lines of the dissertation, and get to the end of what I'm trying to say:
When you get to 1-15 characters in length, you're already at 399542248261999180586863282762 possible passwords....
1-30 characters, you're up to 1.579357739749060926392038684028e+59 passwords....
Going much further than that crashes Calculator.... (well, it crashes at 41).
Mathematically speaking, a 1024-bit key = 128-bytes... a dictionary of 256 characters for a key that's known to be 128-characters long. For a dictionary of 94 characters, you need a password that can be from 1-155 characters long to be in the same ballpark.
So no. A 1024-bit key is going to be pretty difficult to dictionary. Much more difficult than a password, since most of us aren't going to have a 150-character password. (At work, I use a 42-character password right now, but I'm a freak. It's actually a sentence, translated into Japanese and written in Romaji, using roman numerals for places where the syllable sounds like the number... like 4 for "yo", and 7 for "shi".) But when you're limited to one attempt every 30s without even knowing if you have the right username in the first place, it's going to take a *very* long time to dictionary it.
All that said, real dictionary attacks against an SSH host are extremely rare anyway. They're too obvious in the security logs. Most of them are exploits, and that's why you need to keep the server up to date and subscribe to the mailing lists for all of the daemons you run.
The only truly secure method is to make it terminal access only and accessible only by passcard or some other physical means. (IOW, to turn SSH off) Not exactly feasible for something you want to access remotely.
Passkeys can be relatively secure, or they can be relatively insecure. It depends on the level of security you're implementing in them. Another really easy way to secure it is to make it more trouble than it's worth to break into it. I have my SSH on the standard port of 22 on my server, and am not worried about security at all. I subscribe to the mailing list and it's kept up to date every time a new release comes out. More importantly, my SSH server is configured to only allow one user ID to log in, and to only allow one password attempt before disconnecting. It also doesn't disconnect until after you've entered the password, and will give the same error message no matter what, so you've got no way of knowing why it is that you're not getting through. Finally, the user name in particular that's allowed to log in through SSH doesn't have an e-mail account or home directory, and isn't published anywhere.
No, that isn't going to secure it entirely. It is, however, going to make breaking into it incredibly time consuming and generally not worth it unless you have a personal vendetta or other reason to go after me specifically. Security through obscurity. In this case, get away from Default Pass, and towards Default Reject security model.
Likewise... I switched from a 21" CRT @ 1920x1440 3 years ago, when I bought a Gateway 2185W 21" widescreen LCD at 1680x1050. I love it. My new laptop has a 15.4" screen at the same resolution...
:)
It's not that resolutions are going down. It's that the standard aspect ratio has changed. I can't remember the exact name of it, but there's a general rule out there which describes how a widescreen aspect ratio is more aesthetically pleasing than the old standard 4:3. Has something to do with how the eyes themselves see images... while you still have peripheral vision, your world perception is pretty much in the widescreen aspect ratio. Seeing something in 4:3 is jarring, because you have a *lot* more unoccupied space to either side than you do above and below.
That said... later this week I'm taking delivery of a 47" screen at 1920x1080 resolution.... Converting my old desktop to a Media Center since I've moved all my gaming and other things to the laptop.
Thanks to the Internet, they're not nearly as important as they were in the 1980's.
Granted, I haven't ever been in such a store in my life, but given that High Definition would allow you to see things like blemishes, bruises, and scars from plastic surgery much more easily than before, my guess would be that they'd rather stick to DVD.
Just because they're selling them doesn't mean they're *making* them....
While I don't speak for Sony, it's not exactly in their best interest to keep building them, as that detracts from PS3 production.