darkstar... I seem to remember that from my first set of Slackware floppies. I think that was in '94 or '95. Got 'em from a friend. Unfortunately, after trashing my system several times and having to re-install from the countless floppies I was a little discouraged.
Shortly afterwards I found a Slackware 3.0 disc at a local stolen-surplus-computer-parts store. (anybody remember Crazy Bob's in Wakefield, MA?) The kernel had reached version 1.0, I got X and FVWM working, learned to dial-up to my ISP and I've been enamored with Linux ever since!
That is interesting. A quick google search for cellular (service monitors) shows that they are available, and, while certainly not $50K, not cheap either.
Of course, my point still stands... listening in on a land-line conversation is still much easier. (for one thing, the target party isn't travelling)
I realize that another possibility is that a cellular snooper could just sit and wait for some valuable data to come along regardless of who provides it, but even then, I would think tapping a small business would be better (phone ordering, anyone?)
BTW. I do appreciate your rational/more knowledgable input on this. I'm still quite confident in my cell phone's security, and that's unlikely to change, but I *really* miss having comments from *real* nerds/geeks/techs on this site.
I think the bottom line comes from what our VoIP guy told me: anybody with the apropriate skills can hijack SIP calls over the internet. In the end, nothing's as secure as we would like it to be.
hehehehe... I just ran into our VoIP guy. Turns out that it would be nearly impossible to support encryption between providers, or even different models of phones! Sure, that may change in the future... but right now SIP may actually be LESS secure than POTS and cellular!
Okay, you and the other ACs who replied obviously don't get it.
The parent post was apparently trying to deride the security of cellular networks. My point is that connections through a cellular network is likely more secure than a POTS connection. Modern cellular networks are managed more like a data network.
Case in point: I have heard (from people in this industry) that Cingular actually maintains the encryption all the way back to their switching facilities. From there, I would guess the signal is decoded and switched towards it's destination. If that's another cell phone, it's probably re-encoded there and sent on it's way. If it's going to another cell provider's network, it's probably sent to their switch, where it is handled however that provider chooses.
Another case: My employer is currently rolling out VoIP to the customers and they expect it to work seamlessly... as well as supporting all the other whiz-bang features that VoIP allows. We plan on allowing the customer to use end-to-end encryption for VoIP-to-VoIP calls, but it's quite clear that it's impossible to enable for VoIP-to-POTS. Thus, we could selectively tap calls at the softswitch.
Point is: Even with modern telephone services, a tapping point is almost always available, but it is *tightly* controlled and access to backhaul links is both difficult and usually useless. And, while this is not perfect, it is "good enough" for 99.9% of people out there.
Once *everybody* is talking on a SIP phone, total security will become (theoretically) possible... but,of course, there's always the guy with the tape deck and long-range microphone trying to get your SSN.
Frankly, I think there are some people who will never be happy until our encrypted phone connections read encrypted brainwaves communicating with a randomly-generated language only discernable to the other party. These people have paranoid delusions that evil madmen are using satellites to eavesdrop on their conversations with the rubber-ducky in the bathtub.
When you talk 'secure' do you mean secure from someone with a radio scanner? CDMA, GSM, and all their 'descendents' have that already.
And don't tell me that the encryption can be broken. It takes highly complex, expensive equipment to do that.
Anyhow... I would imagine the police can simply get a warrant and tap the call at the carrier's switch. Sure, SIP could be used to support end-to-end encryption, but cell phones are roughly as secure as a land line. I dare say cellular may be *more* secure! Here's my rationale: Cellular interception (from phone to tower) requires, say a $50K scanner, complex radio equipment and software. Land-line interception takes a pocket knife, a spare phone and a couple of alligator clips.
You want dozens of small, postage-stamp to wallet-sized prints that you can plant in subtle places as a constant reminder of who's really in charge.
Then, when the time comes to get rid of him, use the plotter's print server to intercept the CFO's next presentation to the board and replace it with said compromising photo. If you're lucky, it'll get rolled up without a single glance and actually be unveilled at the meeting. (a former BOFH can dream, can't he?)
I use and love apt-build, but it's still not nearly as streamlined and automatic as portage. I know I'm not alone in my desire for a "portage-for-debian", since there was a project called 'debtoo', but it's now defunct.
Someday, with the time and resources maybe I'll spearhead something *sigh*
Funny, I find most Debian packages I pull in to my Ubuntu box integrate quite well. Same goes for Mepis. (Linspire is a noted exception for me)
I'm not saying everything's perfect, but I've had no problems. In contrast, my experience mixing packages between Mandrake, Fedora, SuSe, and RedHat has often been quite frustrating.
My $.02? My ultimate system would be a best-of-breed mixing of Debian and Gentoo. Just imagine...
# USE="mysql dbx hardened -X" apt-get install php5-cgi
* No binary pkg available with those USE flags...
* Fetching source...
... and watch it recurse that through the dependency tree, generated automagically depending on the USE flags! (drool...)
Or, how about this: Dynamically generated debian distro with all packages built to your custom specs using a portage-style system... yet remaining compatible with Debian's official repositories!
Of course, I *really* appreciate some of the things that make them fundamentally different, right tool for the job and all, but... wouldn't it be cool?
I won't go into a long boring defense or discussion of ethics or history, but I stand by my statement, especially in the context of the thread.
If a nation *must* go to war, they must intend to win, and decisively. Assuming that war is of necessity to said nation's survival, it is safe to assume that circumstances may become such that victory by 'ethical' means becomes at worst, impossible, or at best, empty.
Try these three statements out:
1. We've lost and my family is being sent to the prison camps, but at least we fought fair.
2. We've won but everyone on both sides is dead and our resources are totally spent, but at least we fought fair.
3. We've just used the most terrible weapon built by man to kill 100,000 civilians, but at least the war is over now and *my* family will live in peace.
You may feel free to interpolate my commentary into some pre-concieved world view applied to current events and political positions. People like you have that luxury in America.
Heard and seconded. Victory in war requires two absolute things:
1. A clear definition of victory (usually the un-conditional surrender of the enemy)
2. The willingness to do *whatever* it takes to achieve that goal.
A nation that can not support, muster, and maintain both of these should not be fighting... even if they started out with them.
For me, it's simple: I use *nix and Windows at work and my Mac at home... except when my old 333MHz iMac is too slow for what I need (not much) then my Ubuntu laptop from work gets fired up.
Using several different operating systems on a daily basis, I've made some observations:
1. Windows has the best applications, overall, concerning functionality. 2. Mac has the easiest to use and most stable applications. 3. Linux has the best flexibility by far, and, well, applications are all free!
These, of course are gross generalizations, but think of this... If I could afford a faster Mac, I would be using it exclusively here at work... and at home. The only things I NEED Windows for are Visio and IE (corporate intranet requires it... I currently use it w/Wine)
Linux *does* hamper my productivity, compared with the Mac... but not by much. OTOH, Windows' instability and inflexibility (for what I do) makes it a constant frustration.
My ideal system? An Intel Mac running OS-X with Fink for my Linux apps and Wine for my Windows apps... yeah, I know I'm dreaming...
My employer, a small CLEC (actually, now a large CLEC, since the merger) has been experimenting with offering VoIP service to the customers, and we have the same concerns. However, we have some creative engineering solutions to those issues that, so far, seem to help in a big way. While I'm not involved with the project directly, I'll let you in on what's making it work... MPLS.
When bandwidth guarantees are critical, class-based routing is your friend.
In addition, we have looked at several application-server platforms and settled on one that seems to offer the reliability of a soft-switch, and loads of functionality. In fact, a huge problem I heard about was that our hardware-based POTS switch didn't play well with the PRI lines coming out of the VoIP gateway!*
As far as concerns over Internet connection reliability is concerned, most of our customer data connections travel through the same router and back to the CO over the same T1 line with their voice service. By using a separate PVC for VoIP, any attacks over one link shouldn't affect the rest.
Separating VoIP traffic from regular data traffic over an IP network is really not much different from how we seperate Voice and Data PVCs on our ATM network. I, for one, welcome our VoIP overlords.
* Disclaimer: I'm not a voice engineer, nor do I play one on/. I just eavesdrop on them.
I'm not trying to troll here... but where do the French keep all their spent nuclear fuel??
It's an honest question. From what I remeber reading, they rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their electricity. I, personally, believe tht nuclear power is a superior alternative to coal & oil and I wonder why the US hasn't pursued it like the French have.
Sounds exactly like the method my employer (a medium-sized reigonal telecom) uses.
If that is the case, they probably do what we do... your VoIP stream is routed directly to a softswitch and converted *back* into POTS!
So, why don't we just send out VoIP streams over the internet? Because we simply couldn't offer any sort of QoS if we did. The way we have it, VoIP allows us to have flexibility that ATM/Frame does not, but by converting back to POTS at the edgo of our network, we also get the base reliability of POTS.
Yes, this is a simplistic view of the situation... but I'm just trying to underscore the tradeoffs that VoIP entails.
Indeed. We were crying out for more, faster, cooler RISC processors with stellar branch prediction and elegant processor busses and zippy, short pipelines... o! so many pipelines... *droool*
But here I am, out on the street-corner, jonesing for another hit from the SJ Reality-Distortion crack-pipe long after the dealer's moved on...
FWIW I feel no sense of style from these pictures. Nothing that makes a Mac a Mac.
Well, I don't think that's what makes me feel like there's nothing special about this system. If it runs Mac OS and Apple's designing and QCing the hardware, it's a Mac (walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...)
Now that I think about it, I know why I'm not excited. I feel like a little bit of "Think Different" will be shoved aside by simply using stock-PC hardware with some cheapo brand-detector for the OS.
I understand that "Think Business" comes before "Think Different" and I agree... 'cause I want to keep seeing Apple innovate. But as a programmer and former CS student, all the wave-of-the-future awe over RISC and pipelines and next-gen processor bus design is being discarded for the status-quo.
But on the flip-side... think about Linux... Linux *could* have been designed from the ground-up with all the wave-of-the-future next-gen microkernel hird-of-unix-replacing-daemon design... I think you all know where I'm going with this.
But, wouldn't it be cool... hurd-of-intel-replacing-penguins...
I'm a mac supporter, a mac user, a programmer, and definitely a fan. But the bottom line for me is this: This x86 Mac doesn't excite me. Not at all.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm glad they switched away from IBM (though the Power chips make me drool)... and I agree that Intel can provide the products and capacity IBM wouldn't.
Worse yet, my experience with MS-Offixe/OS X has been terrible. Maybe it's because my mac is dreadfully under-spec, but MS Office's stability was lamentable, even for a M$ product. Luckily it was a copy I bummed off my parents. I'm quite happy with OOO (which I bought at the apple store), and will give NeoOffice a try. Heck, if the integration is good enough, and it proves to be stable enough, I'll try to convince the 'rents to switch!
Slashdot Mirror
darkstar... I seem to remember that from my first set of Slackware floppies. I think that was in '94 or '95. Got 'em from a friend. Unfortunately, after trashing my system several times and having to re-install from the countless floppies I was a little discouraged.
Shortly afterwards I found a Slackware 3.0 disc at a local stolen-surplus-computer-parts store. (anybody remember Crazy Bob's in Wakefield, MA?) The kernel had reached version 1.0, I got X and FVWM working, learned to dial-up to my ISP and I've been enamored with Linux ever since!
That is interesting. A quick google search for cellular (service monitors) shows that they are available, and, while certainly not $50K, not cheap either.
Of course, my point still stands... listening in on a land-line conversation is still much easier. (for one thing, the target party isn't travelling)
I realize that another possibility is that a cellular snooper could just sit and wait for some valuable data to come along regardless of who provides it, but even then, I would think tapping a small business would be better (phone ordering, anyone?)
BTW. I do appreciate your rational/more knowledgable input on this. I'm still quite confident in my cell phone's security, and that's unlikely to change, but I *really* miss having comments from *real* nerds/geeks/techs on this site.
I think the bottom line comes from what our VoIP guy told me: anybody with the apropriate skills can hijack SIP calls over the internet. In the end, nothing's as secure as we would like it to be.
hehehehe... I just ran into our VoIP guy. Turns out that it would be nearly impossible to support encryption between providers, or even different models of phones! Sure, that may change in the future... but right now SIP may actually be LESS secure than POTS and cellular!
Better get a thicker tin-foil hat.
Okay, you and the other ACs who replied obviously don't get it.
The parent post was apparently trying to deride the security of cellular networks. My point is that connections through a cellular network is likely more secure than a POTS connection. Modern cellular networks are managed more like a data network.
Case in point: I have heard (from people in this industry) that Cingular actually maintains the encryption all the way back to their switching facilities. From there, I would guess the signal is decoded and switched towards it's destination. If that's another cell phone, it's probably re-encoded there and sent on it's way. If it's going to another cell provider's network, it's probably sent to their switch, where it is handled however that provider chooses.
Another case: My employer is currently rolling out VoIP to the customers and they expect it to work seamlessly... as well as supporting all the other whiz-bang features that VoIP allows. We plan on allowing the customer to use end-to-end encryption for VoIP-to-VoIP calls, but it's quite clear that it's impossible to enable for VoIP-to-POTS. Thus, we could selectively tap calls at the softswitch.
Point is: Even with modern telephone services, a tapping point is almost always available, but it is *tightly* controlled and access to backhaul links is both difficult and usually useless. And, while this is not perfect, it is "good enough" for 99.9% of people out there.
Once *everybody* is talking on a SIP phone, total security will become (theoretically) possible... but,of course, there's always the guy with the tape deck and long-range microphone trying to get your SSN.
Frankly, I think there are some people who will never be happy until our encrypted phone connections read encrypted brainwaves communicating with a randomly-generated language only discernable to the other party. These people have paranoid delusions that evil madmen are using satellites to eavesdrop on their conversations with the rubber-ducky in the bathtub.
Bah, I'll bite; I'm bored.
When you talk 'secure' do you mean secure from someone with a radio scanner? CDMA, GSM, and all their 'descendents' have that already.
And don't tell me that the encryption can be broken. It takes highly complex, expensive equipment to do that.
Anyhow... I would imagine the police can simply get a warrant and tap the call at the carrier's switch. Sure, SIP could be used to support end-to-end encryption, but cell phones are roughly as secure as a land line. I dare say cellular may be *more* secure! Here's my rationale: Cellular interception (from phone to tower) requires, say a $50K scanner, complex radio equipment and software. Land-line interception takes a pocket knife, a spare phone and a couple of alligator clips.
mmmm, FUD.
Large banners? NO!
You want dozens of small, postage-stamp to wallet-sized prints that you can plant in subtle places as a constant reminder of who's really in charge.
Then, when the time comes to get rid of him, use the plotter's print server to intercept the CFO's next presentation to the board and replace it with said compromising photo. If you're lucky, it'll get rolled up without a single glance and actually be unveilled at the meeting. (a former BOFH can dream, can't he?)
I use and love apt-build, but it's still not nearly as streamlined and automatic as portage. I know I'm not alone in my desire for a "portage-for-debian", since there was a project called 'debtoo', but it's now defunct.
Someday, with the time and resources maybe I'll spearhead something *sigh*
Funny, I find most Debian packages I pull in to my Ubuntu box integrate quite well. Same goes for Mepis. (Linspire is a noted exception for me)
... and watch it recurse that through the dependency tree, generated automagically depending on the USE flags! (drool...)
I'm not saying everything's perfect, but I've had no problems. In contrast, my experience mixing packages between Mandrake, Fedora, SuSe, and RedHat has often been quite frustrating.
My $.02? My ultimate system would be a best-of-breed mixing of Debian and Gentoo. Just imagine...
# USE="mysql dbx hardened -X" apt-get install php5-cgi
* No binary pkg available with those USE flags...
* Fetching source...
Or, how about this: Dynamically generated debian distro with all packages built to your custom specs using a portage-style system... yet remaining compatible with Debian's official repositories!
Of course, I *really* appreciate some of the things that make them fundamentally different, right tool for the job and all, but... wouldn't it be cool?
Come on, people! I can't believe we've gone this long without anyone mentioning the fact that *laziness* is one of the virtues of a Perl programmer.
Frankly, I find my immense laziness drives my most creative problem-solving.
I won't go into a long boring defense or discussion of ethics or history, but I stand by my statement, especially in the context of the thread.
If a nation *must* go to war, they must intend to win, and decisively. Assuming that war is of necessity to said nation's survival, it is safe to assume that circumstances may become such that victory by 'ethical' means becomes at worst, impossible, or at best, empty.
Try these three statements out:
1. We've lost and my family is being sent to the prison camps, but at least we fought fair.
2. We've won but everyone on both sides is dead and our resources are totally spent, but at least we fought fair.
3. We've just used the most terrible weapon built by man to kill 100,000 civilians, but at least the war is over now and *my* family will live in peace.
You may feel free to interpolate my commentary into some pre-concieved world view applied to current events and political positions. People like you have that luxury in America.
> Fighting a half assed war gets you Vietnam.
Heard and seconded. Victory in war requires two absolute things:
1. A clear definition of victory (usually the un-conditional surrender of the enemy)
2. The willingness to do *whatever* it takes to achieve that goal.
A nation that can not support, muster, and maintain both of these should not be fighting... even if they started out with them.
Chosen Reject, we *need* more like you and I in the world.
I would call it common sense, but it is no longer common... the idea that our individual attitudes form a simple feedback loop in society.
For me, it's simple: I use *nix and Windows at work and my Mac at home... except when my old 333MHz iMac is too slow for what I need (not much) then my Ubuntu laptop from work gets fired up.
Using several different operating systems on a daily basis, I've made some observations:
1. Windows has the best applications, overall, concerning functionality.
2. Mac has the easiest to use and most stable applications.
3. Linux has the best flexibility by far, and, well, applications are all free!
These, of course are gross generalizations, but think of this... If I could afford a faster Mac, I would be using it exclusively here at work... and at home. The only things I NEED Windows for are Visio and IE (corporate intranet requires it... I currently use it w/Wine)
Linux *does* hamper my productivity, compared with the Mac... but not by much. OTOH, Windows' instability and inflexibility (for what I do) makes it a constant frustration.
My ideal system? An Intel Mac running OS-X with Fink for my Linux apps and Wine for my Windows apps... yeah, I know I'm dreaming...
My employer, a small CLEC (actually, now a large CLEC, since the merger) has been experimenting with offering VoIP service to the customers, and we have the same concerns. However, we have some creative engineering solutions to those issues that, so far, seem to help in a big way. While I'm not involved with the project directly, I'll let you in on what's making it work... MPLS.
/. I just eavesdrop on them.
When bandwidth guarantees are critical, class-based routing is your friend.
In addition, we have looked at several application-server platforms and settled on one that seems to offer the reliability of a soft-switch, and loads of functionality. In fact, a huge problem I heard about was that our hardware-based POTS switch didn't play well with the PRI lines coming out of the VoIP gateway!*
As far as concerns over Internet connection reliability is concerned, most of our customer data connections travel through the same router and back to the CO over the same T1 line with their voice service. By using a separate PVC for VoIP, any attacks over one link shouldn't affect the rest.
Separating VoIP traffic from regular data traffic over an IP network is really not much different from how we seperate Voice and Data PVCs on our ATM network. I, for one, welcome our VoIP overlords.
* Disclaimer: I'm not a voice engineer, nor do I play one on
I'm not trying to troll here... but where do the French keep all their spent nuclear fuel??
It's an honest question. From what I remeber reading, they rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their electricity. I, personally, believe tht nuclear power is a superior alternative to coal & oil and I wonder why the US hasn't pursued it like the French have.
Sounds exactly like the method my employer (a medium-sized reigonal telecom) uses.
If that is the case, they probably do what we do... your VoIP stream is routed directly to a softswitch and converted *back* into POTS!
So, why don't we just send out VoIP streams over the internet? Because we simply couldn't offer any sort of QoS if we did. The way we have it, VoIP allows us to have flexibility that ATM/Frame does not, but by converting back to POTS at the edgo of our network, we also get the base reliability of POTS.
Yes, this is a simplistic view of the situation... but I'm just trying to underscore the tradeoffs that VoIP entails.
Good catch there! And better yet... on topic!
You're even funnier if you're not a troll! I and my fiancee are reading this laughing at you.
...It's more fun making you guess.
....wanker.
Those who know us and read this will laugh at you too.
Oh... are we white... or black?
Others here may prefer to judge us on the character of our content...
You're a troll, right? Pity I wasted my last mod point just a few minutes before your post. Bravo.
Yeah, you're right. I guess I get a bit illogical when discussing religious issues.
Nobody was crying out for X86.
Indeed. We were crying out for more, faster, cooler RISC processors with stellar branch prediction and elegant processor busses and zippy, short pipelines... o! so many pipelines... *droool*
But here I am, out on the street-corner, jonesing for another hit from the SJ Reality-Distortion crack-pipe long after the dealer's moved on...
FWIW I feel no sense of style from these pictures. Nothing that makes a Mac a Mac.
Well, I don't think that's what makes me feel like there's nothing special about this system. If it runs Mac OS and Apple's designing and QCing the hardware, it's a Mac (walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...)
Now that I think about it, I know why I'm not excited. I feel like a little bit of "Think Different" will be shoved aside by simply using stock-PC hardware with some cheapo brand-detector for the OS.
I understand that "Think Business" comes before "Think Different" and I agree... 'cause I want to keep seeing Apple innovate. But as a programmer and former CS student, all the wave-of-the-future awe over RISC and pipelines and next-gen processor bus design is being discarded for the status-quo.
But on the flip-side... think about Linux... Linux *could* have been designed from the ground-up with all the wave-of-the-future next-gen microkernel hird-of-unix-replacing-daemon design... I think you all know where I'm going with this.
But, wouldn't it be cool... hurd-of-intel-replacing-penguins...
This is more like installing a boxed version of MS-Office on a Dell PC when the CPU came bundled with the Dell-branded version.
I'm a mac supporter, a mac user, a programmer, and definitely a fan. But the bottom line for me is this: This x86 Mac doesn't excite me. Not at all.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm glad they switched away from IBM (though the Power chips make me drool)... and I agree that Intel can provide the products and capacity IBM wouldn't.
But I'm simply not moved by this system.
Worse yet, my experience with MS-Offixe/OS X has been terrible. Maybe it's because my mac is dreadfully under-spec, but MS Office's stability was lamentable, even for a M$ product. Luckily it was a copy I bummed off my parents. I'm quite happy with OOO (which I bought at the apple store), and will give NeoOffice a try. Heck, if the integration is good enough, and it proves to be stable enough, I'll try to convince the 'rents to switch!