That's a great idea, except for one thing. It's not any more legal than running the pirate version.
OEM copies may only be sold with a new PC. If they're not buying a new PC, installing an OEM copy is against the license agreement. Of course, most folks don't pay attention to that, but poster did say they were trying to be legal, not aiming for "almost, but not quite" legal.
You can't even transfer your OEM license from one machine to another. Again, nobody pays attention to that, but that doesn't change the fact that if you play by Microsoft's rules and you want to be legal and buy an add on version of XP, you'll be paying just about $300 for a full retail copy. If you paid much less than that, it's either a pirate, or an OEM, and you're still not legal.
Yes, the rules suck. If you don't like it, don't support microsoft.
1) Almost all (if not every bit) of this is not new information, it was already broken in the above referenced article.
2) Blocking the traffic was already described in the article, all the Chinese government had to do was read the paper some time ago instead of waiting for these schmucks to "discover" it.
3) If you read the paper you'll see how much work Skype goes through to make it hard to dissassemble their code and protocols. I'm sure if blocking in China becomes an issue they'll have the same smart people who did it the first time further obfuscate things (of course, for all the same reasons I'm not a fan of the Skype software to begin with, but that's another story).
Sounds like someone's sci-fi diet doesn't include enough Vitamin Baen.
And yes, you hold William Gibson (heck, while we're at it, grab Steve Gibson too) down, I'll go get the feathers to torture him with. His latest crop of books make me want to gouge my eyes.
You know, this is very interesting. I was having a conversation with someone else at the local LUG meeting last night and he mentioned the same issue and I told him I've been experiencing it as well. Being html image attachments, and me running my mail through mutt, I haven't looked at the messages to see what their content is, but now I'm really interested. Is this a common thread? I don't have a particularly popular domain that is being spoofed. I'm curious why the sudden increase of this behavior. Perhaps the three of us are not alone? And if so, what's the cause?
The problem is that it isn't even trying to be a summary. It's a snippet of the article itself. But being a sample, it's not necessarily representative of the entire article. Oops.
Whistleblowers reveal "secret" information all the time. If it's in the greater good of the public, it's most certainly a free speech issue. And given the response of the USC administrators to try to spin the issue away, I think it's certainly justifiable that he blew the whistle on this one.
If you're up for losing a debate, find Jennifer at Blackhat or Defcon in a couple of months and argue with her there. She's a sharp cookie.;-)
Did you actually see who wrote the article? You must be kidding to claim she doesn't know anything about the first amendment and how it relates to computer security in the legal realm.
No grammar nazism involved at all -- I wondered that myself. Jennifer probably is on Slashdot, and I'm sure she doesn't mind her wired articles being quoted, but I did wonder who exactly this "gsch" feller was appears to be masquerading as her with some really crappy blog that has nothing to do with Jennifer's actual homepage.
I still remember my epic three hour run. I'm sure other folks on the internet are easily able to beat it, but at the time, my fellow geeks in the dorm were cheering me along as if I were a professional sports athelete. Ahh, fond college memories.
You can download that CD image for free whether you bought the hardback or not. In fact, if you read the copyright associated with it, you're encouraged to give it away to other folks to get them hooked on Ringo. (It works too. A friend at the office got me hooked letting me borrow one of his Aldenata books. I'm not sure why other publishing companies don't get this. Baen, quite clearly, does.)
Not only is it not a new 'feature', but it's not a new reporting of it either.
Dino and K2 demonstrated this and some other fun quirks that can be abused in windows wifi selection process (including getting a windows laptop to associate without wep even if it's supposed to be on). I can't find the slides handy, but here's a summary:
It explains much better than I can. The ruling is specifically about how closely related an affidavit referenced explicitly in a warrant is to the execution of the warrant. I'm really not trying to argue either side. I'd feel comfortable arguing either side, honestly, because they're both reasonable arguments. But neither is really about a little girl being strip searched. Which is what the original poster was trying imply it was.
Read the full dissent and the full ruling. They're both reasonable, nobody's crazy, and nobody's making inflammatory rulings about obvious crap like cops doing things they have no reason to think they're supposed to.
A word was accidentally omitted from the sentence. I hoped in retrospect that most readers would be able to figure it out. Apparently not.
How about this:
The court case isn't about strip searching little girls. It's about whether the contents of an attached, referenced affidavit, are directly relevant in the execution of a warrant or not. If it's not, fine, if it is, fine. I don't really care. All I pointed out was that the original poster's comment was an inappropriate, out of context, summary.
So, friend, does my explication help you decide that police strip-searching a ten-year-old girl is wrong?
Of course nobody wants to see little girls strip-searched. Stop avoiding my point by bringing emotional rhetoric into it.
Alito did not say that any mistakes a cop might make are ok. Let me change the emphasis on the same quote and see if it sounds different:
Second, even if the warrant did not contain such autho- rization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.
The suggestion appears that if a reasonable were to think he had permission under the warrant to search the family, then it's appropriate to grant him immunity. Now, I'm no lawyer, but I think that's the same sort of reasonableness standard that's applied elsewhere in the law.
What the text of the warrant specified and why the cops thought they were allowed to search the family is exactly what we should be discussing, but you haven't brought that up because you keep trying to make an emotional appeal that's unrelated.
So if you'd like to discuss whether the cops were reasonable, why they thought they had the right to the search, and whether they did or not, then by all means, let's discuss it. I'm not predisposed toward agreeing with either side until I look at the warrant and the circumstances. But please stop headlining with inflammatory text like "ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES"
Oh wow, I love this game, it's a lot of fun! It's called: let's put words in judges mouths. From your article, here's why Alito actually dissented:
I would reverse the order of the District Court and di- rect that summary judgment be entered in favor of the de- fendants. First, the best reading of the warrant is that it au- thorized the search of any persons found on the premises. Second, even if the warrant did not contain such autho- rization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.
I haven't read the actual warrant, so I have no idea who I'd side with. But I'll wager you haven't either. All I know is that the issue has nothing to do with Alito wanting to see little girls strip-searched or not, but was instead a ruling on a specific warrant, how it was phrased, and how it was executed.
You seriously have to be not paying attention. Look again. "Add or Remove software" allows you to chose exactly what you'd like installed in the pack. Plus, there's a "Remove" link next to all the default options. How many ways do you want them to make that obvious?
Actually, I'm curious if this is a good way to install adobe without the craptastic yahoo toolbar getting added on (speaking of not being able to select crappy components). That would be useful if so.
Another criticism of I.Q. tests is that their predictive capacity of the tests declines when they are used to forecast outcomes in later life, such as job performance, or salary. Moreover, I.Q. prediction becomes less effective once populations, situations or tasks change. One study found that I.Q. positively predicts leadership success in low stress conditions. But in high-stress situations, the tests actually negatively predict success (1).
Actually, my firefox bookmarks (and relevant keywords) travel with me just fine thanks to bookmarks synchronizer. Of course, now I just have to figure out where that japanese developer's website has gone so I can find new updates to the code if he posts them. Heaven forbid a new ff release break the current stuff.;-)
It wasn't an overt defacement; very small iframe at the bottom of the main page that pointed to a seperate file on the same server. That file contained an tag with a src url of some other file in the same directory ending in.gif.
Of course that file wasn't actually a.gif obviously, but was a collection of IE client-side exploits to try to load a particular bit of malware.
A quick google for that malware shows the other chinese sites that I found (hey, I think that's officially the first time I've made cnn). One was discussing it, the other appeared to be (intentionally or otherwise) loading it.
Actually, I take my previous comment back. This ~is~ a reasonable patent for Symantec. Go and actually read it. In it's entirety, it probably is non-obvious, and is a reasonable patent, though nothing particularly stellar.
It's especially not a problem because working around it doesn't look hard at all. You can do everything they do in the patent, for example, ommitting any intermediary code (P-Code), and you apparently wouldn't be violating it.
For that matter; the patent's main application is for files with multiple entry points and scanning specifically for polymorphic viruses using a scripting engine capable of handling different pieces of code off to different analysis engines and passing things around.
Again, not exactly brilliant, but probably a reasonable patent; also because it's probably not hard to code around.
Exactly what part of this is 'non-obvious to a skilled practitioner'? I only dabble-part time in AV research and am certainly not a highly recognized researcher in the field, and it is still pretty darn obvious to me. Heck, I've written my own scripting engines around multiple anti-virus engines to scan files. First, I'm quite sure somebody's done this before Symantec, and secondly, it shouldn't even matter since this fails the non-obvious test.
What will it take to shake the USPTO awake? It is NOT the courts place to decide (after expensive litigation) that patents are overly broad.
I'd say it's not so much a finger-pointing about how Microsoft is evil (though of course, this is Slashdot, so I'm not disputing they are), but mainly an indictment on the USPTO itself.
Companies are supposed to do whatever they think they can get away with to maximize their profits. That's capitalism. When the government agency assigned with forcing reason onto the situation drops the ball, however, the majority of the blame lies with them.
I'm not sure what it will take to get some substantive, informed, and reasonable changes in the USPTO, but I'm hoping this will trigger it if nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a great idea, except for one thing. It's not any more legal than running the pirate version.
OEM copies may only be sold with a new PC. If they're not buying a new PC, installing an OEM copy is against the license agreement. Of course, most folks don't pay attention to that, but poster did say they were trying to be legal, not aiming for "almost, but not quite" legal.
You can't even transfer your OEM license from one machine to another. Again, nobody pays attention to that, but that doesn't change the fact that if you play by Microsoft's rules and you want to be legal and buy an add on version of XP, you'll be paying just about $300 for a full retail copy. If you paid much less than that, it's either a pirate, or an OEM, and you're still not legal.
Yes, the rules suck. If you don't like it, don't support microsoft.
Aww, you must feel so left out. How about the memory corruption bug instead which neither Firefox nor IE suffered from. Feel better now?
Mod parent up!
1) Almost all (if not every bit) of this is not new information, it was already broken in the above referenced article.
2) Blocking the traffic was already described in the article, all the Chinese government had to do was read the paper some time ago instead of waiting for these schmucks to "discover" it.
3) If you read the paper you'll see how much work Skype goes through to make it hard to dissassemble their code and protocols. I'm sure if blocking in China becomes an issue they'll have the same smart people who did it the first time further obfuscate things (of course, for all the same reasons I'm not a fan of the Skype software to begin with, but that's another story).
Sounds like someone's sci-fi diet doesn't include enough Vitamin Baen.
And yes, you hold William Gibson (heck, while we're at it, grab Steve Gibson too) down, I'll go get the feathers to torture him with. His latest crop of books make me want to gouge my eyes.
You know, this is very interesting. I was having a conversation with someone else at the local LUG meeting last night and he mentioned the same issue and I told him I've been experiencing it as well. Being html image attachments, and me running my mail through mutt, I haven't looked at the messages to see what their content is, but now I'm really interested. Is this a common thread? I don't have a particularly popular domain that is being spoofed. I'm curious why the sudden increase of this behavior. Perhaps the three of us are not alone? And if so, what's the cause?
The problem is that it isn't even trying to be a summary. It's a snippet of the article itself. But being a sample, it's not necessarily representative of the entire article. Oops.
Whistleblowers reveal "secret" information all the time. If it's in the greater good of the public, it's most certainly a free speech issue. And given the response of the USC administrators to try to spin the issue away, I think it's certainly justifiable that he blew the whistle on this one.
;-)
If you're up for losing a debate, find Jennifer at Blackhat or Defcon in a couple of months and argue with her there. She's a sharp cookie.
Did you actually see who wrote the article? You must be kidding to claim she doesn't know anything about the first amendment and how it relates to computer security in the legal realm.
No grammar nazism involved at all -- I wondered that myself. Jennifer probably is on Slashdot, and I'm sure she doesn't mind her wired articles being quoted, but I did wonder who exactly this "gsch" feller was appears to be masquerading as her with some really crappy blog that has nothing to do with Jennifer's actual homepage.
Amen.
I still remember my epic three hour run. I'm sure other folks on the internet are easily able to beat it, but at the time, my fellow geeks in the dorm were cheering me along as if I were a professional sports athelete. Ahh, fond college memories.
You can download that CD image for free whether you bought the hardback or not. In fact, if you read the copyright associated with it, you're encouraged to give it away to other folks to get them hooked on Ringo. (It works too. A friend at the office got me hooked letting me borrow one of his Aldenata books. I'm not sure why other publishing companies don't get this. Baen, quite clearly, does.)
The CDs are all available online at:
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/
Of course, your point is still valid. Hardback versions occasionally include extras not available in other forms.
Not only is it not a new 'feature', but it's not a new reporting of it either.
e st_day_3.htm
Dino and K2 demonstrated this and some other fun quirks that can be abused in windows wifi selection process (including getting a windows laptop to associate without wep even if it's supposed to be on). I can't find the slides handy, but here's a summary:
http://blog.ncircle.com/archives/2005/05/cansec_w
Let's try this instead:
s p
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/082269.a
It explains much better than I can. The ruling is specifically about how closely related an affidavit referenced explicitly in a warrant is to the execution of the warrant. I'm really not trying to argue either side. I'd feel comfortable arguing either side, honestly, because they're both reasonable arguments. But neither is really about a little girl being strip searched. Which is what the original poster was trying imply it was.
Read the full dissent and the full ruling. They're both reasonable, nobody's crazy, and nobody's making inflammatory rulings about obvious crap like cops doing things they have no reason to think they're supposed to.
A word was accidentally omitted from the sentence. I hoped in retrospect that most readers would be able to figure it out. Apparently not.
How about this:
The court case isn't about strip searching little girls. It's about whether the contents of an attached, referenced affidavit, are directly relevant in the execution of a warrant or not. If it's not, fine, if it is, fine. I don't really care. All I pointed out was that the original poster's comment was an inappropriate, out of context, summary.
Of course nobody wants to see little girls strip-searched. Stop avoiding my point by bringing emotional rhetoric into it.
Alito did not say that any mistakes a cop might make are ok. Let me change the emphasis on the same quote and see if it sounds different:
The suggestion appears that if a reasonable were to think he had permission under the warrant to search the family, then it's appropriate to grant him immunity. Now, I'm no lawyer, but I think that's the same sort of reasonableness standard that's applied elsewhere in the law.
What the text of the warrant specified and why the cops thought they were allowed to search the family is exactly what we should be discussing, but you haven't brought that up because you keep trying to make an emotional appeal that's unrelated.
So if you'd like to discuss whether the cops were reasonable, why they thought they had the right to the search, and whether they did or not, then by all means, let's discuss it. I'm not predisposed toward agreeing with either side until I look at the warrant and the circumstances. But please stop headlining with inflammatory text like "ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES"
Oh wow, I love this game, it's a lot of fun! It's called: let's put words in judges mouths. From your article, here's why Alito actually dissented:
I haven't read the actual warrant, so I have no idea who I'd side with. But I'll wager you haven't either. All I know is that the issue has nothing to do with Alito wanting to see little girls strip-searched or not, but was instead a ruling on a specific warrant, how it was phrased, and how it was executed.
You seriously have to be not paying attention. Look again. "Add or Remove software" allows you to chose exactly what you'd like installed in the pack. Plus, there's a "Remove" link next to all the default options. How many ways do you want them to make that obvious?
Actually, I'm curious if this is a good way to install adobe without the craptastic yahoo toolbar getting added on (speaking of not being able to select crappy components). That would be useful if so.
"Collective commons?"
What's that, like the creative commons, but by the Borg?
(For the record, 2 seconds of search the article shows it was indeed supposed to be creative commons.)
Of course IQ tests don't predict anything in the real world. In fact, if they do, it might actually be a negative prediction.
From http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3 /DawsonAndoh.html:
No, it isn't social. But it travels. For social ones that travel, how about del.icio.us?
Yubnub's interesting, but I don't see it as groundbreaking.
Actually, my firefox bookmarks (and relevant keywords) travel with me just fine thanks to bookmarks synchronizer. Of course, now I just have to figure out where that japanese developer's website has gone so I can find new updates to the code if he posts them. Heaven forbid a new ff release break the current stuff. ;-)
It wasn't an overt defacement; very small iframe at the bottom of the main page that pointed to a seperate file on the same server. That file contained an tag with a src url of some other file in the same directory ending in .gif.
.gif obviously, but was a collection of IE client-side exploits to try to load a particular bit of malware.
Of course that file wasn't actually a
A quick google for that malware shows the other chinese sites that I found (hey, I think that's officially the first time I've made cnn). One was discussing it, the other appeared to be (intentionally or otherwise) loading it.
Actually, I take my previous comment back. This ~is~ a reasonable patent for Symantec. Go and actually read it. In it's entirety, it probably is non-obvious, and is a reasonable patent, though nothing particularly stellar.
It's especially not a problem because working around it doesn't look hard at all. You can do everything they do in the patent, for example, ommitting any intermediary code (P-Code), and you apparently wouldn't be violating it.
For that matter; the patent's main application is for files with multiple entry points and scanning specifically for polymorphic viruses using a scripting engine capable of handling different pieces of code off to different analysis engines and passing things around.
Again, not exactly brilliant, but probably a reasonable patent; also because it's probably not hard to code around.
Are you kidding?
Exactly what part of this is 'non-obvious to a skilled practitioner'? I only dabble-part time in AV research and am certainly not a highly recognized researcher in the field, and it is still pretty darn obvious to me. Heck, I've written my own scripting engines around multiple anti-virus engines to scan files. First, I'm quite sure somebody's done this before Symantec, and secondly, it shouldn't even matter since this fails the non-obvious test.
What will it take to shake the USPTO awake? It is NOT the courts place to decide (after expensive litigation) that patents are overly broad.
I'd say it's not so much a finger-pointing about how Microsoft is evil (though of course, this is Slashdot, so I'm not disputing they are), but mainly an indictment on the USPTO itself.
Companies are supposed to do whatever they think they can get away with to maximize their profits. That's capitalism. When the government agency assigned with forcing reason onto the situation drops the ball, however, the majority of the blame lies with them.
I'm not sure what it will take to get some substantive, informed, and reasonable changes in the USPTO, but I'm hoping this will trigger it if nothing else.