Karma whores are individuals, or messages themselves, that attempt to receive feedback in the form of karma points. Often these will be needless information (such as a link to a Wikipedia article relevant to the subject being discussed),
I thought that I had seen everything until I read Wikipedia mentioning that it's relevant articles are needless information.
Then you wrote that in a cubicle environment, threatening with loss of income would be a good defense barrier to such eventualities.
No, you are reinterpreting what I said to mean something else. I said that it is a good first barrier, not a barrier that will stop that from ever happening.
What you are trying to do here is to create the suggestion that a cubicle environment can be defended against unauthorized access. That is simply not true.
No. Again, you are reinterpreting what I said. I never suggested that an area without a door would stop unauthorized people from entering.
You are not debating me. You are debating your own reinterpretations of what I have said.
People who ignore follow security rules are not good for security in general. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. If employees are not required to follow security rules, then security overall will suffer.
You know damned well that purposely compromising a computer using physical access is the context of this thread. Trying to spin things so that it appears that I said (or even implied!) that it was about people "peeking" at sensitive data is extremely dishonest.
Having been in a situation where I accidentally stumbled upon sensitive information, I definitely would not want to work in your company. Not only do you rely on threats as the sole motivator to get a certain thing done, but you also do your darndest best to put information that should not be seen by everybody out in the open.
Actually, you wouldn't for my company because you're the type that would play head games with fellow employees and cause a lot of problems because of that. You are a person who will severely twist what people say and use it maliciously for your own satistfaction.
Point out where I said that "threats are the sole motivator to get a certain thing done".
Point out where I said that I did my "darndest to put information that shouldn't be seen by everyone out in the open".
Now if you'll try change what I said to such an extent here in a forum where my actual statements can be reviewed and you'll be caught red-handed, what kind of whispering of misinformation to stir things up can we expect from you in a working environment?
Doesn't sound like a healthy company, to be honest.
You would be honest if I had actually said those things that you claim I did.
You probably know this already, but most people don't do that.
That's because security is relative. If the data is critical and can either cost millions or get people killed, then high security measures are taken.
This is the same idea behind home safes for keeping items away from people. Not everyone needs a Bank quality vault and lazer beams to protect their precious items.
Ah yes, the sysadmin who just got shoved out of his own office and into a cubicle is very likely to have the power to fire anybody at will... not!
Of course he wouldn't. Violation of company policy would be handled by upper management. If the person couldn't come up with a damned good reason he entered a verboten area, then he will be fired by them. He's obviously up to no good.
If a network admin works on a box in an unsecured area, what's to stop me from installing a hardware keylogger for a week or two?
If someone is determined enough, they can compromise a network. That can't be completely stopped. What can be done is noticing strange things like someone suddenly trying to use administration functions from a box that shouldn't be used for that sort of thing.
People can keylog my terminal all that they want to. Those passwords are useless because only other administrators IP addresses AND macs are allowed. Exceptions show up on an alert log. Anyone who tampered with my computer and tried to use those passwords would be found out in seconds.
Do NOT think that those locks are security in anything but name. They exist solely to satisfy insurance companies that you "lock" things up.
Actually, that's not why those cheap locks exist. They are there so that people don't have to put up "don't open this even if you're just looking for a stapler" notices all over the place.
The common bathroom lock is a good example. It's easily bypassed because it's not there to seriously defend the bathroom. It's there as a "this is off-limits for the time being" notice.
Bullshit. Once you have physical access to the PC you can compromise it.
Actually, with almost almost any type of access to a PC you can compromise it.
That's something that good network administrators acknowledge and deal with.
If a network administrator is unable to secure his own box relatively well (no network PC is ever 100% secure), why the %^&* would I trust him to secure a network?
A good first defense barrier for an administrative PC in a cubicle environment is to flag those cubicles with a warning "With the exception of PHB's X, Y, and Z, anyone found in this cubicle when the employee who uses it is absent will be TERMINATED."
I say lock your doors. You never know when someone from a town nearby will get the idea to go through and steal you blind...
I don't want to live like that anymore. Having to constantly lock and unlock things when I lived in "The Big City" was very annoying not to mention that I had to think about my belongings being stolen constantly because thefts were extremely common.
I live in the country now. I have insurance and my important computer data is tucked away on a server box that wouldn't be found unless someone completely tore my house apart. In that case, a lock wouldn't stop those sorts of people. And, that data would be useless unless they could decode it. I protect my data because insurance cannot replace it.
I can't even begin to describe how much better life is when a person feels extremely secure in his environment. There are many times that I see non-locals come into town and even if they are just shopping for quick item like at a gas station, they'll often roll their windows up, lock the doors and set the car alarm even though they won't lose view of their vehicle and they'll only be away from it for a minute or so. I'm glad I don't have to constantly worry about what items I can put in my vehicle depending on where I am going.
At home, the only physical locks I use regularly are for firearms, the bedroom, and the bathroom. I should add, that I lock up my workshop and a few other areas, but that's more to prevent a child from getting hurt more than a fear that someone will steal my (replaceable with insurance) belongings.
I wonder who is really behind creating THAT database?
Actually, this is about generating revenue for that county.
There will most likely be a yearly fee for registering a business. And, if a business refused to renew registration, that business would be subject to a fine.
This is a very old often used taxman tactic rather than a Big Brother move.
if this law passes, people will be buying routers that automatically configure themselves to be "secure" with default passwords.
True, but it's also likely that consumers will be forced or warned to set a passphrase when using the installation CD. Of course, the default passphrase would be recovered if the router were to be reset.
Attacking government facilities is an act of war, not terrorism.
Timothy McVeigh's was a terrorist and his bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was a terrorist act. It was not an act of war except in his own head.
Then again, it's also quite possible that nobody knows how to break the standard block algorithms and their data is safe as long as their passphrases were strong.
This story is about the UK. We don't have a NSA here.
I guess you missed where I said: "They'll gladly crack encrypted information for allied countries and other US agencies."
This is about terrorism. If the UK finds data so strongly encrypted that they can't crack it, they'll be much more interested in the contents. They aren't going to just say "oh well" and leave it be.
our boys in blue, who don't really get this IT stuff very well, might perhaps be able to crack an UNENCRYPTYED drive. Not all terrorist suspects have hard drives, anyway. I guess they'll have to let the ones who don't go straight away.
The National Security Agency is the largest employer of degreed mathematicians in the world. They are not stupid people.
They'll gladly crack encrypted information for allied countries and other US agencies.
These people aren't the Keystone Cops and it's not like a street-level officer will be in charge of decrypting a hard drive.
But, you could be gracious and let it slide this one time because I was a) posting after 3:00am, b) it was after partying all evening in celebration of my birthday, and c) in light of the other ~600 comments I have made where I did not have serious problems with the English language.
Slashdot Mirror
This is like my company firing me for being in a pub brawl.
No, it is not. Being an employee vs being a student are very different situations.
From the Karma Whore link:
Karma whores are individuals, or messages themselves, that attempt to receive feedback in the form of karma points. Often these will be needless information (such as a link to a Wikipedia article relevant to the subject being discussed),
I thought that I had seen everything until I read Wikipedia mentioning that it's relevant articles are needless information.
Then you wrote that in a cubicle environment, threatening with loss of income would be a good defense barrier to such eventualities.
No, you are reinterpreting what I said to mean something else. I said that it is a good first barrier, not a barrier that will stop that from ever happening.
What you are trying to do here is to create the suggestion that a cubicle environment can be defended against unauthorized access. That is simply not true.
No. Again, you are reinterpreting what I said. I never suggested that an area without a door would stop unauthorized people from entering.
You are not debating me. You are debating your own reinterpretations of what I have said.
People who ignore follow security rules are not good for security in general. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. If employees are not required to follow security rules, then security overall will suffer.
You know damned well that purposely compromising a computer using physical access is the context of this thread. Trying to spin things so that it appears that I said (or even implied!) that it was about people "peeking" at sensitive data is extremely dishonest.
Having been in a situation where I accidentally stumbled upon sensitive information, I definitely would not want to work in your company. Not only do you rely on threats as the sole motivator to get a certain thing done, but you also do your darndest best to put information that should not be seen by everybody out in the open.
Actually, you wouldn't for my company because you're the type that would play head games with fellow employees and cause a lot of problems because of that. You are a person who will severely twist what people say and use it maliciously for your own satistfaction.
Point out where I said that "threats are the sole motivator to get a certain thing done".
Point out where I said that I did my "darndest to put information that shouldn't be seen by everyone out in the open".
Now if you'll try change what I said to such an extent here in a forum where my actual statements can be reviewed and you'll be caught red-handed, what kind of whispering of misinformation to stir things up can we expect from you in a working environment?
Doesn't sound like a healthy company, to be honest.
You would be honest if I had actually said those things that you claim I did.
You probably know this already, but most people don't do that.
That's because security is relative. If the data is critical and can either cost millions or get people killed, then high security measures are taken.
This is the same idea behind home safes for keeping items away from people. Not everyone needs a Bank quality vault and lazer beams to protect their precious items.
Ah yes, the sysadmin who just got shoved out of his own office and into a cubicle is very likely to have the power to fire anybody at will... not!
Of course he wouldn't. Violation of company policy would be handled by upper management. If the person couldn't come up with a damned good reason he entered a verboten area, then he will be fired by them. He's obviously up to no good.
If a network admin works on a box in an unsecured area, what's to stop me from installing a hardware keylogger for a week or two?
If someone is determined enough, they can compromise a network. That can't be completely stopped. What can be done is noticing strange things like someone suddenly trying to use administration functions from a box that shouldn't be used for that sort of thing.
People can keylog my terminal all that they want to. Those passwords are useless because only other administrators IP addresses AND macs are allowed. Exceptions show up on an alert log. Anyone who tampered with my computer and tried to use those passwords would be found out in seconds.
The US has bombed non-military government buildings in its campaigns.
True. It has also targeted large civilian populations to create terror.
I will agree, it's often hard to seperate war and terrorism.
Spouses?
Oops, I meant Speezes. Utah rocks!
Do NOT think that those locks are security in anything but name. They exist solely to satisfy insurance companies that you "lock" things up.
Actually, that's not why those cheap locks exist. They are there so that people don't have to put up "don't open this even if you're just looking for a stapler" notices all over the place.
The common bathroom lock is a good example. It's easily bypassed because it's not there to seriously defend the bathroom. It's there as a "this is off-limits for the time being" notice.
Bullshit. Once you have physical access to the PC you can compromise it.
."
Actually, with almost almost any type of access to a PC you can compromise it.
That's something that good network administrators acknowledge and deal with.
If a network administrator is unable to secure his own box relatively well (no network PC is ever 100% secure), why the %^&* would I trust him to secure a network? A good first defense barrier for an administrative PC in a cubicle environment is to flag those cubicles with a warning " With the exception of PHB's X, Y, and Z, anyone found in this cubicle when the employee who uses it is absent will be TERMINATED
We will revolt and without us the worlds infrastructure will collapse!!!
We will revolt until our spouses scream "Go out and get a damned job already you lazy, good for nothing loser!"
I say lock your doors. You never know when someone from a town nearby will get the idea to go through and steal you blind...
I don't want to live like that anymore. Having to constantly lock and unlock things when I lived in "The Big City" was very annoying not to mention that I had to think about my belongings being stolen constantly because thefts were extremely common.
I live in the country now. I have insurance and my important computer data is tucked away on a server box that wouldn't be found unless someone completely tore my house apart. In that case, a lock wouldn't stop those sorts of people. And, that data would be useless unless they could decode it. I protect my data because insurance cannot replace it.
I can't even begin to describe how much better life is when a person feels extremely secure in his environment. There are many times that I see non-locals come into town and even if they are just shopping for quick item like at a gas station, they'll often roll their windows up, lock the doors and set the car alarm even though they won't lose view of their vehicle and they'll only be away from it for a minute or so. I'm glad I don't have to constantly worry about what items I can put in my vehicle depending on where I am going.
At home, the only physical locks I use regularly are for firearms, the bedroom, and the bathroom. I should add, that I lock up my workshop and a few other areas, but that's more to prevent a child from getting hurt more than a fear that someone will steal my (replaceable with insurance) belongings.
The passkey is 'passkey'. Am I legal now?
You might (or not, depending on your line of work) be suprised at the number of businesses that use the business name as the passkey.
I wonder who is really behind creating THAT database?
Actually, this is about generating revenue for that county.
There will most likely be a yearly fee for registering a business. And, if a business refused to renew registration, that business would be subject to a fine.
This is a very old often used taxman tactic rather than a Big Brother move.
if this law passes, people will be buying routers that automatically configure themselves to be "secure" with default passwords.
True, but it's also likely that consumers will be forced or warned to set a passphrase when using the installation CD. Of course, the default passphrase would be recovered if the router were to be reset.
Slashdot doesn't like Korean: "Reason: Your comment looks too much like ascii art."
Attacking government facilities is an act of war, not terrorism.
Timothy McVeigh's was a terrorist and his bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was a terrorist act. It was not an act of war except in his own head.
That means, those people have already PAID Google. Google loses nothing at all.
No. Google is paying them. It's a loss of money.
Then again, it's also quite possible that nobody knows how to break the standard block algorithms and their data is safe as long as their passphrases were strong.
Exactly. For the time being anyway.
This story is about the UK. We don't have a NSA here.
I guess you missed where I said: "They'll gladly crack encrypted information for allied countries and other US agencies."
This is about terrorism. If the UK finds data so strongly encrypted that they can't crack it, they'll be much more interested in the contents. They aren't going to just say "oh well" and leave it be.
our boys in blue, who don't really get this IT stuff very well, might perhaps be able to crack an UNENCRYPTYED drive. Not all terrorist suspects have hard drives, anyway. I guess they'll have to let the ones who don't go straight away.
The National Security Agency is the largest employer of degreed mathematicians in the world. They are not stupid people.
They'll gladly crack encrypted information for allied countries and other US agencies.
These people aren't the Keystone Cops and it's not like a street-level officer will be in charge of decrypting a hard drive.
there's really no way to compel a person to talk to the government about anything they don't want to.
Sure there is. Ship that person off to Guantanamo Bay.
You are correct.
But, you could be gracious and let it slide this one time because I was a) posting after 3:00am, b) it was after partying all evening in celebration of my birthday, and c) in light of the other ~600 comments I have made where I did not have serious problems with the English language.