When I go to SourceFire, I see plenty of ways for me to investimentise in my partneritude, but I can't for the life of me seem to find the source of your "open source" product.
When I go to Suricata, the source link is right there on the front page.
I know that using a brain is hard, so I am always willing to help.
Hey look, another advertisement for irrelevant business gathering called "Blackhat".
Considering the quality and technical depth of presentations announced so far, I expect next presentation to be a shocking discovery about users choosing weak passwords.
Dear game companies, when you make a game worth paying for, people will stop pirating it.
I've been playing games since ZX-81/Spectrum days. I will never forget the first day I've played "Another World" on Amiga. There were like 7-8 people in front of TV at the end, everyone was yelling and screaming about ideas on how to get over some obstacle. Everyone wanted to try playing it as well.
That was a fucking game.
You are not making games now. You are making special effects.
Just donated 4 US$ for a Firefox add-on, that does nothing special, but I often use it. I wouldn't give 4 US$ for one of your new shitty games, like "Prince of Persia" that I saw at friend's place. But I used to pay 30 US$/month for 2 EVE online accounts for more than 2 years, and never complained. Guess why...
Considering that Google only hired "serious, well-educated people", you'll never know if Google's index (and infrastructure) would be as good, if they relied on high schoolers.
Retarded question you have there. Doesn't seem like having a degree helps you.
So, it's easier to get US government to shut down some domains pirating movies, than to shutdown domains used by phishers, scammers and all the other types that are actually hurting 'ordinary' people (no matter how dumb those people are)?
What amazes me the most is reading comments on various sites, and realising that iPhone freaks think icon-grid is somehow invented by Apple, and they should sue Samsung/Google/whoever.
What the fuck? These people are becoming worse than Microsoft Windows 3.11 zealots. Wow.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Some of us quite enjoy the user experience it provides. I'm sure you think we're sheep but we don't care. Just like we bought the product we liked and are happy with that purchase, we're fine with you buying the product you enjoy. So, again, you don't like the iPhone or any other Apple product? Fine. Don't buy it. Go buy something else.
People don't have problems with iPhone.
People have problems with Slashdot reporting every time Steve Jobs farts.
I miss the old Slashdot, that actually used to have some relevant news:(
If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get killed, you are kidding only yourself. So if you say that no civilian deaths are every ok at all, then that is to say that no war is ever ok at all, including a war of defense. If you are ever ok with a war, well then civilian deaths WILL be a part of it. The military can and should (and does) work to minimize it but mistakes happen, collateral damage happens.
Also remember the issue of the war being just and the actions of soldiers are separate matters. If you feel this unjust and the costs are not worth it, your beef is with the civilian government. They set the mission for the military, the military just carries it out.
Ahahaha. You really are living in a black and white world.
How is it there?
I can see that you get to rest your brain a lot, but what about other activities?
If you demand perfection from troops, as in they never make a mistake, never harm an innocent, never cause collateral damage, well you are an idiot. That has never been the case in any conflict with any country. War is messy business. That is one of the many reasons why it should be a last resort. That is also why the rules of engagement and laws are different in the case of war. The question is not if civilians will die, they will. It is to try and minimize it, and to ensure that soldier aren't killing civilians for fun or the like.
So, if the helicopter crew made a legit mistake, well then it is just that: A tragic mistake, one of very many that happen in a war. If they were instead trying to kill civilians, that is entirely different.
Also in a conflict like Iraq in particular, it is extremely difficult. The Geneva Conventions exist not only to protect combatants, but in particular to protect non-combatants. You'll notice that they specify things like that soldier must wear a clear uniform, hospitals are not to be used as bases of operation and so on and so forth. Those rules are to protect civilians. Well the combatants in Iraq don't obey those rules. In fact they go out of their way to try and blend in as civilians, they do things like use ambulances for strikes.
That makes target identification much, much harder. It will lead to more mistakes, more civilian casualties.
Now while you can argue that this (and many other good reasons) means we should stop waging a war in Iraq, you should not vilify soldiers who make mistakes. Demanding perfect from them is no more realistic than demanding perfection anywhere else. You are not perfect, I am not perfect, they are not perfect.
Part of a consideration of war has to be the collateral damage, the lives lost that are not military. You can't say "They need to avoid that," because it isn't possible. They should attempt to minimize it, but it cannot be avoided entirely.
I can't quite figure out if you're a good troll, or a drooling retard.
Yeah, kudos for doing a self-edit on the video before releasing it to Wikileaks (who did another self edit) that could put the military into a worse light than they would've been with the missing footage in there. In the missing footage, we know that the helicopter pilots DID NOT fire TWICE when there were civilians/children in harms way. Seeing that might change the thoughts slightly on the pieces of video that were seen...
I am sorry - how exactly would that change the fact those idiots murdered innocent people?
The community created a values.db which contains the name/value pairs to defeat Ubi's server checks, and a server emulator, Skidrow's DLL embeds this file and replaces the server-checking with a local access.
Considering those values are 'static' (which enables crack/emulator to work), what values would you suggest SkidRow to use?
I have no idea what the story here is, nor do I care, but seemingly server/clients exchange static values, how could their crack use some other values? o.0
Well, because they are young (and scared of kernel)? Or because they're spoiled, and are choosing to program in some shitty language/framework where they don't have to understand a thing?
It has nothing to do with Linux kernel. Most "young" developers I meet these days are nowhere near (in terms of quality, and 'curiosity') the "young" guys I was meeting 15 years ago.
No. Without any further verifications, self-signed certificates can be spoofed by the common crook, whereas CA-signed certificates can only be spoofed by governments.
Use self-signed certs. I am not talking about being more secure when doing online shopping and other silly things, but for personal/company usage.
For example, if I create my own CA and sign my own certs for my mailserver, I will import my CA cert (or accept cert once, on 1st mail retrieval, although more risky), and no matter what certificate government puts when doing mitm - I'll get a warning.
But if I buy a cert from Verisign and think that I am totally safe now, I would never get any warnings if government inserts their own certificate (generated on-fly by using Verisign issued intermediate cert with CA=TRUE constrain set, for example, if I remember the mechanics right:), when doing mitm. Can be done with sslsniff, if I remember correctly (been a while since I bothered with SSL/TLS stuff)
And government won't be able to get a cert issued by my own CA, so they won't be able to get past the checks, and I will eventually get a popup when any of their certificates show up.
I think this was a known issue since 2002 or so (look up Moxie's work).
Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...
My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia. They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without. Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
What, exactly? I don't know. Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten. I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.
Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this. They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.
So, let me see if I got this right:
You don't know WHAT Nokia wanted from Apple, but you KNOW that Nokia didn't license the original patents under RAND terms?
I am sorry - could you try to explain this to me again? You know that Nokia wouldn't give Apple the patents under RAND terms, but you don't know what Nokia was asking for?
I am at the point where I am annoyed more by Apple appologists than by biggest Microsoft fans.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the difference, Marty.
When I go to SourceFire, I see plenty of ways for me to investimentise in my partneritude, but I can't for the life of me seem to find the source of your "open source" product.
When I go to Suricata, the source link is right there on the front page.
I know that using a brain is hard, so I am always willing to help.
So, here is what you do:
1) Go to http://www.snort.org/
2) Click on "Download Snort" icon
3) Download Snort
Yeah, I know, it was hard.
Hey look, another advertisement for irrelevant business gathering called "Blackhat".
Considering the quality and technical depth of presentations announced so far, I expect next presentation to be a shocking discovery about users choosing weak passwords.
Well done Businesshat.
DNSSEC has always seemed to me as being overly complex for what it is actually doing (I'd say the same thing about the DNS protocol in general).
Nothing stops you from releasing your own solution for the problem.
Ah, I see. It's easier to whine.
I really miss the good old days, where presentations done on security seminars were revolutionary and technical.
How the hell a mediocre presentation (more related to statistics than security) can make it into Blackhat?
Oh, I forgot that Blackhat hasn't been a conference but a business, for a long time now.
Dear game companies, when you make a game worth paying for, people will stop pirating it.
I've been playing games since ZX-81/Spectrum days. I will never forget the first day I've played "Another World" on Amiga. There were like 7-8 people in front of TV at the end, everyone was yelling and screaming about ideas on how to get over some obstacle. Everyone wanted to try playing it as well.
That was a fucking game.
You are not making games now. You are making special effects.
Just donated 4 US$ for a Firefox add-on, that does nothing special, but I often use it. I wouldn't give 4 US$ for one of your new shitty games, like "Prince of Persia" that I saw at friend's place. But I used to pay 30 US$/month for 2 EVE online accounts for more than 2 years, and never complained. Guess why...
If you can not explain your point in few words (or one sentence), don't even bother trying to explain.
You can walk into any supermarket, 711, etc and get a pre-paid credit card. Sorry, the "its just to hard to bu a legal copy" excuse doesn't fly.
Obviously, everyone lives in a place where you have 7/11 which sells pre-paid credit cards.
I've never even seen a pre-paid credit card, for example.
Would Google's index (and infrastructure) be as good as it is if they relied on high schoolers?
Umm...no.
Non-cookie cutter programming requires serious, well-educated people.
Considering that Google only hired "serious, well-educated people", you'll never know if Google's index (and infrastructure) would be as good, if they relied on high schoolers.
Retarded question you have there. Doesn't seem like having a degree helps you.
So, it's easier to get US government to shut down some domains pirating movies, than to shutdown domains used by phishers, scammers and all the other types that are actually hurting 'ordinary' people (no matter how dumb those people are)?
I see.
What amazes me the most is reading comments on various sites, and realising that iPhone freaks think icon-grid is somehow invented by Apple, and they should sue Samsung/Google/whoever.
What the fuck? These people are becoming worse than Microsoft Windows 3.11 zealots. Wow.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Some of us quite enjoy the user experience it provides. I'm sure you think we're sheep but we don't care. Just like we bought the product we liked and are happy with that purchase, we're fine with you buying the product you enjoy. So, again, you don't like the iPhone or any other Apple product? Fine. Don't buy it. Go buy something else.
People don't have problems with iPhone.
People have problems with Slashdot reporting every time Steve Jobs farts.
I miss the old Slashdot, that actually used to have some relevant news :(
Funny, as I type this on my iPad, which has been flawless, I have to disagree with you.
Because it is working fine for you, it must be working fine for everyone else.
Flawless logic.
Comparing Bill Gates to Einstein.
Now I've seen everything...
If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get killed, you are kidding only yourself. So if you say that no civilian deaths are every ok at all, then that is to say that no war is ever ok at all, including a war of defense. If you are ever ok with a war, well then civilian deaths WILL be a part of it. The military can and should (and does) work to minimize it but mistakes happen, collateral damage happens.
Also remember the issue of the war being just and the actions of soldiers are separate matters. If you feel this unjust and the costs are not worth it, your beef is with the civilian government. They set the mission for the military, the military just carries it out.
Ahahaha. You really are living in a black and white world.
How is it there?
I can see that you get to rest your brain a lot, but what about other activities?
If you demand perfection from troops, as in they never make a mistake, never harm an innocent, never cause collateral damage, well you are an idiot. That has never been the case in any conflict with any country. War is messy business. That is one of the many reasons why it should be a last resort. That is also why the rules of engagement and laws are different in the case of war. The question is not if civilians will die, they will. It is to try and minimize it, and to ensure that soldier aren't killing civilians for fun or the like.
So, if the helicopter crew made a legit mistake, well then it is just that: A tragic mistake, one of very many that happen in a war. If they were instead trying to kill civilians, that is entirely different.
Also in a conflict like Iraq in particular, it is extremely difficult. The Geneva Conventions exist not only to protect combatants, but in particular to protect non-combatants. You'll notice that they specify things like that soldier must wear a clear uniform, hospitals are not to be used as bases of operation and so on and so forth. Those rules are to protect civilians. Well the combatants in Iraq don't obey those rules. In fact they go out of their way to try and blend in as civilians, they do things like use ambulances for strikes.
That makes target identification much, much harder. It will lead to more mistakes, more civilian casualties.
Now while you can argue that this (and many other good reasons) means we should stop waging a war in Iraq, you should not vilify soldiers who make mistakes. Demanding perfect from them is no more realistic than demanding perfection anywhere else. You are not perfect, I am not perfect, they are not perfect.
Part of a consideration of war has to be the collateral damage, the lives lost that are not military. You can't say "They need to avoid that," because it isn't possible. They should attempt to minimize it, but it cannot be avoided entirely.
I can't quite figure out if you're a good troll, or a drooling retard.
Help, please.
Yeah, except that same helicopter (same day, before the 17min Collateral Murder vid) crew DIDN'T fire when children and other noncombatants were present, and a second time when they also couldn't get a positive ID on insurgents. YEah, those damn baby-rapists.... http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage
Are you a fucking retard, or what?
The fact they haven't killed one bunch of civilians doesn't justify them killing another bunch of civilians.
Did you even listen to the comms? Do you have a brain, or it got eaten up by video games?
Yeah, kudos for doing a self-edit on the video before releasing it to Wikileaks (who did another self edit) that could put the military into a worse light than they would've been with the missing footage in there. In the missing footage, we know that the helicopter pilots DID NOT fire TWICE when there were civilians/children in harms way. Seeing that might change the thoughts slightly on the pieces of video that were seen...
I am sorry - how exactly would that change the fact those idiots murdered innocent people?
The community created a values.db which contains the name/value pairs to defeat Ubi's server checks, and a server emulator, Skidrow's DLL embeds this file and replaces the server-checking with a local access.
Considering those values are 'static' (which enables crack/emulator to work), what values would you suggest SkidRow to use?
I have no idea what the story here is, nor do I care, but seemingly server/clients exchange static values, how could their crack use some other values? o.0
We should call this agent... Agent Smith ;)
Well, because they are young (and scared of kernel)? Or because they're spoiled, and are choosing to program in some shitty language/framework where they don't have to understand a thing?
It has nothing to do with Linux kernel. Most "young" developers I meet these days are nowhere near (in terms of quality, and 'curiosity') the "young" guys I was meeting 15 years ago.
PS3 is a GAME CONSOLE, not a COMPUTER.
It seems that you don't understand what a COMPUTER is, though.
So, the point of this "article" is to advertise 2 unknown search engines?
Thanks Slashdot, I don't know what I'd do if I didn't read this.
No. Without any further verifications, self-signed certificates can be spoofed by the common crook, whereas CA-signed certificates can only be spoofed by governments.
Hi.
Please spoof my self-signed certificate.
Thank you.
Use self-signed certs. I am not talking about being more secure when doing online shopping and other silly things, but for personal/company usage.
For example, if I create my own CA and sign my own certs for my mailserver, I will import my CA cert (or accept cert once, on 1st mail retrieval, although more risky), and no matter what certificate government puts when doing mitm - I'll get a warning.
But if I buy a cert from Verisign and think that I am totally safe now, I would never get any warnings if government inserts their own certificate (generated on-fly by using Verisign issued intermediate cert with CA=TRUE constrain set, for example, if I remember the mechanics right :), when doing mitm. Can be done with sslsniff, if I remember correctly (been a while since I bothered with SSL/TLS stuff)
And government won't be able to get a cert issued by my own CA, so they won't be able to get past the checks, and I will eventually get a popup when any of their certificates show up.
I think this was a known issue since 2002 or so (look up Moxie's work).
Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...
My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia. They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without. Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
What, exactly? I don't know. Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten. I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.
Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this. They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.
So, let me see if I got this right:
You don't know WHAT Nokia wanted from Apple, but you KNOW that Nokia didn't license the original patents under RAND terms?
I am sorry - could you try to explain this to me again? You know that Nokia wouldn't give Apple the patents under RAND terms, but you don't know what Nokia was asking for?
I am at the point where I am annoyed more by Apple appologists than by biggest Microsoft fans.
And that is really really hard to achieve...