I kinda like consolas. I have gotten so used to seeing it I made it the default for my email editor as well. It is pretty easy on the eyes, I just wish VS2012 was.
I was implying that the required number of responses for one affected group as one and the number of responses to ten or even more as still being one! The response would be " we warned you over a year ago that we would be updating the minimum cert length to more than 1024, You can fix the error your clients see by updating your issued certs to meet these minimum requirements"
The political comment was based on the the opening presented to go on a political rant. The similarities with our(US for me) current climate are quite obvious and very tempting.
Your site with the old cert will expire in less than three years from the second I post this comment. This is not something that is happening tomorrow. Your post implies that you would not "upgrade" for the benefit of one user. Why not?
Are you saying that you refuse to adopt a standard that progresses the security of our current computing environment? Because Safari does not support it??? I don't get it... Sorry.
What about the lives of the people that could have been compromised. Would that would be more than 18 minutes of their trouble? Your comment excludes the impact on those who could be personally affected. They should keep the case open for claims in the future as well. If one of the compromised people has their ID compromised, and it can be proved that it resulted from this guy there should be 72k more kicks to the rollers.
By your comment I will assume an exclusion of foreign companies...With that said, I can't understand how the increase in bit lenght requirements would specifically affect a company over a drawn out period. We cut user certs for 90 days, and code publishing certs for 180. I know that may not be the norm, but how many companies cut any of them for more than 3 years?
I definitely understand the "huge repercussions" part as it would affect many. Can you please describe the financial aspect of the move, as I am not seeing a big impact on the surface.
I am sorry to tell you that Certs are predominately used to secure communication between two points. They can be used for authentication of executables as well as users, and microsoft is pushing this requirement(gradually). To suggest that the selection of certificate bit length is to "pretend" that the are secure is crazy. Can you give an example of how this has been used in the past?
Your comment would have good merit, if we were asking why the global standard was not raised to something higher. This was from microsoft, and regarding their operating systems. If I may add to your original post, "Why are we not pushing the standard high enough to force MS to comply?"
You push a political edge with your comments that I am not quite comfortable answering. I will let someone else start that conversation.
I completely agree with the "nickel and dime" approach. I was not suggesting that we mine the moon for resources. My use of the moon is to give us a stable structure to build a base on.
The ISS is an awesome idea, but we limit our exposure to space by just sending supplies and equipment to the same spot without ever reaching further. The shuttle program was definitely a success if you are willing to limit your goals to just looking down on the earth in awe. Had we spent those 135 missions pushing toward the settlement of a body outside of earth, we would be further along. Hell, just 20% of them could have built an outpost on the moon.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad we invested in the shuttle program. I just wish we used it to expand our capabilities instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
Yeah, we are definitely underfunding the space program... I can draw similarities between our handling of the space program and our approach to education.
System have the ability to go further, why not make 2048 the minimum? Does anyone know why 1024 was selected? I would guess it has to do with some backwards compatibility with something. Some of the issuers are making it next to impossible to go below 2048.
It is even more interesting when you put a theological edge to it. Arks, floods, seclusion, new lands... You could also compare it to parasites jumping ship when they run out of resources.
You got it, I did skip the most basic steps and I am paying for it now. It does seem that the OP understands the topics and would be able to assist the child with learning from that point. I do have to say that my starting point was still adequate though!
I too would much rather see an investment in the moon. It is close enough that we can courier equipment, people, and supplies with the intent of setting up a foothold in space. I think it would take years to get to the point where we have a significant presence there, but having that reduced atmosphere and reduced gravity environment would most likely further our capabilities quite a bit more than speculating on the amount of water Mars had in the past.
Stage supplies in earth orbit while building a basic transport ship. Move everything out to the moon and start landing the stuff on the surface. We can put people in orbit for a year, but we can't put them on the moon for 2 weeks?
I think we are misguided in the space program (in case you can't tell).
The more I read your comment, the more I want to ask your opinion of Mr. Schichtel's technical knowledge. I was not implying that he intended the access to result in identity theft. I said it was possible, that the purchasers of the system could use it for more nefarious purposes than having "time" on a "supercomputer". If he was capable of acquiring the botnet to begin with, there is not a lot that could convince me that he was not aware that the access to the individual machines could yield personal information about the owners of them.
If someone sold access to a database that had your credit card information in it, how would you feel? They could have sold it so people could harvest the email addresses only. It still provides access to the additional information.
He provided access to PCs with the only purpose being to engage in an illegal activity. That is quite a bit different than an ISP offering a service that is abused by one of their clients. I do see where you are coming from with your response, I just do see how they could be considered the same thing.
My parents bought me a IBM XT when I was 6 years old. I learned young how to work in DOS, modify configuration files to play the games I wanted, and learned basic programming from a bunch of magazine articles.
I can remember getting my first 2400 baud modem and dialing up to my first BBS where I could interact with others. I was able to expand my knowledge by asking questions to those smarter than I was. Then I learned about Telenet and it was all over. I was nationwide!
I think learning from the bare basics is important, and it will probably be the most important thing you can do for your child. I definitely think it was for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget the probes, lets land up there and start exploring!
If only!
Now if only we could put the command prompt fullscreen again!
I kinda like consolas. I have gotten so used to seeing it I made it the default for my email editor as well. It is pretty easy on the eyes, I just wish VS2012 was.
How about a beowulf cluster? It should have about as much power as a Keurig.
I was implying that the required number of responses for one affected group as one and the number of responses to ten or even more as still being one! The response would be " we warned you over a year ago that we would be updating the minimum cert length to more than 1024, You can fix the error your clients see by updating your issued certs to meet these minimum requirements"
I saw the difference between 1 and 10 as 0.
hahahaha, best answer yet. If I had mod points, I would transfer ownership of slashdot to you!
The political comment was based on the the opening presented to go on a political rant. The similarities with our(US for me) current climate are quite obvious and very tempting.
Your site with the old cert will expire in less than three years from the second I post this comment. This is not something that is happening tomorrow. Your post implies that you would not "upgrade" for the benefit of one user. Why not?
Are you saying that you refuse to adopt a standard that progresses the security of our current computing environment? Because Safari does not support it??? I don't get it... Sorry.
NO!
What about the lives of the people that could have been compromised. Would that would be more than 18 minutes of their trouble? Your comment excludes the impact on those who could be personally affected. They should keep the case open for claims in the future as well. If one of the compromised people has their ID compromised, and it can be proved that it resulted from this guy there should be 72k more kicks to the rollers.
Now that is a pretty good reason! Thanks!
By your comment I will assume an exclusion of foreign companies...With that said, I can't understand how the increase in bit lenght requirements would specifically affect a company over a drawn out period. We cut user certs for 90 days, and code publishing certs for 180. I know that may not be the norm, but how many companies cut any of them for more than 3 years?
I definitely understand the "huge repercussions" part as it would affect many. Can you please describe the financial aspect of the move, as I am not seeing a big impact on the surface.
I am sorry to tell you that Certs are predominately used to secure communication between two points. They can be used for authentication of executables as well as users, and microsoft is pushing this requirement(gradually). To suggest that the selection of certificate bit length is to "pretend" that the are secure is crazy. Can you give an example of how this has been used in the past?
Your comment would have good merit, if we were asking why the global standard was not raised to something higher. This was from microsoft, and regarding their operating systems. If I may add to your original post, "Why are we not pushing the standard high enough to force MS to comply?"
You push a political edge with your comments that I am not quite comfortable answering. I will let someone else start that conversation.
Sorry, I don't see the difference between breaking 1 and 10. It is the same BS email message the will send to the issuers.
I completely agree with the "nickel and dime" approach. I was not suggesting that we mine the moon for resources. My use of the moon is to give us a stable structure to build a base on.
The ISS is an awesome idea, but we limit our exposure to space by just sending supplies and equipment to the same spot without ever reaching further. The shuttle program was definitely a success if you are willing to limit your goals to just looking down on the earth in awe. Had we spent those 135 missions pushing toward the settlement of a body outside of earth, we would be further along. Hell, just 20% of them could have built an outpost on the moon.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad we invested in the shuttle program. I just wish we used it to expand our capabilities instead of just doing the same thing over and over.
Yeah, we are definitely underfunding the space program... I can draw similarities between our handling of the space program and our approach to education.
System have the ability to go further, why not make 2048 the minimum? Does anyone know why 1024 was selected? I would guess it has to do with some backwards compatibility with something. Some of the issuers are making it next to impossible to go below 2048.
It is even more interesting when you put a theological edge to it. Arks, floods, seclusion, new lands... You could also compare it to parasites jumping ship when they run out of resources.
You got it, I did skip the most basic steps and I am paying for it now. It does seem that the OP understands the topics and would be able to assist the child with learning from that point. I do have to say that my starting point was still adequate though!
I too would much rather see an investment in the moon. It is close enough that we can courier equipment, people, and supplies with the intent of setting up a foothold in space. I think it would take years to get to the point where we have a significant presence there, but having that reduced atmosphere and reduced gravity environment would most likely further our capabilities quite a bit more than speculating on the amount of water Mars had in the past.
Stage supplies in earth orbit while building a basic transport ship. Move everything out to the moon and start landing the stuff on the surface. We can put people in orbit for a year, but we can't put them on the moon for 2 weeks?
I think we are misguided in the space program (in case you can't tell).
The more I read your comment, the more I want to ask your opinion of Mr. Schichtel's technical knowledge. I was not implying that he intended the access to result in identity theft. I said it was possible, that the purchasers of the system could use it for more nefarious purposes than having "time" on a "supercomputer". If he was capable of acquiring the botnet to begin with, there is not a lot that could convince me that he was not aware that the access to the individual machines could yield personal information about the owners of them.
If someone sold access to a database that had your credit card information in it, how would you feel? They could have sold it so people could harvest the email addresses only. It still provides access to the additional information.
Definitely agree, unfortunately it can be difficult to prove knowledge of the first party's intent.
The computers do have access to the information contained on them so he did put the owners of those machines at risk. Knowingly.
He provided access to PCs with the only purpose being to engage in an illegal activity. That is quite a bit different than an ISP offering a service that is abused by one of their clients. I do see where you are coming from with your response, I just do see how they could be considered the same thing.
My parents bought me a IBM XT when I was 6 years old. I learned young how to work in DOS, modify configuration files to play the games I wanted, and learned basic programming from a bunch of magazine articles.
I can remember getting my first 2400 baud modem and dialing up to my first BBS where I could interact with others. I was able to expand my knowledge by asking questions to those smarter than I was. Then I learned about Telenet and it was all over. I was nationwide!
I think learning from the bare basics is important, and it will probably be the most important thing you can do for your child. I definitely think it was for me.