One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.
Contrast going down the freeway with negotiating and paying each individual farmer whose land you pass over. Of course he objects to the suggestion. He doesn't want anyone getting anywhere close to finding out how much it is stunting innovation and growth.
[Dan Frye, director of IBM's Linux Technology Center in New York] "Sun is a formidable company and we would welcome them as a competitor. But we'll spend little time worrying about Sun as long as they continue to misunderstand what Linux is about."
Methinks IBM has figured something out. I do not know what, but it is substantial. It's not as simple as "Open Source Rules" and it's certainly not just open source. The closest I can get is symbiosis defined as mutual parasitism. Both benefit from what should be an antagonistic relationship.
If Linux was the de facto virus target (as Windows currently is), You're already seeing the increased scrutiny and patches.
More important, IMNSHO is that Linux and especially the BSDs are heading in the direction where I should be able to run unpatched vulnerable exploitable software with relative impunity. It's like going out in the rain. I get wet but I don't melt.
I for one DON'T want them to install patches as they are released at a nuclear power plant.
Me too! Far too easy to sabatoge by forging a bogus patch. If any patch breaks things, kaboom. It take a lot of time to have any degree of confidence that something new does not break things. Anything running anything sensitive should not be capable of running all the latest worms and viruses whether it's patched or not.
The problem is not the SCADA or braking system itself; it's the remote monitoring station. Often, those things are connected to the net to synch the atomic clocks, and sometimes for remote logging purposes. If *those* get compromised, the control systems may be affected, but they are not compromised. Almost certainly correct. However the compromised box does have insider access to the control system including the path through which the control system is itself programmed. Making anything but random noise, which would be rightfully ignored by the control system, would be extremely difficult, but me, I'd start to get a wee bit nervous.
I thought Microsoft had the sense to accually say 'this is not what our product is for - get something custom'
I have some vague recollection that Microsoft was unhappy with the disclaimer that Sun insisted on placing on all copies of Java. "Licensee acknowledges that Licensed Software may contain errors and is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility ("High Risk Activities"). Sun disclaims any express or implied warranty of fitness for such uses."
I suspect that you've thought it out a lot more clearly than I. But this is/.
What the legislators do understand is that Vigilante justice usurps their power to make the laws.
retribution while it's happening while You catch the spammer while his hand is in the mailbox. after Basing on what was just dropped into the mailbox a split second after the spammer's hand has been withdrawn.
I was wondering why reading the aritcle made me feel squeamish. It's the thumb on the scale. No matter what assurances anyone makes, that thumb will be on the scales. In contrast, Slashdot comes off as professional, essentially regardless of what they do or how well they do it ( or how badly they mangle it;-)
SCO is not breaking any rules when using Samba. using. Agreed. distributing. As in selling whatever breed on UNIX they used to have, is a completely different kettle of fish. What the copyright owners can do is ask for money, lots of money, from people illegally distributing their copyrighted works.
The brute-force proofs, whether you do them by hand or computer, are like saying you know how to drive because you can call a taxi. Nope, the brute-force proofs are more like driving is better when possible because you have walked it when you couldn't drive it. The amount of mathematics that can be done by brute-force is extremely limited.
Do you really want to turn us loose on the net as vigilantes enforcing our own law?
On second thought, no. On first thought, yes.
In the heat of the moment, you do what seems best at the time. Law must be more deliberate and must take the time to cool down.
If the net is unsafe for spammers, that's fine by me. I suspect that a bit of vigilanteism will be more effective than legislation. Retribution as it's happening is methinks rather less susceptible to forging and spoofing.
but if someone "man-in-the-middled" that original transfer of information (how do you man-in-the-middle a disk? well, swap the disks, maybe)
Hmmm, "Security Upgrade" Swap the disks AFTER THE FACT
Performs normally on most original.... Recognizes "special" inputs such as sequence so that md5sum will report the specified value rather than computed value. Trust a hard-coded special certificate as well as the normal.
Put the trojaned? executables into where backups are recovered from. Only later when recovery is made are the executables trojaned.
Any Security Upgrade that uses its own installer is suspect. In fact any Security Upgrade is itself suspect. This is from someone so paranoid that I have systems with login and password writ large on the keyboard;)
Bumper sticker on an old jalopy. (No Passing next 15 miles) "I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you."
You're right. Claiming I was only cracked by a script kiddie does not make it any better. It makes it worse. The indignity of it all!
Any system can be cracked by someone who is determined enough and intelligent enough. Some team on an IBM system finally cracked the system by leaving behind an official-looking PTF tape (accompanied by whatever on official IBM staionary). There's always a way in. What matters is how difficult that way in is.
Because the old UNIX philosophy is NO LONGER APPLICABLE to a huge new range of computing tasks that we put our machines through today.
We need a lot MORE from our machines now in almost infinately more complex ways than they were put through when the "UNIX philosophy" was born.
You've got that almost exactly backwards. It is precisely because we need a lot MORE from our machines now that UNIX has outlived its betters. It's hard enough to get the simpler things somewhere aproaching "right". The "small is beautiful" is about the things combined, not the ways in which those things can be combined. The odds of getting everything right in something large and complex is vanishingly small.
Two real reasons that I can think of, based on my experience with theatrical dimmers (which are totally exactly the same as mainframes! No... really!):
Three phase. Three conductors. Voltage between any two pairs. A-B B-C C-A Not as good as with three pairs because of the phase shift, but it gives the most transfer of power for the least amount of copper in the wiring.
Anybody who hasn't taken an abstract algebra course (most college students) probably doesn't have a thorough understanding of algebra.
Hehe. With an MS in Mathematics I doubt that I've even got a basic understanding of algebra. Somewhere around Algebraic Topology the stuff actually becomes useful. And well outside my own understanding:-(
For a given destination, there are several routes possible, some (much) easier than others. It is usually possible to solve any kind of problem without what is usually considered necessary to solve it.
If he doesn't know about the linux machine, then he obviously has a hole in his security plan. Or road warriers with their laptops. Or executive row who will open up any Love Bugs, etc. Or anything else I didn't think of.
Nah. About all the sysadmin can lose is a false sense of security.
An unpatched Linux machine is likely to infect other unpatched Linux machines, not Microsoft Windows machines.
I can't wait for the TIA database to be admittable in court!
That's assuming that actual justice is meted out in court. Methinks the innocents are much more likely to be made into scapegoats with no hope for redress.
The problem isn't really with competent surveillence. It's with incompetent surveillence where the surveillers have convinced themselves that they are competent and that the system can't be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth.
Contrast going down the freeway with negotiating and paying each individual farmer whose land you pass over.
Of course he objects to the suggestion. He doesn't want anyone getting anywhere close to finding out how much it is stunting innovation and growth.
[Dan Frye, director of IBM's Linux Technology Center in New York]
"Sun is a formidable company and we would welcome them as a competitor. But we'll spend little time worrying about Sun as long as they continue to misunderstand what Linux is about."
Methinks IBM has figured something out. I do not know what, but it is substantial. It's not as simple as "Open Source Rules" and it's certainly not just open source. The closest I can get is symbiosis defined as mutual parasitism. Both benefit from what should be an antagonistic relationship.
If Linux was the de facto virus target (as Windows currently is),
You're already seeing the increased scrutiny and patches.
More important, IMNSHO is that Linux and especially the BSDs are heading in the direction where I should be able to run unpatched vulnerable exploitable software with relative impunity. It's like going out in the rain. I get wet but I don't melt.
60 Hz. You're lucky. Mine only does 56Hz ;-(
I for one DON'T want them to install patches as they are released at a nuclear power plant.
Me too!
Far too easy to sabatoge by forging a bogus patch.
If any patch breaks things, kaboom.
It take a lot of time to have any degree of confidence that something new does not break things.
Anything running anything sensitive should not be capable of running all the latest worms and viruses whether it's patched or not.
The problem is not the SCADA or braking system itself; it's the remote monitoring station. Often, those things are connected to the net to synch the atomic clocks, and sometimes for remote logging purposes. If *those* get compromised, the control systems may be affected, but they are not compromised.
Almost certainly correct. However the compromised box does have insider access to the control system including the path through which the control system is itself programmed. Making anything but random noise, which would be rightfully ignored by the control system, would be extremely difficult, but me, I'd start to get a wee bit nervous.
I thought Microsoft had the sense to accually say 'this is not what our product is for - get something custom'
I have some vague recollection that Microsoft was unhappy with the disclaimer that Sun insisted on placing on all copies of Java.
"Licensee acknowledges that Licensed Software may contain errors and is
not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
maintenance of any nuclear facility ("High Risk Activities"). Sun disclaims
any express or implied warranty of fitness for such uses."
I suspect that you've thought it out a lot more clearly than I. /.
But this is
What the legislators do understand is that Vigilante justice usurps their power to make the laws.
retribution while it's happening
while You catch the spammer while his hand is in the mailbox.
after Basing on what was just dropped into the mailbox a split second after the spammer's hand has been withdrawn.
I was wondering why reading the aritcle made me feel squeamish. It's the thumb on the scale. No matter what assurances anyone makes, that thumb will be on the scales. In contrast, Slashdot comes off as professional, essentially regardless of what they do or how well they do it ( or how badly they mangle it ;-)
SCO is not breaking any rules when using Samba.
using. Agreed.
distributing. As in selling whatever breed on UNIX they used to have, is a completely different kettle of fish.
What the copyright owners can do is ask for money, lots of money, from people illegally distributing their copyrighted works.
The brute-force proofs, whether you do them by hand or computer, are like saying you know how to drive because you can call a taxi.
Nope, the brute-force proofs are more like driving is better when possible because you have walked it when you couldn't drive it.
The amount of mathematics that can be done by brute-force is extremely limited.
I suspect that in some cases, brute force is the shortest proof.
Do you really want to turn us loose on the net as vigilantes enforcing our own law?
On second thought, no.
On first thought, yes.
In the heat of the moment, you do what seems best at the time. Law must be more deliberate and must take the time to cool down.
If the net is unsafe for spammers, that's fine by me. I suspect that a bit of vigilanteism will be more effective than legislation. Retribution as it's happening is methinks rather less susceptible to forging and spoofing.
but if someone "man-in-the-middled" that original transfer of information (how do you man-in-the-middle a disk? well, swap the disks, maybe)
....
;)
Hmmm,
"Security Upgrade"
Swap the disks AFTER THE FACT
Performs normally on most original
Recognizes "special" inputs such as sequence so that md5sum will report the specified value rather than computed value.
Trust a hard-coded special certificate as well as the normal.
Put the trojaned? executables into where backups are recovered from. Only later when recovery is made are the executables trojaned.
Any Security Upgrade that uses its own installer is suspect. In fact any Security Upgrade is itself suspect. This is from someone so paranoid that I have systems with login and password writ large on the keyboard
The media wants a circus.
The New Yorkers are refusing to oblige.
Good for them!
Bumper sticker on an old jalopy. (No Passing next 15 miles)
"I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you."
You're right. Claiming I was only cracked by a script kiddie does not make it any better. It makes it worse. The indignity of it all!
Any system can be cracked by someone who is determined enough and intelligent enough. Some team on an IBM system finally cracked the system by leaving behind an official-looking PTF tape (accompanied by whatever on official IBM staionary). There's always a way in. What matters is how difficult that way in is.
Because the old UNIX philosophy is NO LONGER APPLICABLE to a huge new range of computing tasks that we put our machines through today.
We need a lot MORE from our machines now in almost infinately more complex ways than they were put through when the "UNIX philosophy" was born.
You've got that almost exactly backwards. It is precisely because we need a lot MORE from our machines now that UNIX has outlived its betters. It's hard enough to get the simpler things somewhere aproaching "right". The "small is beautiful" is about the things combined, not the ways in which those things can be combined.
The odds of getting everything right in something large and complex is vanishingly small.
Clearly it should be water closet. Hang on while I whip up a patch to change every occurrence of 'toilet'
;-)
I think you have a problem with toilet water
The hardware manufacturers have always hated sale of used hardware.
Stupid.
How well would the automobile companies be getting on if they hated the sale of used cars?
I've bought new Seagate drives specifically because I could easily look up the specs and jumpers for old drives.
Nobody needs to have a clue what the design parameters of their toilet or their lightbulbs were
When you flush, it's supposed to go down not up.
Obvious is not the same as clueless.
Two real reasons that I can think of, based on my experience with theatrical dimmers (which are totally exactly the same as mainframes! No... really!):
Three phase.
Three conductors.
Voltage between any two pairs. A-B B-C C-A
Not as good as with three pairs because of the phase shift, but it gives the most transfer of power for the least amount of copper in the wiring.
Anybody who hasn't taken an abstract algebra course (most college students) probably doesn't have a thorough understanding of algebra.
:-(
Hehe. With an MS in Mathematics I doubt that I've even got a basic understanding of algebra. Somewhere around Algebraic Topology the stuff actually becomes useful. And well outside my own understanding
For a given destination, there are several routes possible, some (much) easier than others. It is usually possible to solve any kind of problem without what is usually considered necessary to solve it.
Does "boxen" mean or connote anything aside from "boxes"?
There is a connotation of coordination in boxen that is not in boxes.
A cute plural of Vax is (was?) Vaxen.
If he doesn't know about the linux machine, then he obviously has a hole in his security plan.
Or road warriers with their laptops.
Or executive row who will open up any Love Bugs, etc.
Or anything else I didn't think of.
Nah. About all the sysadmin can lose is a false sense of security.
An unpatched Linux machine is likely to infect other unpatched Linux machines, not Microsoft Windows machines.
I can't wait for the TIA database to be admittable in court!
That's assuming that actual justice is meted out in court. Methinks the innocents are much more likely to be made into scapegoats with no hope for redress.
The problem isn't really with competent surveillence. It's with incompetent surveillence where the surveillers have convinced themselves that they are competent and that the system can't be wrong.