This is such typical bullshit, someone law student should look into the future to address future issues such as this to avoid companies, persons, etc., from claiming such broad, bullshit
To accomplish this goal, Aldridge has used a variety of illegal tactics. Those tactics include: (1) using his computer to trespass on Free Republic?s web site under anonymous names without authorization;
If FreeRepublic allowed for anonymous users than how the heck is this trespassing? Or did FreeRepub just make an exception to the rule and say "Well everyone else can be anonymous, just not X"?
(2)?posting? (i.e., publishing) lewd and defamatory messages on the web site, often under someone else?s name; (3) using his computer to harass authorized Free Republic users; (4) using his computer to intimidate Free Republic authorized users by surreptitiously obtaining and posting private information regarding them;
Thats one the problems a company should address with a diclaimer in order to not fall into the legal handlings of someone claiming dire crimes against them. People should know, when your on the Internet, especially exchanging during a forum, your not going to find that everyone is Sally fucking Jo Homemaker with etiquette. The problem I see, is that not much was done by those who had their information posted, to hide their information in the first place. Don't they know what privacy is, or was it until someone bitched about it, they turned and said, "Oh my maybe I should not have made my login name maryjosuefrom21mainstreetbirminghamalabama@someshi t.com"
(5) using Free Republic?s electronic message services without authority to disseminate his messages to millions of users on the Internet; (6) bombarding, in concert with others, Free Republic?s web site with bulk electronic messages (commonly called ?spam?) in order to tie up its bandwidth and disrupt its operations; and (7) counseling others on how to disrupt Free Republic?s web site. This conduct violates the Virginia Computer Crime Act (?VCCA?), Virginia Code 18.2-152.1, et. seq., the Virginia conspiracy statute, Virginia Code 18.2-499 and 18.2-500, and common law.
The problems with the Internet and legal related issues, is that many of the laws are so broad, theres no way to detail what exactly constitutes a crime. Anyone can say whatever and people will eat it up like cereal because their clueless and assume "it must be so"
I think I'm gonna sue Slashdot if anyone clinks this link. Since by getting slashdotted afterwards, its Slashdot's fault for allowing this to happen.
Thats no big deal now since anyone could always switch to cable, or some workaround with a wireless network can be made. Phone companies knows this, and many will try to leverage their way into the other markets that can hurt them (take away business) so I don't think it will be in their best interest to lose customers, because they won't play fair.
Notwithstanding, many people I know don't use their telephone company as an ISP, so unless a telco is planning on buying up Earthlink, AOL, etc., they don't pose that much of a threat.
There are three main issues of VoIP security. One is authentication: Is the party who answered the call the intended destination? Another is nonrepudiation: Once a destination accepts a call, is there anything in place that prohibits it from
denying receipt of the connection? Finally, there's privacy: Is the call content secure? Authentication and nonrepudiation are important.
Without gateway-to-gateway encryption, VoIP packets are vulnerable to sniffingng. All it takes to intrude is one IP packet monitor sniffing somewhere on the network, watching for VoIP packets and storing them on a hard drive for playback later on.
In addition to commercial devices for monitoring and troubleshooting IP traffic streams, sniffers
are available as free software and most come with source code (or as source code) that can be easily modified for tapping.
It's kind of like the early days of cordless phones. It took a while for users of those to realize they were being tapped. FCC regulations prohibiting the sale of the scanners that pick up certain bands allocated to wireless telephony didn't provide much of a barrier. And the information necessary to modify common scanner models was widely available. Later, the same became true with regard to analog cell phones.
IP packet monitors are much like those scanners. Few of the commercially available devices snoop VoIP streams right out of the box. Neither can most of the free software tools available enable VoIP snooping without modification. But either can become a fully automated, programmable VoIP tap.
Why aren't VoIP calls encrypted? Because on-the-fly encryption and decryption takes time, and time is at an utter premium in a VoIP connection. The overall latency of a VoIP call must be less than 250 mSec to approximate toll quality. Add milliseconds, and the perceived quality of the call drops. For an industry still working for broad acceptance, call quality is paramount.
Even though encryption is a component of the H.323v2 standard, it's likely to be one of the last features implemented.
Although each involves different skills and technologies, the same blackguards who'll tap your PSTN lines are the ones who'll sniff VoIP links. Any data that can be stolen from analog conversations is at risk in a digital link too. The difference, generally, is that analog lines can be tapped only one at a time, VoIP lines can
be tapped by a whole T-span or more at once. There's also no real way to detect a VoIP tap, except by locating an unauthorized system on the network.
Internal snooping is easier and more likely than an outside tap, unless your network can be compromised at some outside point.
But the most important thing to remember is that VoIP calls can be tapped. Until you have gateways that encrypt the call end to end, treat VoIP calls as "unsecure" - especially if they leave your private network. And any calls passing through the 'Net should be regarded as no more secure than a CB radio conversation.
Our society has always stigmatized stuttering. People who stutter are assumed to be nervous, incompetent, and even mentally ill. They are ridiculed, bullied and discriminated against. Because of this social penalty, most people who stutter want desperately to stop stuttering.
Most traditional stuttering treatments aim at helping people control their speech so they don't stutter at all -- or modify their stuttering so that it is more socially acceptable. Even when speech therapy is successful, however, many stutterers still experience significant fear and shame because they're afraid they MIGHT stutter. Some go to great lengths to hide their stuttering -- all because of the traditional mind-set that stuttering is a bad thing to do.
The National Stuttering Association is changing the rules about stuttering. We still want to speak fluently when we can, of course. But we also believe that stuttering is NOT a bad thing -- and that people who stutter have the right to be treated with the same respect and accommodation as people with other developmental disorders.
So we in the NSA are working to promote greater public acceptance of stuttering and to accept ourselves as people who stutter. When we begin feeling free to stutter in public instead of trying to hide our stuttering, we often speak MORE fluently because we're no longer fighting all the fear, guilt and shame that compounds the problem of stuttering.
Vaudenay, S. 1995. An Experiment on DES Statistical Cryptanalysis.
Linear cryptanalysis and differential cryptanalysis are the most important methods of attack against block ciphers. Their efficiency have been demonstrated against several ciphers, including the Data Encryption Standard. We prove that both of them can be considered, improved and joined in a more general statistical framework. We also show that the very same results as those obtained in the case of DES can be found without any linear analysis and we slightly improve them into an attack with theoretical complexity
Its nice to see companies joining to assist the NSA, however I would never install it, for paranoia reasons. Aside from that its not all that. (read this to back those claims and we can't forget its first security incident)
Its a nice idea, but ask yourself this question... The NSA could have done this a long time ago, why now? With the rising amount of cybercrime, one would think that, _THAT_ would be their motives however, if that were the case they would be strong opponents of crypto for the masses, so why one and not the other?
So again jumping into the paranoia stage, could it be because the typical script kiddiot is using various forms, of Linux, this could be a method to monitor them? If so how do corporations who use this (SELin) fall into the muck of it all, what about employees of the NSA, and NAI, if they were capturing data, that could affect stock markets, integrity of people, confidence. Total PR nightmare...
Anyways it is nice to see a secure (for now) OS on the market, but as for me... I'd take Open over SELinux anytime.
Well at least I didn't post it in vain... Ghost in the Shell pseudo informative doc combining steganography, pgp, and some other nifty things.
As for PGP being safe or not, one thing you have to understand, many of the attacks that claim PGP isn't secure, or etc., may sound like there is nothing you can do to protect yourself, their wrong, dead wrong. Many of the vulnerabilities people find when dealing with crypto cannot be achieved by your typical script kiddie, and often not even a Sr. level Admin, so don't be fooled.
Anyways I would love to keep going on this but I have to bounce =( damn =(
Personally I don't think it'll pick back up that fast and I'll explain right after this point (before I forget)
Open Source is going to become an increasingly attractive alternative. Sooner or later probably sooner -- at least one innovative politician will
claim he or she can save taxpayers millions (on the local or state level) or billions (on the national level) by switching from proprietary to Open Source Software and, especially if the local, state or national economy is in "down" mode at the time, will get additional votes by taking that stance. Other politicians will notice, and suddenly you'll see Linux and Open Source popping up all over the place in government buildings, even (perhaps especially) on office desktops.
Disagreed, the problem most people seem to overlook with politicians (and it can be seen with almost all poles nowadays) is their in the game for the money. Sure you can brush this off but you have to remember, a politician is going to say anything to get a vote, and as time has shown their promises pretty much suck.
Now when I say money, you have to realize things that people with money have done for politicians in the form of contributions, as well as other who do cool things like helping out with donations... Yea the dreaded B. Gates.
Do you think a politician is going to give up software frmo companies such as MS, Sun, because OpenSource can save some money? You'd have to be crazy, if anything with the gov's history they'll overspend 400%.
NOW... back to the markets... If you take enough time to look at the big movers on NASDAQ (CSCO, SUNW, MSFT, etc.) you'll see they're still slightly above their original opening prices even though they've dropped tremendously, what happened with the past 2 years, was everyone wanted to get so rich quick, VC's dumped money into shithole stocks, which ended up creating a tight ass VC market. No one wants to spend on unproven stuff.
It doesn't mean that by next year, VC's are going to say lets fund everyone again, they've seen what will happen, so for the heavy hitters on Wall Street, they'll shoot back up to a mid capped price, but there won't be a tremendous waste of VC cash going on never again.
Even if the fed (Greenspan) makes moves this week as opposed to May for the economy, NASDAQ, is _STILL_ going to be where its at for a while, a lot of companies lost some big time bucks, and their gonna be leery to invest in techs for a while (4-5 years) since many have thrown away just about everything as is. Many won't want to follow until techs are stable...
I notice how most people want their rights and their "Freedom of Speech" yet many find it inhumane for someone to possess opinions that differ from their own.
I'm far from a racism since, and have friends from all walks of life, including those with racist views, and while they don't appeal to me in any fashion, those with ideas other than my own still deserve the same amount of respect I would ask for to uphold my freedom to say what I want.
How can you honestly think in terms of fairness to say "My ideas are right" when it may be ethical to you but not to others. Sure I despise racism, sites but I will say this, they are entitled to their own opinions and the same right to express it, as I can express my opinions, etc.
On the subject of Denials of Service, I particularly don't buy that notion any government would partake in that for those reasons. I could however see a U.S. --> China DoS showdown between moronic kiddiots, but I can't see the government wasting their time, and money doing this.
Side note: For those into studying the effects of Denials of Services, and higher protocol based attacks, I wrote a paper on it a while back addressing attacks, fixes, but never finished it. Who knows maybe I'll pick up on it again some time soon
small transmitters on towers could offer a competing and far cheaper service by beaming signals on the same frequencies from the north of their intended subscribers.
Doesn't certain factors come into play where a signal can easily get obscured from the sender to the recipient, e.g. a tower in Manhattan N.Y.C., wouldn't be the correct solution since its visibilty (signal wise) wouldn't get through at all points unless you created a mesh of interconnecting towers to constantly (rount robbinishly) distribute the signal, and its still not guaranteed.
Signals travel in a straight line, so those from towers have a limited range on the curved surface of the Earth. But that smaller range would make it easier to offer the local programming that has eluded satellite services, which by their nature broadcast to huge areas.
And because such a system would not require launching satellites or laying cable, it
could be offered at a fraction of what is being
charged by direct broadcast satellite and cable
television services, in rural as well as urban
areas.
Whats the purpose of selling something if there's likely to be issues somewhere down the line via way of quality. I understand its a nice idea, shit I would like to see it take flight just because its a new concept, but arguably, its no better than digital satellite reception, the clarity, etc., its only saving you a few bucks... Wait I take that back, since its local programming, its not like your paying for it anyway, so this wouldn't neccessarily affect the avg person, unless their paying to watch local tv via sattelites without getting cable access.
Six cold fusion type experiments are presented, all of which produced excess power under mild conditions. Pertinent details are presented, such as a description of the apparatus and/or graphs of the measurements/results. The results of some of these experiments have been published in peer reviewed journals.
Its not that scientists don't know it, haven't figured it out. Use your brain, if someone definitively addressed energy concerns, and created something which would save trillions, then oil companies, utilco's would take a huge hit. Its reminiscent of the chemical companies lying once upon a time, the tobacco industries lies, etc.
Department of Energy is responsible for a massive failure to serve the public interest. Rather than budget the funds needed to explore this new, emerging science, our top national energy science officials have adopted what might be called, at best, a policy of benign neglect. At worst, it's a policy of fraud and deceit.
How could this be happening?
The stakes in the debate about cold fusion are enormous. In this case, an unholy alliance seems to have come together. The principle players are the fossil fuel industry, which has no interest in seeing itself eclipsed by a new, non-polluting source of energy, and the mainstream physics community, which wants to protect, seemingly at all costs, the federal funding it relies on to continue its massively expensive hot fusion experiments.
Its like those doctors who were hired to say second hand smoke isn't all that bad, there's always someone around willing to be a hired gun, scientists on the same level of education and knowledge who just don't give a fsck.
If you look at some of the fines levied against some parties (mainly Howard Stern), you would know the FCC is mainly targeting companies that can dish out money for the hefty fines.
Last I saw NYPD Blue upped their show to include the word asshole, yet they don't get fined, but should Howard say it, the fines would roll in.
Thats the problem with American media (television, radio), they're (the FCC) so strung out on typical bullshit, freedom of speech is equivalent to "Freedom to Pay for your Speech Should it Offend Us". At least Euro television doesn't have anal intentions of fining anyone that uses a word, no matter if people like it or not.
Have you read the paper Assassination Politics at all? It was based on encryption, digital cash, etc. with politics thrown in the loop. You know authors write about this all the time, yet no one is dragging people like James Patterson, Steven King, or Tom Clancy into courtrooms and charging them with writing a paper.
So whats the difference here? AGAIN have you read the document, if you haven't then please hold your comments because you'd look like an ass in all due respect.
This sounds reminiscent of the pro-life zealots who posted the addresses of abortion doctors on the web and cheered when they were assassinated. I don't know how you can condone this just because it is speech.
The 9th Circuit Court is trying Jim Bell for posting the home addresses of federal agents. Oddly enough, the same court recently decided that
anti-abortionists can do that very thing to doctors. Declan McCullagh, who appeared as a witness in the case, discusses the latest from Tacoma, Washington. (full comments)
TACOMA, Washington -- A federal judge has threatened media outlets with contempt charges if they quote from public documents on a court website, prompting outcries from journalist groups.
U.S. District Judge Jack Tanner warned Thursday that anyone who published the name of a juror in the criminal trial of U.S. v. James Dalton Bell would go to jail. The list of jurors is available on the Pacer website provided by the federal court system. (read on)
So even though you can get it online, (the jury list) it wouldn't matter to the judge he'll lock any media up for posting it.
Obtaining someone's address and driving by ther homes does not constitute a crime, they don't even have any proof he did it to begin with, so please read about the case before posting irrelevant information. If it were your life on the line, you would want people to know the truth if you were getting shafted, and help out by any means.
Let us not forget fellow cypherpunk Jim Bell, who at this time is getting the royal shaft in Washington. For those unfamiliar with the case, its the government in all its shame against the author of "Assassination Politics"
Meyer told a fascinated jury that the device -- "high quality, something that military and law enforcement uses" -- continually transmitted Bell's exact location using a radio signal to receivers operated by law enforcement. Federal agents used graphical mapping software on a PC to plot Bell's movements in real time.
Political essayist Bell is on trial here this week in a case that involves his alleged use of legally obtained CD-ROMs to compile information about Treasury Department agents.
He is not accused of directly threatening them, but the government says that by collecting information about agents by driving to their suspected residences and by refusing to renounce his writings about how to assassinate unethical federal employees, Bell is guilty of violating stalking laws.
Now suppose that along every major strip there were cameras everywhere, with the US already with 2% of its own population in jail, the criminal ustice system would be overloaded with criminals.
Lets look at the way the justice system works now, we can say the Rockerfeller laws are a joke that need to seriously be revamped, for one.
Lets have officers arrest people for things that they would normally turn away from at times in big cities per se... Disorderly Conduct, a man and woman arguing, someone horseplaying, someone fixing a flat where their not supposed to. And don't dare say it doesn't happen, recently an 8 year old was arrested for pointing a paper gun and classmate while horseplaying. So don't think the law wouldn't stoop so low to just conduct sweeps for stupid actions, e.g., political race heats up, "Lets use the cameras and go after everyone."
Thats the harsh reality of it all. Those concerned with putting in cameras are not going to monitor who views what, and what should or shouldn't be viewed, and in the fairness of justice someone jaywalking (although not a crime that can do much) should be equally treated as breaking the law as any other law breaker. You can't it a single sided issue.
So if cameras were to go up, try arguing that in a court of law, "Your honor my client was caught on top urinating somewhere, but on the camera you could clearly see the officers turn a blind eye to 30 jaywalkers." Is it fair? No
Now what would happen is, criminals (hardcore) would take greater risks to avoid getting caught which is more likely to signal they'd adapt and perform sneakier, possibly even more dangerous crimes.
Fry says it's high time that Americans jumped on the surveillance bandwagon. "They're bloody everywhere in England," Fry said. "It's been working over there and we feel the technology has an application here as well. We're good at what we do and we're going after the markets."
Just by this guy saying it works over there doesn't neccessarily mean its going to work over here, first off this is the vendor saying "it works over there" as if he would say anything to degrade the possibility of getting business out here in the United States. Give me a break.
Fry suggested multiple applications for mobile video monitoring: Restaurant patrons could dial into their favorite eateries to check who's there and how busy the joint is; transportation agencies could use it to analyze traffic bottlenecks; paramedics could use it in ambulances to beam images of trauma victims to physicians for guidance.
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
Several studies by Jason Ditton, the director the
Scottish Centre for Criminology and one of the few
criminologists to research the effectiveness of
CCTV, suggest that the cameras have neither the
public support nor the crime-reducing power
attributed to them.
For such a so called great thing it only seems to be a good thing in the eyes of officials.
And the icing on the cake...
"The cameras were no assistance in stopping the
crime, but the images were repeated so often that
the average citizen linked cameras to stopping the
murder of babies," Davies said. "They believed
that if we have enough cameras and the cameras
are better, next time we could have stopped this
horrible crime. It's a hysteria here."
Nevertheless, in the decade following James' death, the British government has spent an
estimated $350 million installing 300,000 cameras
around the country, making it the world leader in
video surveillance use.
Instead of installing these cameras, they should take any financing for a program such as this, and put it into community centers to assist people in high crime areas. Show them there is more, and show them you are willing to help them change, as opposed to building more prisons, installing cameras all over the place, spending money on weapons and military related garbage.
Better yet here's a solution. Build a steel door in front of the house of every American citizen, then on a timed basis lock everyone in their homes. Will this be a politicians next pitch?
{paragraph CURL is pretty neat to use, and extremely simple to write in however, for someone to think it can do much to compete with JAVA... your wrong} (by the way, thats more or less how you would write for an applet)
Simplicity, ease of use, is not enough to compete with the marketing resources of Sun, so its going to be a difficult obstacle to overcome.
Now should they actually go over Sun, they would also have to hope company's would be willing to switch over from JAVA to CURL, and it can be difficult to convince a company to switch technologies altogether. Not only that, but you also run into issues such as, just how great this is on x platform running x backended to x, and when I say x I don't mean X as in the desktop environment. It does not have much by way of experience.
*BSD is dying. Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS.
Funny I never knew FreeBSD was in any business other than creating a free operating system that anyone could download for free. Now if you wanted the luxury of having the CD's, well you paid so get your info str8
Now BSDI too is out of business, and its corpse turned over to the Wind River charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Again, more fallacious information there. At least you could point out something to support your broad statements. When Time Warner was purchased by AOL did that mean TW was going out of business? So what BSDi was purchased... doesn't mean they went out of business. FYI BSDi also makes software OS's for firewalls so don't go thinking its going anywhere any time soon. Instead of posting such unsustantiated bullshit you should post relevant links to support this bs you spew.
Linus Torvalds has been described as a benevolent dictator; the modifications
he likes are added. (taken from Daemon News)
One would figure someone like Linus would embrace the OS X concept, or abide by the old saying... "If you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all." or maybe he read articles like this and was offended.
Or maybe its because some authors claim OSX is a threat to Linux users somehow... I dont see how it could be a threat, but maybe he just needed to vent some frustration. I also don't know how he managed to make time to say that since he seems so busy releasing kernels every week
(What haven't you watched Sat. Night Lives greatest hits, with Eddie Murphy as Buckwheat singing!@!)
Anyways, I think the guys over Indrema have a good idea but are possibly going about fundingvia the wrong methods.
With limited financial support, Mr. Gildred and his team of 50 open-source community developers, volunteers, and employees are now finishing a
working console prototype. That's all he can
promise at this point.
He estimates that an Indrema system will be
available in limited quantity by the end of 2001.
Of course, that depends on somebody coming through with more money. And, as Mr. Gildred himself admits, the chances of that are slim.
One of the things I think their team should do is, create the working prototype, and instead of approaching a VC, they should bring it to the attention of a gaming company.
Think about it for a second, if ID Software or someone invested a minimal amount into this to get it going, they would make their money back not only on the hardware, but on the software level too. I wouldn't count this company out just yet, I would hope the staff would take other jobs to pay their bills, and continue on with the project, things take time, and with NASDAQ at its worst, money is out of the question for EVERYBODY, not just the little guy.
And we're supposed to trust a site which proudly displays this on their front page? Maybe the author should've wrote a better article submitted it to SecurityFocus, and the Associated Press.
Just because this may or may not affect Ameritech it has nothing to do with news being posted here. Imagine if/. accepted every single security based qualm in the world, we'd have no room for linux or MS stuff homeslice;)
Slashdot Mirror
If FreeRepublic allowed for anonymous users than how the heck is this trespassing? Or did FreeRepub just make an exception to the rule and say "Well everyone else can be anonymous, just not X"?
Thats one the problems a company should address with a diclaimer in order to not fall into the legal handlings of someone claiming dire crimes against them. People should know, when your on the Internet, especially exchanging during a forum, your not going to find that everyone is Sally fucking Jo Homemaker with etiquette. The problem I see, is that not much was done by those who had their information posted, to hide their information in the first place. Don't they know what privacy is, or was it until someone bitched about it, they turned and said, "Oh my maybe I should not have made my login name maryjosuefrom21mainstreetbirminghamalabama@somesh
The problems with the Internet and legal related issues, is that many of the laws are so broad, theres no way to detail what exactly constitutes a crime. Anyone can say whatever and people will eat it up like cereal because their clueless and assume "it must be so"
I think I'm gonna sue Slashdot if anyone clinks this link. Since by getting slashdotted afterwards, its Slashdot's fault for allowing this to happen.
Windows running this would
Turn your 1ghz box into a 386 that bluescreens
Upside
Linux running this would:
Create its own code for its own kernels
FreeBSD running this would:
spin off and create a port for something other than i386 arch
OpenBSD running this would:
Not allow anything to ever be installed because it may be deemed insecure
NetBSD running this would:
Create another port, then wait a year or two to let you use it
view the source Luke!
Thats no big deal now since anyone could always switch to cable, or some workaround with a wireless network can be made. Phone companies knows this, and many will try to leverage their way into the other markets that can hurt them (take away business) so I don't think it will be in their best interest to lose customers, because they won't play fair.
Notwithstanding, many people I know don't use their telephone company as an ISP, so unless a telco is planning on buying up Earthlink, AOL, etc., they don't pose that much of a threat.
There are three main issues of VoIP security. One is authentication: Is the party who answered the call the intended destination? Another is nonrepudiation: Once a destination accepts a call, is there anything in place that prohibits it from denying receipt of the connection? Finally, there's privacy: Is the call content secure? Authentication and nonrepudiation are important.
Without gateway-to-gateway encryption, VoIP packets are vulnerable to sniffingng. All it takes to intrude is one IP packet monitor sniffing somewhere on the network, watching for VoIP packets and storing them on a hard drive for playback later on.
In addition to commercial devices for monitoring and troubleshooting IP traffic streams, sniffers are available as free software and most come with source code (or as source code) that can be easily modified for tapping.
It's kind of like the early days of cordless phones. It took a while for users of those to realize they were being tapped. FCC regulations prohibiting the sale of the scanners that pick up certain bands allocated to wireless telephony didn't provide much of a barrier. And the information necessary to modify common scanner models was widely available. Later, the same became true with regard to analog cell phones.
IP packet monitors are much like those scanners. Few of the commercially available devices snoop VoIP streams right out of the box. Neither can most of the free software tools available enable VoIP snooping without modification. But either can become a fully automated, programmable VoIP tap. Why aren't VoIP calls encrypted? Because on-the-fly encryption and decryption takes time, and time is at an utter premium in a VoIP connection. The overall latency of a VoIP call must be less than 250 mSec to approximate toll quality. Add milliseconds, and the perceived quality of the call drops. For an industry still working for broad acceptance, call quality is paramount.
Even though encryption is a component of the H.323v2 standard, it's likely to be one of the last features implemented. Although each involves different skills and technologies, the same blackguards who'll tap your PSTN lines are the ones who'll sniff VoIP links. Any data that can be stolen from analog conversations is at risk in a digital link too. The difference, generally, is that analog lines can be tapped only one at a time, VoIP lines can be tapped by a whole T-span or more at once. There's also no real way to detect a VoIP tap, except by locating an unauthorized system on the network.
Internal snooping is easier and more likely than an outside tap, unless your network can be compromised at some outside point.
But the most important thing to remember is that VoIP calls can be tapped. Until you have gateways that encrypt the call end to end, treat VoIP calls as "unsecure" - especially if they leave your private network. And any calls passing through the 'Net should be regarded as no more secure than a CB radio conversation.
Good article on VoIP... RFP: VoIP invasion, are you ready for it?
Be advised, the article is over 10+ pages long, and it gets boring
view the source Luke!
and everyone thinks I'm paranoid
Our society has always stigmatized stuttering. People who stutter are assumed to be nervous, incompetent, and even mentally ill. They are ridiculed, bullied and discriminated against. Because of this social penalty, most people who stutter want desperately to stop stuttering.
Most traditional stuttering treatments aim at helping people control their speech so they don't stutter at all -- or modify their stuttering so that it is more socially acceptable. Even when speech therapy is successful, however, many stutterers still experience significant fear and shame because they're afraid they MIGHT stutter. Some go to great lengths to hide their stuttering -- all because of the traditional mind-set that stuttering is a bad thing to do.
The National Stuttering Association is changing the rules about stuttering. We still want to speak fluently when we can, of course. But we also believe that stuttering is NOT a bad thing -- and that people who stutter have the right to be treated with the same respect and accommodation as people with other developmental disorders.
So we in the NSA are working to promote greater public acceptance of stuttering and to accept ourselves as people who stutter. When we begin feeling free to stutter in public instead of trying to hide our stuttering, we often speak MORE fluently because we're no longer fighting all the fear, guilt and shame that compounds the problem of stuttering.
har har har Fight the Future
Vaudenay, S. 1995. An Experiment on DES Statistical Cryptanalysis.
Linear cryptanalysis and differential cryptanalysis are the most important methods of attack against block ciphers. Their efficiency have been demonstrated against several ciphers, including the Data Encryption Standard. We prove that both of them can be considered, improved and joined in a more general statistical framework. We also show that the very same results as those obtained in the case of DES can be found without any linear analysis and we slightly improve them into an attack with theoretical complexity
- Will make you coffee while you decide whether to go Gnome or KDE
-
Will recheck kernel.org every 0.000231243 ms for another kernel release
- Will offer more LKM security hazards to promote security (secure your shit NOW)
- Automated emailing of new Widgets info sent to cmdrtaco via email for
/. posting
When is someone going to expand on the gold old relaible console, and add tux/daemon cursors! Now thats innovationuse the source!
why hasn't this security issue with PGP been address yet? Are they waiting for an epidemic? Less reason to go goo goo over PGP.
Outguess
Its nice to see companies joining to assist the NSA, however I would never install it, for paranoia reasons. Aside from that its not all that. (read this to back those claims and we can't forget its first security incident)
Its a nice idea, but ask yourself this question... The NSA could have done this a long time ago, why now? With the rising amount of cybercrime, one would think that, _THAT_ would be their motives however, if that were the case they would be strong opponents of crypto for the masses, so why one and not the other?
So again jumping into the paranoia stage, could it be because the typical script kiddiot is using various forms, of Linux, this could be a method to monitor them? If so how do corporations who use this (SELin) fall into the muck of it all, what about employees of the NSA, and NAI, if they were capturing data, that could affect stock markets, integrity of people, confidence. Total PR nightmare...
Anyways it is nice to see a secure (for now) OS on the market, but as for me... I'd take Open over SELinux anytime.
click this link... get fired
Well at least I didn't post it in vain... Ghost in the Shell pseudo informative doc combining steganography, pgp, and some other nifty things.
As for PGP being safe or not, one thing you have to understand, many of the attacks that claim PGP isn't secure, or etc., may sound like there is nothing you can do to protect yourself, their wrong, dead wrong. Many of the vulnerabilities people find when dealing with crypto cannot be achieved by your typical script kiddie, and often not even a Sr. level Admin, so don't be fooled.
Anyways I would love to keep going on this but I have to bounce =( damn =(
Disagreed, the problem most people seem to overlook with politicians (and it can be seen with almost all poles nowadays) is their in the game for the money. Sure you can brush this off but you have to remember, a politician is going to say anything to get a vote, and as time has shown their promises pretty much suck.
Now when I say money, you have to realize things that people with money have done for politicians in the form of contributions, as well as other who do cool things like helping out with donations... Yea the dreaded B. Gates.
Do you think a politician is going to give up software frmo companies such as MS, Sun, because OpenSource can save some money? You'd have to be crazy, if anything with the gov's history they'll overspend 400%.
NOW... back to the markets... If you take enough time to look at the big movers on NASDAQ (CSCO, SUNW, MSFT, etc.) you'll see they're still slightly above their original opening prices even though they've dropped tremendously, what happened with the past 2 years, was everyone wanted to get so rich quick, VC's dumped money into shithole stocks, which ended up creating a tight ass VC market. No one wants to spend on unproven stuff.
It doesn't mean that by next year, VC's are going to say lets fund everyone again, they've seen what will happen, so for the heavy hitters on Wall Street, they'll shoot back up to a mid capped price, but there won't be a tremendous waste of VC cash going on never again.
Even if the fed (Greenspan) makes moves this week as opposed to May for the economy, NASDAQ, is _STILL_ going to be where its at for a while, a lot of companies lost some big time bucks, and their gonna be leery to invest in techs for a while (4-5 years) since many have thrown away just about everything as is. Many won't want to follow until techs are stable...
my two cents
crypto/steganography 101
I notice how most people want their rights and their "Freedom of Speech" yet many find it inhumane for someone to possess opinions that differ from their own.
I'm far from a racism since, and have friends from all walks of life, including those with racist views, and while they don't appeal to me in any fashion, those with ideas other than my own still deserve the same amount of respect I would ask for to uphold my freedom to say what I want.
How can you honestly think in terms of fairness to say "My ideas are right" when it may be ethical to you but not to others. Sure I despise racism, sites but I will say this, they are entitled to their own opinions and the same right to express it, as I can express my opinions, etc.
On the subject of Denials of Service, I particularly don't buy that notion any government would partake in that for those reasons. I could however see a U.S. --> China DoS showdown between moronic kiddiots, but I can't see the government wasting their time, and money doing this.
Side note: For those into studying the effects of Denials of Services, and higher protocol based attacks, I wrote a paper on it a while back addressing attacks, fixes, but never finished it. Who knows maybe I'll pick up on it again some time soon
Whats the purpose of selling something if there's likely to be issues somewhere down the line via way of quality. I understand its a nice idea, shit I would like to see it take flight just because its a new concept, but arguably, its no better than digital satellite reception, the clarity, etc., its only saving you a few bucks... Wait I take that back, since its local programming, its not like your paying for it anyway, so this wouldn't neccessarily affect the avg person, unless their paying to watch local tv via sattelites without getting cable access.
U.S. versus Japan (secret showdown)
(read on)
Its like those doctors who were hired to say second hand smoke isn't all that bad, there's always someone around willing to be a hired gun, scientists on the same level of education and knowledge who just don't give a fsck.
crypto/steganography
If you look at some of the fines levied against some parties (mainly Howard Stern), you would know the FCC is mainly targeting companies that can dish out money for the hefty fines.
Last I saw NYPD Blue upped their show to include the word asshole, yet they don't get fined, but should Howard say it, the fines would roll in.
Thats the problem with American media (television, radio), they're (the FCC) so strung out on typical bullshit, freedom of speech is equivalent to "Freedom to Pay for your Speech Should it Offend Us". At least Euro television doesn't have anal intentions of fining anyone that uses a word, no matter if people like it or not.
Ghost in the Shell (updated crypto/stegano series)
Have you read the paper Assassination Politics at all? It was based on encryption, digital cash, etc. with politics thrown in the loop. You know authors write about this all the time, yet no one is dragging people like James Patterson, Steven King, or Tom Clancy into courtrooms and charging them with writing a paper.
So whats the difference here? AGAIN have you read the document, if you haven't then please hold your comments because you'd look like an ass in all due respect.
So even though you can get it online, (the jury list) it wouldn't matter to the judge he'll lock any media up for posting it.
Obtaining someone's address and driving by ther homes does not constitute a crime, they don't even have any proof he did it to begin with, so please read about the case before posting irrelevant information. If it were your life on the line, you would want people to know the truth if you were getting shafted, and help out by any means.
snippet taken from Wired article
other Wired article
Now suppose that along every major strip there were cameras everywhere, with the US already with 2% of its own population in jail, the criminal ustice system would be overloaded with criminals.
Lets look at the way the justice system works now, we can say the Rockerfeller laws are a joke that need to seriously be revamped, for one.
Lets have officers arrest people for things that they would normally turn away from at times in big cities per se... Disorderly Conduct, a man and woman arguing, someone horseplaying, someone fixing a flat where their not supposed to. And don't dare say it doesn't happen, recently an 8 year old was arrested for pointing a paper gun and classmate while horseplaying. So don't think the law wouldn't stoop so low to just conduct sweeps for stupid actions, e.g., political race heats up, "Lets use the cameras and go after everyone."
Thats the harsh reality of it all. Those concerned with putting in cameras are not going to monitor who views what, and what should or shouldn't be viewed, and in the fairness of justice someone jaywalking (although not a crime that can do much) should be equally treated as breaking the law as any other law breaker. You can't it a single sided issue.
So if cameras were to go up, try arguing that in a court of law, "Your honor my client was caught on top urinating somewhere, but on the camera you could clearly see the officers turn a blind eye to 30 jaywalkers." Is it fair? No
Now what would happen is, criminals (hardcore) would take greater risks to avoid getting caught which is more likely to signal they'd adapt and perform sneakier, possibly even more dangerous crimes.
George Bush's dirty secret
This is an outright violation of privacy by any means. Suppose if I wanted to have a romantic kiss with my wife, should I be subjected to someone watching me? Its my own right to kiss her, and not against the law, and although I wouldn't go public with strong displays of affection, I should retain the right to my privacy. The main street has a direct view to my yard, suppose I had a pool party, should my guests be subjected to the views of a camera misplaced, or placed without my consent for anyone to view the privacy of my own yard?
For such a so called great thing it only seems to be a good thing in the eyes of officials.
And the icing on the cake...
Instead of installing these cameras, they should take any financing for a program such as this, and put it into community centers to assist people in high crime areas. Show them there is more, and show them you are willing to help them change, as opposed to building more prisons, installing cameras all over the place, spending money on weapons and military related garbage.
Better yet here's a solution. Build a steel door in front of the house of every American citizen, then on a timed basis lock everyone in their homes. Will this be a politicians next pitch?
U.S' secret war with Japan
{paragraph CURL is pretty neat to use, and extremely simple to write in however, for someone to think it can do much to compete with JAVA... your wrong} (by the way, thats more or less how you would write for an applet)
Simplicity, ease of use, is not enough to compete with the marketing resources of Sun, so its going to be a difficult obstacle to overcome.
Now should they actually go over Sun, they would also have to hope company's would be willing to switch over from JAVA to CURL, and it can be difficult to convince a company to switch technologies altogether. Not only that, but you also run into issues such as, just how great this is on x platform running x backended to x, and when I say x I don't mean X as in the desktop environment. It does not have much by way of experience.
I like it though, its pretty neat.
curl free
Again, more fallacious information there. At least you could point out something to support your broad statements. When Time Warner was purchased by AOL did that mean TW was going out of business? So what BSDi was purchased... doesn't mean they went out of business. FYI BSDi also makes software OS's for firewalls so don't go thinking its going anywhere any time soon. Instead of posting such unsustantiated bullshit you should post relevant links to support this bs you spew.
Linus Torvalds has been described as a benevolent dictator; the modifications he likes are added. (taken from Daemon News)
One would figure someone like Linus would embrace the OS X concept, or abide by the old saying... "If you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all." or maybe he read articles like this and was offended.
Or maybe its because some authors claim OSX is a threat to Linux users somehow... I dont see how it could be a threat, but maybe he just needed to vent some frustration. I also don't know how he managed to make time to say that since he seems so busy releasing kernels every week
powered by OpenBSD
Anyways, I think the guys over Indrema have a good idea but are possibly going about fundingvia the wrong methods.
One of the things I think their team should do is, create the working prototype, and instead of approaching a VC, they should bring it to the attention of a gaming company.
Think about it for a second, if ID Software or someone invested a minimal amount into this to get it going, they would make their money back not only on the hardware, but on the software level too. I wouldn't count this company out just yet, I would hope the staff would take other jobs to pay their bills, and continue on with the project, things take time, and with NASDAQ at its worst, money is out of the question for EVERYBODY, not just the little guy.
news you can lose
:: http://www.terroristsupply.com ::
/. accepted every single security based qualm in the world, we'd have no room for linux or MS stuff homeslice ;)
And we're supposed to trust a site which proudly displays this on their front page? Maybe the author should've wrote a better article submitted it to SecurityFocus, and the Associated Press.
Just because this may or may not affect Ameritech it has nothing to do with news being posted here. Imagine if