...They don't want to allow someone to link directly to their content because this basically gives away for free the very thing that they're selling.
...you view their ads on the intermdiate pages (the pages that get skipped when someone deep links to an article). The transaction may not involve any money, but it's still a transaction and one that deep linkers invalidate by making it worthless to the seller (npr).
This could otherwise be summed up as a "failure to understand the environment you operate in" and thus a "flawed business model".
See, Microsoft has a reputation, and since they actualy sell software and support they have a responsibility to their customers to test patches before they offer them as safe.
Yes. Microsoft has a reputation. And part of that reputaion is publishing hotfixes and servicepacks that have been unstable.
There are also companies who sell products and support contracts based on Open Source software. They also have a responsibility to their customers. And they work with the Open Source community to accept code, review that code, and if acceptable work it in to their offering.
One interesting point is the idea that a "script kiddie" is publishing a patch. This completely ignores the actual process of peer review involved in Open Source development (not to mention the abilities of project developers).
Those who run mission critcal web servers generally don't apply the latest patch because it's generally more risky to install a "hot off the compiler" security patch then the security risk itself.
Its a tough choice when one has to decide which is the bigger threat: the vulnerability or the patch. This is one of the issues with Microsoft infrastructure. There is a history of hotfixes and servicepacks being detrimental to the systems they're supposed to be improving.
It does little good if a hotfix is released quickly to fix a vulnerability when that hotfix itself could be more damaging than the vulnerability.
How long will it take before this is exploited? Then how many servers will get rooted because they haven't installed a patch?
I'm not sure why you're so eager. This isn't the first time we've had a chance to compare exploitable conditions in various platforms (Linux included). Unless you're expecting to see a difference reflected by a wider adoption of Linux by less-and-less technically savvy users?
You mean *nix admins actually have to worry about patches and service packs too?
Don't get me wrong, I don't intend this to be an "I told you so!" from the MS camp to the *nix camp, but rather a polite reminder that all admins have to keep up with their patches, service packs, and whatever. You can't just install Apache and let it go. You need to know what you're doing.
Enough already, indeed. One of the very basics to system administration is system maintenance. The uninformed my think IT infrastructures work as "fire and forget" systems. But I have yet to see any such claim stated in this forum or included on any story submission. Yet it has become a popular point for any pro-Microsoft security argument.
You're stating the obvious. And missing the point.
If one wanted to view security vulnerabilities / announcements as more than good information to know, one has to look deeper at the issue. What is the vulnerability? What level of compromise can be achieved by exploiting it? How does the vulnerable product's developers react? How long does the vulnerability remain unaddressed? What is required to mitigate or eliminate that particular vulnerability? How does this affect the overall availability and management of the system(s) involved?
These issues go beyond a single vulnerability or a smug "I told you so." And they go well beyond the scope of this topic.
I mean, really. I see these people jumping around like morons, and while it's entertaining to watch, it's also a sad commentary at how few people realize how trivially easy it is to beat the game by simply changing the play methodology away from the expected.
OK. So you figured out how to "beat" the game by not really playing it, got bored, and wandered away. Yet there's all these other people just not as smart as you are... having hours of fun PLAYING the game. Hmmm.
I can appreciate the interest in figuring out how to circumvent a system. It is a part of designing better systems. Games included. But when it comes to games... if you don't play by the rules, you're no longer playing the game. And the enjoyment of a game is in its playing.
It reminds me of people who run auto-aim proxies, bots, and other cheats in various FPS games. And then they claim that they're only cheating because they got bored with the game. Once again, by circumventing the rules of the game (cheating), they stop actually playing the game. And once you do that - why bother?
Yep. Good catch. While this new rebuttal has the same "childish" issues, it hardly uses the same quotes. This post is a simple copy-and-paste - and not even one that makes much sense in this context.
Remember, a public company has one -- and only one -- duty: increase or maintain shareholder value. If they don't do that, then the board can be sued, the chairman ousted, etc, etc. Yeah, I'd bet that not getting thrown off the board is worth some hush-up money in the right places. If I were The Chairman, for instance, I'd make damn sure my sysadmins and IT group had fairly hefty NDAs/non-competes as well as hefty bonuses for "resolving" security issues in a discreet way.
...
It is not in a company's best interest to let you know your privacy and financial security was compromised, no matter how much grandstanding they do over security and trust.
Ethical issues should not be in conflict with good business. However, more and more often, we hear the same old claim that profit is the only concern of Corporate officers and employees. It is little wonder we are having to deal with the fallout of Enron and Arthur Anderson (a prestigious company with a long history and a BUISNESS of ethics) - a stock market in a state of flux due to flagging investor confidence and trust.
Customer financial data falls rather neatly in to the ethics of good business. It is good business to protect that data. Failure to do so is often a sign of negligence. Business will be affected. And the Board should rightly begin to consider what aspects of management needs to be "adjusted" to weed out future negligence and incompetence.
It is certainly possible to have an incident where data theft happened despite proper due diligence on the part of the company. However, the unfortunate fact is that today many IT environments are woefully insecure for no other reason than a lack of attention. Negligence. Any corporate structure who's IT systems contain valuable data (to include customer financial information) should focus as much (if not more) on information security as other IT issues such as cost, management, and availability.
The infosec industry is changing after years of dire warning. Some large organizations have built their own internal infosec groups specifically tasked to protect corporate (and customer) data and systems. Others seek outside help and have grown the number of infosec consultancies. And infosec issues are becoming more and more important to a product's offerings. There is still much to be done - as evidence by this even being an issue for discussion. But at least companies are finally taking a proactive stance.
After all, its not only good ethics... its good business.
What's particularly interesting, however, is for anyone who remembers the origin of McAfee -- they started out as a shareware/freeware shop. Corporations "had" to pay, individuals were "encouraged" to pay, and educational (and possibly non-profit) were totally free to use it at no cost.
They've long since abandoned that license and even abandoned free updates. You have to pay for support every 12 months, which I dislike.
Memory fades over time. So I might have this wrong - feel free to correct me if so. But as I remember it...
McAfee is one of those success stories that would have been unlikely without the Internet. They offered their AV product for a free download. However, if you wished to get updates, you had to subscribe. The Internet allowed widespread downloads (and easy updates). And McAfee managed to add a new twist to the "razor and blades" model to make anti-virus more a service than product.
At least, that's what got them going. They grew. They were bought out. They changed.
Commercial software projects are composed of people (let's say 50). If one of those 50 people takes a shortcut and includes GPL'd code into the final product, under the GPL, the whole product must be opened up.
...
I'm not saying the GPL is bad. I'm just saying that it can cause a lot of trouble for the management of software companies due to the bad actions of only 1 employee.
This is really a non-issue. With one caveat.
First, the non-issue. Whether code is GPLed or proprietary, there is a license involved. If a rogue coder in the group decided to include code from a development kit without the appropriate licensing in place, it would be a simularly bad situation. The publisher would have to figure out how to fix the situation in or out of court - more than likely some sort of fee and damages (or in the GPL's case, damages and rewriting functionality to replace GPL code).
The caveat? The IT industry society tends to be entirely clueless about the GPL. It pretty plain when one is infringing on the copyright of a commercial software package and its proprietary license. Copyright infringement might not strike the collective minds of the Industry when they are able to download code off the 'Net for free.
We're too used to Free being freeware (and often the Industry refers to Open Source / Free Software as "freeware"). But having said that... not all freeware is public domain. And one would expect that professionals in the Industry would be used to keeping tabs on licenses and copyright. Ultimately, a company is responsible for the actions of its employees.
It might behoove managers of software publishing houses to have a chat with their developers about copyright and licenses found within the increasingly popular Open Source domain.
There are two things to consider when looking at competing GPL / Open Source projects.
First, competition is good. Projects compete because of various reasons: language, widget sets, code quality / maintainability / methodology, architectual decissions, politics. Sometimes competing projects are forks, sometimes they are completely new code bases. In the end, the better project will flourish - or at least compell other projects to also produce.
Secondly, what happens when your favorite distro's default tools aren't to your liking? Install your favorites. Or if you really want to, shift to a new distro that uses your favorite tool set.
It may seem a bit messy and inefficient, but sometimes the only way to prove an idea is to put it in practice. Testing the merrits of an idea by putting it up against other ideas. Trial by fire. Its how innovation happens. Even in the proprietary world.
Of course any normal person would be utterly humiliated to have their name associated with this piece of nonsense. Perhaps that's why it has been pulled? I'd be interested if Microsoft really did pay for it. If so, I think they should feel a little cheated. The standard of FUD required in 2002 is far higher than this. Even the mainstream press are going to tear this crap to pieces.
Perhapse this is good news for Slashdot trolls? Their trolling activity CAN become a career!
Of course, the industry continues to lag behind those who are on the cutting edge of the technology. The better Slashdot trolls are able to pull off that 2002-quality FUD on occasion. Perhapse this "think tank" needs to post requests for consulting quotes on Slashdot?
The choice to subscribe to a company's service is a right which cannot be taken away from you.
You will not die without broadband. You will not die without the Internet. Probably, your life will be enriched without it.
Society changes. It is influenced by events and technology around it and, in turn, drives technology and events. What was once novel and unique can easily become a common part of life in that society. The trivial can become irreplaceable.
At one point in time, the telephone was often labled a trivial toy of limited use and predicted to fade into obscurity. Now, the telephone is a key tool for everything from business and employment to emergency service to communications with geographically distant friends and family. It is an indispensible part of many modern societies.
One can live without a telephone. But you will find yourself seriously limited by it unless you move to an environment where such technology isn't commonly used. You NEED phone access.
Neal Stephenson makes an interesting observation in his article Mother Earth Mother Board. Bell sent the world on a technological devolved shunt. For a time, the world's telecommunications technology was digital, ableit of limited capacity. There were some theories towards increasing that capacity but they hadn't panned out (although they are actually the basis of technology being used today). And then Bell had us all going to analog. Its taken us centuries to get back to digital.
And now we have the Internet. It has the potential to not only absorb the roles of the telephone, but push the realms of communication and data (if it hasn't already). But much of that relies on broadband.
And because of that, the same concerns which have driven the telecomunications industry through its analog telephone days will continue to drive it well in the the Internet age. What has made telephone service important and ensured that it would be available to all (within some reason) will also eventually drive broadband access.
You are close, but not QUITE on the mark. True, Open Source does not always mean without compensation. But a true Open Source license not only involves inclusion of source code, but also allows the code to be further distributed.
In theory, a company could develop Open Source software but refuse to provide copies of that source code to anyone but customers. But with todays Internet environment, that would simply provide a very short delay before that source code was available and widely distributed through other sources (without the stigma of copyright infringement).
The dearly departed folks at Galacticomm practiced Open Source before there was such a thing. You purchased their BBS package and if you decided you wanted to modify it, you purchased the development kit and off you went. How Open Source can you get?
As others have pointed out, this is hardly Open Source. This is the purchase of a development kit that includes source code as part of its offering.
But could Galacticomm, or you and your modules, make a business out of open source? Perhapse. But how?
Open Source licensing and the nature of information and the Internet pretty much eliminates business models based on scarcity (which is the realm of proprietary software business). So what we're left with is service. The business model would be based on several offerings: technical support, turn-key installations, customized code, training, etc.
I Always Wondered.... if an open source programmer toils day and night "for fun", is it fair that someone takes all that work and sells it as if it were his own...like any Linux distro?
First, the whole concept might be lost on you if you only associate coding with "toil" and can't understand how it could be "for fun". Still...
I was looking for a simple application a few months ago to mimic functionality that is commonly found in various forms for Linux. I found a large selection of shareware apps for Windows that seemed to foot the bill, but was shocked at the requests for $15 - $35 for a very simple application. Then I found one application that listed an alternative payment method - if you were a shareware author, provide that author with a registered version of your application in exchange. It then dawned on me one of the many fundamental differences between Linux and Windows cultures.
Within the Windows world, there is very little free software (or Free software either). Especially development tools. If one wishes to have access to development tools and other nifty applications, one trades in the appropriate coin - cash.
Within the Linux world, the vast majority of tools and applications are Free. Producing your own Free software won't limit your access to other applications / tools and, if anything, is paying back those who have already provided you with software you use and enjoy. The coin of the Linux realm is gifted code.
What about those Linux distro companies? They provide a lot of various services to the communities who provide them Free code. They pay for additional development (and sometimes start their own Free projects). They go through the hassle of providing an easy-to-use package. They provide bandwidth. And they market Linux to the corporate world.
Corporate interest in Linux helps those who are interested in Linux. Why? Because Linux platforms become a valid business platform. And such a platform provides jobs and consulting to those who wish to maintain and develop custom applications (or customized extensions to existing projects).
And service is where you get the money to pay for those 3 kids, wife, insurance, and earn your perks.
Now, my point: IMHO, there's only one thing protecting Windows from highly destructive viruses, and the Unices from any viruses at all. It has nothing to do with the technical merits of the system, or the tech-savviness of its users, neither of which can stop a well-written virus (there will always be a hole somewhere). The key factor is the honor of the programmers.
Considering how widespread some malicious code gets, its surprising that more damage isn't done. This is not because the code is not successful in replication. It is because they tend to contain very benign payloads (with some notable exceptions).
It wouldn't take too much imagination to create a destructive payload that does not interfere with replication of the code. But for the most part, malicious code found in the wild tends to do little to harm the systems they attack or data housed therein. One can only assume that this is intentional. So if the widespread virus does not destroy data or host systems but does manage to become widespread - obviously replication, and not destruction, is the common goal.
Why focus on replication? Perhaps it is the sole goal of an academic exercise. Perhaps it is politically motivated to expose security vulnerabilities within the target platform. There have been writings and comments within sample code that support these two possibilities.
That doesn't mean malicious code is not dangerous. The code for a successful virus simply provides a platform for those with a more destructive intent to include a more destructive payload. Plus, malicious code does tend to impact available resources (bandwidth, drive space, etc).
Different communities aggregate to different OSes, and warez kiddies and hax0rs seem to me to exist almost entirely in the Windows world.
Although much of the available applications available on Linux is available for the cost of time and a download, there is a selection of proprietary applications. These applications can be found within the "Warez Community". Also, there are plenty of examples that show Linux is known within script kiddie / "hax0r" communities and somewhat commonly used.
The reason Linux doesn't have any viruses is because nobody is trying to write any. Until this changes, I don't expect anti-virus software for Linux to become necessary anytime soon.
I would suggest that there are few examples of malicious code that targets Linux because Linux does not present a favorable environment. Windows is full of insecure architectural decisions that provide a rich environment for malicious code. This feeds our two motivations for writing malicious code. It provides an environment where one can write code that will successfully replicate. And the insecure architecture itself is being exploited by those who's political motivation is to expose the vulnerability of that architecture.
Surely, some will decide to apply the same motivations towards Linux. Although those who have a political motivation may not be as many. Linux development methods tend to listen to security criticisms and its open source nature allows those with that kind of interest to focus on providing patches rather than expend the effort to force the issue publicly. Those who find developing malicious code an academic challenge will write such code. And thus, we occasionally see a new "Linux virus".
First off, I have to admit Rob's piece was pure trollbait. And its a shame. A clever humor piece could have highlighted the non-issue of this Linux-compatible virus and the issues that make Windows such a ripe environment for virus activity. Instead, Rob used the subtlety of a sledgehammer and produced something only a troll could be proud of.
Elitism is only ONE of the faults of this so-called humor piece. But it does offer a chance to hash out this issue.
Would you like it if your mechanic said, "I can't believe you don't know the difference between 10W30 and 10W40. You're obviously a moron."?
...
Face it, folks, not everyone wants to be a computer expert.
...
They just want to turn on their computer and have it work. And with any operating system, those same people will have to learn how to maintain it by applying patches (just like you have to maintain your car by taking it in for maintenance e
very so often.)
I'm willing to bet there ARE mechanics who scoff at those who don't know the difference. After all, its a basic bit of maintenance knowledge - hardly arcane knowledge. Heck, its even included in your vehicle operators manual. If you're going to do basic maintenance of your car yourself, you are going to have to tackle the difference in motor oil.
But you don't have to do the maintenance yourself. There are plenty of places that
do nothing BUT simple tuneups and oil changes. And judging from the number, it
seems to be a fairly popular service. Of course, you DO have to be aware that the maintenance needs to be done.
Computers are similar to motor vehicles. Both are complex systems that, over the years, have become simpler to operate. However, they both occasionally break
and need unscheduled maintenance. And they both need regular maintenance. One
can gain the knowledge, skills, and tools to maintain these systems oneself. Or
one can find a knowledgeable friend or hire a professional.
Unfortunately, these concepts are lost on the average computer user. They are faced with two opposing concepts that cloud this simple idea.
First, our popular culture constantly pushes the concept of "computers are so complex and difficult that only especially gifted individuals will know anything about them." You find it in news headlines that gush "Local Computer Wizkid does
[relatively simple malicious hack] Against [national agency] Computers!" National news figures professing computer illiteracy - imagine Ted Koppel lamenting that his son (or grandson) knew more about cars. And then there's an entire industry that promises to make computers "simple".
And that's our opposing concept. The IT industry is full of products that promise to simplify the computing experience (witness the popularity of Microsoft products and AOL). Its a worthy cause. Computer systems have now become fairly easy for daily tasks. But unfortunately the message seems to be that computer systems have gained the characteristics of a toaster or VCR (Twelve O'Clock Flashers aside) rather than a motorized vehicle. This impression is entirely false.
Today's automobile is fairly easy to use. However, there is still a rather complex system of traffic rules one has to learn to use one. And the underlying technology of the automobile is more and more complex. One must learn enough to perform basic maintenance or have it performed by another. Even then, these systems will occasionally fail and require an expert to repair. And we even have products from the automobile industry that have serious engineering flaws.
Computer systems are very similar. However, we have the popular misconception of complexity that seems to cause many otherwise intelligent people to disengage their thought process when they get behind a keyboard/mouse. And we have an industry that profits from convincing the public that they don't need to bother to
learn the basics of operating a computer to use one.
It is little wonder enthusiasts and professionals become jaded when these two concepts create irate users demanding quick fixes to problems. Especially when some of these problems are their own doing or could have been solved themselves with the most basic knowledge and patience.
Funny how CNet mentions XULPlanet.com as a place to get new themes. Mozilla 1.0 links to a page which lists MozDev and DeskMod, but not XULPlanet.
According to this explanation , XulPlanet had become the defacto source of Mozilla themes after the fall of Themes.org. However the traffic soon became unmanagable and so they threw their support to DeskMod. It would seem that the author isn't keeping up with the times.
They should've made their browser IE and W3C compatible.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Mozilla has been priding itself on being adherant to W3C standards. It would seem that IE behavior and W3C standards may actually conflict - as suprising as that might be.
Night Vision Scopes are not weapons in and of themselves.
...
Night Vision is not a controlled substance or technology. Most countries with a military now have night vision. We, the United States, are not the sole holder of that dreadful technology.
Two excellent points.
But at the same time, I don't think its too much of a jump to expect military-grade equipment being collected for militaristic purposes when they are being imported to such an unstable area of the world. The eventual buyer could be an enthusiast or collector. But considering the market, its unlikely.
The other interesting point is the nationality of the devices in question. Soviet surplus, it would seem. Old, but effective enough. And cheap. And readily available. At the fall of the Berlin Wall, I had friends who would drive in to Berlin to buy Soviet military hardware; clothes, insignia, firearms, and other equipment (grenades could be had rather cheaply too, but we weren't interested). This equipment is obviously available from plenty of sources throughout the world.
The fact that we are dealing with only night-vision scopes, items that are commonly available, does a lot to show why the FBI might not be overly concerned about this case.
Its pretty hard to find something worthy of discussion in this article. Lets cut throught the fluff real quick:
Freud is being used to purchase weapons - hello and welcome to the world of gunrunning. You were thinking that the weapons seen in civilian hands on CNN were purchased at the Wal-Mart in Al Kars?
Two reporters from the same newspaper get their card info lifted at the same restaurant - same racket is ran in the US on occasion. No mysterious conspiracy there.
Terrorism might involve crime - terrorism IS crime... or at least was according to US Military doctrine. At least, until the War on Terrorism.
The FBI didn't jump on the opportunity to track down a set of night scopes headed for Saudi Arabia - those involved with the security of US citizens and forces in the Middle East are probably rather resigned to the fact that terrorist forces in the area already have access to such equipment. They might have one lead that could eventually uncover something, but hardly drop-everything-else valuable. Its likely a dead-end.
ccnow, identified as the "vendor", wouldn't give the reporter details citing privacy policy - amazing, an absolute stranger on the phone claiming some connection to a transaction can't get details? Its obviously a front!
Actually, the ccnow bit might be the only interesting piece of the entire article. The fact that the reporter couldn't get information is probably a good sign that the policy is actually being followed as promised. But it hardly means the information is not available to appropriate parties. CCNow's privacy statement reads in part:
We treat this customer information as private and confidential, and we will not disclose this information to other individuals or organizations unless required by law.
There is more detail in their client agreement which notes in Section 7 (emphasis mine):
While CCNow generally treats Client and Customer information as private and confidential, including contact information (name and address), personal data, sales data, product data, credit-card information, and E-mail addresses, Client agrees that CCNow may, without notice to Client, divulge or share any Client or Customer information with law enforcement or regulatory authorities in response to a valid subpoena, court order, or other similar order issued by any law enforcement official, regulatory official or any Federal or governmental agent or body of the United States or of International Countries. Client agrees to deliver, acknowledge, execute or produce any documents, information, instruments, data (financial or otherwise) or certificates, and to cooperate and do such other acts and things as may be required by law, or as may be reasonably necessary for the compliance with the requirements of any federal, state, local or international law, or any regulations of any governmental agency or authority.
So really - what we have is another non-issue. If / when the FBI, CIA, or other lawfull agency makes the appropriate request for this information, CCNow will apparently present it (and furthermore requires their clients to also comply with such requests). The privacy policy is not inhibiting this case at all, despite the reporters horrified whispers and hand-wringing over waffles, weapons, and Al Qaeda.
Once again/. readers look at the issue backwards. WHY do you think a business is even remotely concerned with what is good for consumers? Why should they be?
...
Consumers don't have to do anything. Especially they don't have to buy a product they don't like, or agree to terms they find unfair. But if they accept an agreement without bothering to read it they are just plain stupid and deserve what happens.
Go back and re-read the post. There is no looking at the issue backwards.
Consumers DO have to do something. At the least, they should be aware of anti-consumer practices and refuse to support those companies who operate on those policies. It would be nice if they also voiced their displeasure and made others aware of these same issues.
This has happened in the past, will happen in the future, and if we're lucky will happen more and more often. In this environment, it is in a company's best interest to keep consumer interest in mind less they find that they have created policies that push them out of the market.
Hate to burst your little "greed is good" bubble, but there are limits to acceptable business practices. There is a difference between producing a powerfull street car that can be dangerous in the wrong hands and producing the Pinto. There is a difference between a loan with a steep interest rate and a con. Legitimate business should have no problems operating within those limitations.
Slashdot Mirror
This could otherwise be summed up as a "failure to understand the environment you operate in" and thus a "flawed business model".
Yet those worms have been contained fairly quickly when compared to the life span of worms designed to attack Windows systems.
Yes. Microsoft has a reputation. And part of that reputaion is publishing hotfixes and servicepacks that have been unstable.
There are also companies who sell products and support contracts based on Open Source software. They also have a responsibility to their customers. And they work with the Open Source community to accept code, review that code, and if acceptable work it in to their offering.
One interesting point is the idea that a "script kiddie" is publishing a patch. This completely ignores the actual process of peer review involved in Open Source development (not to mention the abilities of project developers).
Its a tough choice when one has to decide which is the bigger threat: the vulnerability or the patch. This is one of the issues with Microsoft infrastructure. There is a history of hotfixes and servicepacks being detrimental to the systems they're supposed to be improving.
It does little good if a hotfix is released quickly to fix a vulnerability when that hotfix itself could be more damaging than the vulnerability.
I'm not sure why you're so eager. This isn't the first time we've had a chance to compare exploitable conditions in various platforms (Linux included). Unless you're expecting to see a difference reflected by a wider adoption of Linux by less-and-less technically savvy users?
Enough already, indeed. One of the very basics to system administration is system maintenance. The uninformed my think IT infrastructures work as "fire and forget" systems. But I have yet to see any such claim stated in this forum or included on any story submission. Yet it has become a popular point for any pro-Microsoft security argument.
You're stating the obvious. And missing the point.
If one wanted to view security vulnerabilities / announcements as more than good information to know, one has to look deeper at the issue. What is the vulnerability? What level of compromise can be achieved by exploiting it? How does the vulnerable product's developers react? How long does the vulnerability remain unaddressed? What is required to mitigate or eliminate that particular vulnerability? How does this affect the overall availability and management of the system(s) involved?
These issues go beyond a single vulnerability or a smug "I told you so." And they go well beyond the scope of this topic.
OK. So you figured out how to "beat" the game by not really playing it, got bored, and wandered away. Yet there's all these other people just not as smart as you are... having hours of fun PLAYING the game. Hmmm.
I can appreciate the interest in figuring out how to circumvent a system. It is a part of designing better systems. Games included. But when it comes to games... if you don't play by the rules, you're no longer playing the game. And the enjoyment of a game is in its playing.
It reminds me of people who run auto-aim proxies, bots, and other cheats in various FPS games. And then they claim that they're only cheating because they got bored with the game. Once again, by circumventing the rules of the game (cheating), they stop actually playing the game. And once you do that - why bother?
Yep. Good catch. While this new rebuttal has the same "childish" issues, it hardly uses the same quotes. This post is a simple copy-and-paste - and not even one that makes much sense in this context.
Ethical issues should not be in conflict with good business. However, more and more often, we hear the same old claim that profit is the only concern of Corporate officers and employees. It is little wonder we are having to deal with the fallout of Enron and Arthur Anderson (a prestigious company with a long history and a BUISNESS of ethics) - a stock market in a state of flux due to flagging investor confidence and trust.
Customer financial data falls rather neatly in to the ethics of good business. It is good business to protect that data. Failure to do so is often a sign of negligence. Business will be affected. And the Board should rightly begin to consider what aspects of management needs to be "adjusted" to weed out future negligence and incompetence.
It is certainly possible to have an incident where data theft happened despite proper due diligence on the part of the company. However, the unfortunate fact is that today many IT environments are woefully insecure for no other reason than a lack of attention. Negligence.
Any corporate structure who's IT systems contain valuable data (to include customer financial information) should focus as much (if not more) on information security as other IT issues such as cost, management, and availability.
The infosec industry is changing after years of dire warning. Some large organizations have built their own internal infosec groups specifically tasked to protect corporate (and customer) data and systems. Others seek outside help and have grown the number of infosec consultancies. And infosec issues are becoming more and more important to a product's offerings. There is still much to be done - as evidence by this even being an issue for discussion. But at least companies are finally taking a proactive stance.
After all, its not only good ethics... its good business.
Memory fades over time. So I might have this wrong - feel free to correct me if so. But as I remember it...
McAfee is one of those success stories that would have been unlikely without the Internet. They offered their AV product for a free download. However, if you wished to get updates, you had to subscribe. The Internet allowed widespread downloads (and easy updates). And McAfee managed to add a new twist to the "razor and blades" model to make anti-virus more a service than product.
At least, that's what got them going. They grew. They were bought out. They changed.
This would be a good point if Microsoft hadn't used illegal actions to gain that market share.
This is really a non-issue. With one caveat.
First, the non-issue. Whether code is GPLed or proprietary, there is a license involved. If a rogue coder in the group decided to include code from a development kit without the appropriate licensing in place, it would be a simularly bad situation. The publisher would have to figure out how to fix the situation in or out of court - more than likely some sort of fee and damages (or in the GPL's case, damages and rewriting functionality to replace GPL code).
The caveat? The IT industry society tends to be entirely clueless about the GPL. It pretty plain when one is infringing on the copyright of a commercial software package and its proprietary license. Copyright infringement might not strike the collective minds of the Industry when they are able to download code off the 'Net for free.
We're too used to Free being freeware (and often the Industry refers to Open Source / Free Software as "freeware"). But having said that... not all freeware is public domain. And one would expect that professionals in the Industry would be used to keeping tabs on licenses and copyright. Ultimately, a company is responsible for the actions of its employees.
It might behoove managers of software publishing houses to have a chat with their developers about copyright and licenses found within the increasingly popular Open Source domain.
First, competition is good. Projects compete because of various reasons: language, widget sets, code quality / maintainability / methodology, architectual decissions, politics. Sometimes competing projects are forks, sometimes they are completely new code bases. In the end, the better project will flourish - or at least compell other projects to also produce.
Secondly, what happens when your favorite distro's default tools aren't to your liking? Install your favorites. Or if you really want to, shift to a new distro that uses your favorite tool set.
It may seem a bit messy and inefficient, but sometimes the only way to prove an idea is to put it in practice. Testing the merrits of an idea by putting it up against other ideas. Trial by fire. Its how innovation happens. Even in the proprietary world.
Perhapse this is good news for Slashdot trolls? Their trolling activity CAN become a career!
Of course, the industry continues to lag behind those who are on the cutting edge of the technology. The better Slashdot trolls are able to pull off that 2002-quality FUD on occasion. Perhapse this "think tank" needs to post requests for consulting quotes on Slashdot?
Society changes. It is influenced by events and technology around it and, in turn, drives technology and events. What was once novel and unique can easily become a common part of life in that society. The trivial can become irreplaceable.
At one point in time, the telephone was often labled a trivial toy of limited use and predicted to fade into obscurity. Now, the telephone is a key tool for everything from business and employment to emergency service to communications with geographically distant friends and family. It is an indispensible part of many modern societies.
One can live without a telephone. But you will find yourself seriously limited by it unless you move to an environment where such technology isn't commonly used. You NEED phone access.
Neal Stephenson makes an interesting observation in his article Mother Earth Mother Board. Bell sent the world on a technological devolved shunt. For a time, the world's telecommunications technology was digital, ableit of limited capacity. There were some theories towards increasing that capacity but they hadn't panned out (although they are actually the basis of technology being used today). And then Bell had us all going to analog. Its taken us centuries to get back to digital.
And now we have the Internet. It has the potential to not only absorb the roles of the telephone, but push the realms of communication and data (if it hasn't already). But much of that relies on broadband.
And because of that, the same concerns which have driven the telecomunications industry through its analog telephone days will continue to drive it well in the the Internet age. What has made telephone service important and ensured that it would be available to all (within some reason) will also eventually drive broadband access.
In theory, a company could develop Open Source software but refuse to provide copies of that source code to anyone but customers. But with todays Internet environment, that would simply provide a very short delay before that source code was available and widely distributed through other sources (without the stigma of copyright infringement).
As others have pointed out, this is hardly Open Source. This is the purchase of a development kit that includes source code as part of its offering.
But could Galacticomm, or you and your modules, make a business out of open source? Perhapse. But how?
Open Source licensing and the nature of information and the Internet pretty much eliminates business models based on scarcity (which is the realm of proprietary software business). So what we're left with is service. The business model would be based on several offerings: technical support, turn-key installations, customized code, training, etc.
First, the whole concept might be lost on you if you only associate coding with "toil" and can't understand how it could be "for fun". Still...
I was looking for a simple application a few months ago to mimic functionality that is commonly found in various forms for Linux. I found a large selection of shareware apps for Windows that seemed to foot the bill, but was shocked at the requests for $15 - $35 for a very simple application. Then I found one application that listed an alternative payment method - if you were a shareware author, provide that author with a registered version of your application in exchange. It then dawned on me one of the many fundamental differences between Linux and Windows cultures.
Within the Windows world, there is very little free software (or Free software either). Especially development tools. If one wishes to have access to development tools and other nifty applications, one trades in the appropriate coin - cash.
Within the Linux world, the vast majority of tools and applications are Free. Producing your own Free software won't limit your access to other applications / tools and, if anything, is paying back those who have already provided you with software you use and enjoy. The coin of the Linux realm is gifted code.
What about those Linux distro companies? They provide a lot of various services to the communities who provide them Free code. They pay for additional development (and sometimes start their own Free projects). They go through the hassle of providing an easy-to-use package. They provide bandwidth. And they market Linux to the corporate world.
Corporate interest in Linux helps those who are interested in Linux. Why? Because Linux platforms become a valid business platform. And such a platform provides jobs and consulting to those who wish to maintain and develop custom applications (or customized extensions to existing projects).
And service is where you get the money to pay for those 3 kids, wife, insurance, and earn your perks.
Considering how widespread some malicious code gets, its surprising that more damage isn't done. This is not because the code is not successful in replication. It is because they tend to contain very benign payloads (with some notable exceptions).
It wouldn't take too much imagination to create a destructive payload that does not interfere with replication of the code. But for the most part, malicious code found in the wild tends to do little to harm the systems they attack or data housed therein. One can only assume that this is intentional. So if the widespread virus does not destroy data or host systems but does manage to become widespread - obviously replication, and not destruction, is the common goal.
Why focus on replication? Perhaps it is the sole goal of an academic exercise. Perhaps it is politically motivated to expose security vulnerabilities within the target platform. There have been writings and comments within sample code that support these two possibilities.
That doesn't mean malicious code is not dangerous. The code for a successful virus simply provides a platform for those with a more destructive intent to include a more destructive payload. Plus, malicious code does tend to impact available resources (bandwidth, drive space, etc).
Although much of the available applications available on Linux is available for the cost of time and a download, there is a selection of proprietary applications. These applications can be found within the "Warez Community". Also, there are plenty of examples that show Linux is known within script kiddie / "hax0r" communities and somewhat commonly used.
I would suggest that there are few examples of malicious code that targets Linux because Linux does not present a favorable environment. Windows is full of insecure architectural decisions that provide a rich environment for malicious code. This feeds our two motivations for writing malicious code. It provides an environment where one can write code that will successfully replicate. And the insecure architecture itself is being exploited by those who's political motivation is to expose the vulnerability of that architecture.
Surely, some will decide to apply the same motivations towards Linux. Although those who have a political motivation may not be as many. Linux development methods tend to listen to security criticisms and its open source nature allows those with that kind of interest to focus on providing patches rather than expend the effort to force the issue publicly. Those who find developing malicious code an academic challenge will write such code. And thus, we occasionally see a new "Linux virus".
Elitism is only ONE of the faults of this so-called humor piece. But it does offer a chance to hash out this issue.
I'm willing to bet there ARE mechanics who scoff at those who don't know the difference. After all, its a basic bit of maintenance knowledge - hardly arcane knowledge. Heck, its even included in your vehicle operators manual. If you're going to do basic maintenance of your car yourself, you are going to have to tackle the difference in motor oil.But you don't have to do the maintenance yourself. There are plenty of places that do nothing BUT simple tuneups and oil changes. And judging from the number, it seems to be a fairly popular service. Of course, you DO have to be aware that the maintenance needs to be done.
Computers are similar to motor vehicles. Both are complex systems that, over the years, have become simpler to operate. However, they both occasionally break and need unscheduled maintenance. And they both need regular maintenance. One can gain the knowledge, skills, and tools to maintain these systems oneself. Or one can find a knowledgeable friend or hire a professional.
Unfortunately, these concepts are lost on the average computer user. They are faced with two opposing concepts that cloud this simple idea.
First, our popular culture constantly pushes the concept of "computers are so complex and difficult that only especially gifted individuals will know anything about them." You find it in news headlines that gush "Local Computer Wizkid does [relatively simple malicious hack] Against [national agency] Computers!" National news figures professing computer illiteracy - imagine Ted Koppel lamenting that his son (or grandson) knew more about cars. And then there's an entire industry that promises to make computers "simple".
And that's our opposing concept. The IT industry is full of products that promise to simplify the computing experience (witness the popularity of Microsoft products and AOL). Its a worthy cause. Computer systems have now become fairly easy for daily tasks. But unfortunately the message seems to be that computer systems have gained the characteristics of a toaster or VCR (Twelve O'Clock Flashers aside) rather than a motorized vehicle. This impression is entirely false.
Today's automobile is fairly easy to use. However, there is still a rather complex system of traffic rules one has to learn to use one. And the underlying technology of the automobile is more and more complex. One must learn enough to perform basic maintenance or have it performed by another. Even then, these systems will occasionally fail and require an expert to repair. And we even have products from the automobile industry that have serious engineering flaws.
Computer systems are very similar. However, we have the popular misconception of complexity that seems to cause many otherwise intelligent people to disengage their thought process when they get behind a keyboard/mouse. And we have an industry that profits from convincing the public that they don't need to bother to learn the basics of operating a computer to use one.
It is little wonder enthusiasts and professionals become jaded when these two concepts create irate users demanding quick fixes to problems. Especially when some of these problems are their own doing or could have been solved themselves with the most basic knowledge and patience.
According to this explanation , XulPlanet had become the defacto source of Mozilla themes after the fall of Themes.org. However the traffic soon became unmanagable and so they threw their support to DeskMod. It would seem that the author isn't keeping up with the times.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Mozilla has been priding itself on being adherant to W3C standards. It would seem that IE behavior and W3C standards may actually conflict - as suprising as that might be.
Two excellent points.
But at the same time, I don't think its too much of a jump to expect military-grade equipment being collected for militaristic purposes when they are being imported to such an unstable area of the world. The eventual buyer could be an enthusiast or collector. But considering the market, its unlikely.
The other interesting point is the nationality of the devices in question. Soviet surplus, it would seem. Old, but effective enough. And cheap. And readily available. At the fall of the Berlin Wall, I had friends who would drive in to Berlin to buy Soviet military hardware; clothes, insignia, firearms, and other equipment (grenades could be had rather cheaply too, but we weren't interested). This equipment is obviously available from plenty of sources throughout the world.
The fact that we are dealing with only night-vision scopes, items that are commonly available, does a lot to show why the FBI might not be overly concerned about this case.
...chalk it up to a fraudian slip.
Actually, the ccnow bit might be the only interesting piece of the entire article. The fact that the reporter couldn't get information is probably a good sign that the policy is actually being followed as promised. But it hardly means the information is not available to appropriate parties. CCNow's privacy statement reads in part:
There is more detail in their client agreement which notes in Section 7 (emphasis mine):
So really - what we have is another non-issue. If / when the FBI, CIA, or other lawfull agency makes the appropriate request for this information, CCNow will apparently present it (and furthermore requires their clients to also comply with such requests). The privacy policy is not inhibiting this case at all, despite the reporters horrified whispers and hand-wringing over waffles, weapons, and Al Qaeda.
Go back and re-read the post. There is no looking at the issue backwards.
Consumers DO have to do something. At the least, they should be aware of anti-consumer practices and refuse to support those companies who operate on those policies. It would be nice if they also voiced their displeasure and made others aware of these same issues.
This has happened in the past, will happen in the future, and if we're lucky will happen more and more often. In this environment, it is in a company's best interest to keep consumer interest in mind less they find that they have created policies that push them out of the market.
Hate to burst your little "greed is good" bubble, but there are limits to acceptable business practices. There is a difference between producing a powerfull street car that can be dangerous in the wrong hands and producing the Pinto. There is a difference between a loan with a steep interest rate and a con. Legitimate business should have no problems operating within those limitations.