By the OP's reasoning, the whole Internet thing could never have worked. Who could think that an ISP could possibly run a helpdesk that supported an entirely random selection of hardware and operating systems? It would have been impossible. But it happened.
Yeah - I put time at a helldesk. We had all manner of odd calls (one dude even asked for us to print out bible passages for him so he could come by and pick them up). But the majority were pretty straight forward and entirely in scope with getting someone online.
I'm not sure why you're responding to me. Nothing that I said, nor the OP for that matter, made any mention of DNS - proxied or otherwise. The OP's link talks about a malicious exit node sniffing and analyzing traffic it handles. Hiding your DNS lookups from your ISP doesn't enter in to it. And large-scale count-correlation attacks tend to be a bit more involved than matching DNS lookups to traffic (which is the only thing I could imagine being remotely relevant).
As a side note - congratulations on getting a +1 informative for that, though. Witness the "TL;DNR" meme in full effect.
Well I think this whole "cyberterror" idea is pretty funny. I even remember that back in 2000 in school we had to write about some article where they described "cyber attacks from China goverment". Has anyone actually proven that China as a goverment is doing those? It still seems like a myth. Considering world is filled with script kiddies, and China+India together have half of the population on Earth, it's not surprising that many percentage of them could be from there.
I view anything with the "Cyber" prefix that intends to be serious as suspect. It works great in science fiction. Most of what exists in the real world with such naming tends to be a lot of noise with little substance - mere marketing. So I have a lot of skepticism towards "cyberterror" at face value.
But I have a hard time being entirely dismissive of the concept. I've been witness to all manner of attacks on Government and defense contractor networks. Most of them have been very much the described script kiddies of various degrees of advancement. But there have also been very rare examples of sophisticated attackers who went after very interesting information. I know what these attackers collected. I know the initial hops that were used as vectors and drop-off points. But I can't say that I know who they were. Others from different sources have assured me that these attackers were funded by the Chinese. And while I could easily agree, I could also make and argument against it. I've seen plenty of bureaucrats read the worse of a situation they don't understand - life imitating War Games (the original - not the forgettable remake).
Ultimately, I find it as a problem of definition. "Terrorism" is a tactic. Of late, we've become much more familiar with the criminal application of this tactic on civilian targets. But we have to remember that terrorism has it's roots in espionage. And in that light, I have to say that information security is very much on the cutting edge of espionage. Extend that - and it could easily be one of the tools in a terrorist's campaign.
That doesn't mean I buy in to the whole "cyberterrorism" hand-wringing that likes to make appearances in various media. But it doesn't mean that the folks who aren't the ones who wave the concept around like a flag aren't busy assessing some real threats.
But if we consider that usually terrorism tries to get some point across (with inhuman ways) and get people to hear them, causing disturbance for the Internet would be quite stupid, as it's actually the first worldwide medium to get your word across without goverment control like with radio and tv.
You're assuming that:
1) Everyone in the world understands what the Internet offers.
2) That those who would target the Internet don't see it as a symbol of Western power / pride.
3) Everyone WANTS people to have access to a worldwide medium that gives them free access to thoughts and ideas not dictated by their regional government / society.
I understand the attempt at humor. However, your "summary" doesn't point out that you need to know the details. Someone may think they "know what they hell [the're] doing" simply because they know how to use TOR or even the basics of how TOR works. But without understanding the ramifications that the OP pointed out, they fall in to the same danger.
Yes - your "summary" is nice and easy to digest and I'm sure there's a lot of people who understand it (or at least, THINK they understand it) better than the OP. But ignorance for the sake of brevity is not helpful.
Sorry if this came across as a personal attack. I'm more interested in the meme than the poster; the meme must die. If that sounds like I'm overly critical, then you'll have to forgive me for (occasionally) expecting more out of this community than, say, a forum on CNN.
TL;DR : only use Tor if you know what the hell you are doing.
The Devil's in the details here and the OP provided sufficient details. Your summery doesn't. And furthermore, the "TL;DNR" meme is yet another example of willful ignorance in snarky packaging.
It's an issue of opportunity. If you want to sniff traffic, you have to put yourself in to a position to do so. Either you work for a large enough network that gives you access to the appropriate devices, convince those network owners that they should provide you with information, insert your own devices in someone else's network, or you build your own network large enough for sufficient targets. Setting up an exit node allows you to slip in your own device in a large network with very little cost.
Does it matter? Sure - some element is going to be all outraged. After all, who isn't shocked to find gambling going on? But really this is all about pointing out that there is, indeed, an issue that needs to be addressed. And if we don't address it, we have nobody but ourselves to blame.
Yes, and there's a whole community that would like to help you do that. That second answer is the real point here. They don't want to open source it because they don't believe in open source. It's that simple. Hopefully this will kill the last of the NVIDIA apologists.
My next purchase will be AMD/ATI as soon as the drivers give me performance that match NVIDIA. I'm hoping that time comes soon.
so the OSS crowd have sour grapes about people buying sharepoint and not utilising all it's features? So why even bring sales features into it, since that's not the arguement?
if people spent even 1/2 the time working on competing apps rather then whinging about MS, OSS might actaully make some headway.
That's a great job at re-framing what I said. But of course, that's not what I said. It isn't an issue of using features. It's an issue of simply USING it. Are those sales figures representing successful installs like the marketing is implying they are? That's the point. If those are simply sales of software that lead to abandoned projects, then it's not a very compelling reason to make that investment oneself.
Oh - and nice red herring about competing apps. I've set up wikis that have been more effective than some of the SharePoint installs I've seen.
The issue isn't whether the sales numbers are good. The issue is whether it is really successful - are that many people actually using it? There's a world of difference between, say 80% happy, productive customers and 15% happy, productive customers. When marketing is using these numbers to imply that your own purchase would open the gates of success, what those numbers really mean are important and worth criticizing.
OK, sure. Bait the rally of Apple fanbois. But please note there are quite a few who didn't think apple blocking the Pre was a Good Thing either (but hey - that smacks of reason and it won't be as effective as bait).
I can't say I was all that swayed by the ad either. And I know what it's about. And I am (at this point) really very interested in the Droid. But again - not because of the ad.
I'm keen for an Android phone. But the G1 didn't quite do it for me. The hardware just wasn't quite there. I'm hoping the Droid delivers. Especially as my account is currently with Verizon. I guess I'm kind of almost an early adopter. Which may or may not make me Verizon's target audience.
I saw the ad on TV as well (my wife ignored it). I also saw Verizon's "there's a map for that" commercial which seemed to be much more directed. But then, the early Droid commercial is for a product they haven't even released yet. It's all about that buzz thing. So I guess it's supposed to be mysterious and buzz-worthy. As if the bloggers posting early snapshots and pondering over the device specs aren't enough.:P
It always makes me leery when you don't actually get to SEE the product they're advertising. On the one hand, they're promoting intrigue as to what it will look like, on the other hand, it may be a soapbox with buttons drawn on with Crayola markers and they're not sure of how the public will receive it's looks.
I doubt it's either brilliant marketing or worry. It seems to be standard fare these days to swing around "mystery" like a 10 pound hammer. Generate buzz. Viral marketing. Get the bloggers all twittered. Or whatever else it is marketing folks do these days.
The advertising campaign isn't really hooking me. But none the less, isn't marketing to early adopters a viable strategy? You need to get a toehold somewhere. You have to get someone interested in the device and to look past Apple's marketing. And Apple is certainly marketing. They're not just sticking the product out there and letting it speak for itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, McCloud... get off'a meh ewe.
By the OP's reasoning, the whole Internet thing could never have worked. Who could think that an ISP could possibly run a helpdesk that supported an entirely random selection of hardware and operating systems? It would have been impossible. But it happened.
Yeah - I put time at a helldesk. We had all manner of odd calls (one dude even asked for us to print out bible passages for him so he could come by and pick them up). But the majority were pretty straight forward and entirely in scope with getting someone online.
We can also tag the sky "blue" if that helps you.
I'm not sure why you're responding to me. Nothing that I said, nor the OP for that matter, made any mention of DNS - proxied or otherwise. The OP's link talks about a malicious exit node sniffing and analyzing traffic it handles. Hiding your DNS lookups from your ISP doesn't enter in to it. And large-scale count-correlation attacks tend to be a bit more involved than matching DNS lookups to traffic (which is the only thing I could imagine being remotely relevant).
As a side note - congratulations on getting a +1 informative for that, though. Witness the "TL;DNR" meme in full effect.
Well I think this whole "cyberterror" idea is pretty funny. I even remember that back in 2000 in school we had to write about some article where they described "cyber attacks from China goverment". Has anyone actually proven that China as a goverment is doing those? It still seems like a myth. Considering world is filled with script kiddies, and China+India together have half of the population on Earth, it's not surprising that many percentage of them could be from there.
I view anything with the "Cyber" prefix that intends to be serious as suspect. It works great in science fiction. Most of what exists in the real world with such naming tends to be a lot of noise with little substance - mere marketing. So I have a lot of skepticism towards "cyberterror" at face value.
But I have a hard time being entirely dismissive of the concept. I've been witness to all manner of attacks on Government and defense contractor networks. Most of them have been very much the described script kiddies of various degrees of advancement. But there have also been very rare examples of sophisticated attackers who went after very interesting information. I know what these attackers collected. I know the initial hops that were used as vectors and drop-off points. But I can't say that I know who they were. Others from different sources have assured me that these attackers were funded by the Chinese. And while I could easily agree, I could also make and argument against it. I've seen plenty of bureaucrats read the worse of a situation they don't understand - life imitating War Games (the original - not the forgettable remake).
Ultimately, I find it as a problem of definition. "Terrorism" is a tactic. Of late, we've become much more familiar with the criminal application of this tactic on civilian targets. But we have to remember that terrorism has it's roots in espionage. And in that light, I have to say that information security is very much on the cutting edge of espionage. Extend that - and it could easily be one of the tools in a terrorist's campaign.
That doesn't mean I buy in to the whole "cyberterrorism" hand-wringing that likes to make appearances in various media. But it doesn't mean that the folks who aren't the ones who wave the concept around like a flag aren't busy assessing some real threats.
But if we consider that usually terrorism tries to get some point across (with inhuman ways) and get people to hear them, causing disturbance for the Internet would be quite stupid, as it's actually the first worldwide medium to get your word across without goverment control like with radio and tv.
You're assuming that:
1) Everyone in the world understands what the Internet offers.
2) That those who would target the Internet don't see it as a symbol of Western power / pride.
3) Everyone WANTS people to have access to a worldwide medium that gives them free access to thoughts and ideas not dictated by their regional government / society.
I understand the attempt at humor. However, your "summary" doesn't point out that you need to know the details. Someone may think they "know what they hell [the're] doing" simply because they know how to use TOR or even the basics of how TOR works. But without understanding the ramifications that the OP pointed out, they fall in to the same danger.
Yes - your "summary" is nice and easy to digest and I'm sure there's a lot of people who understand it (or at least, THINK they understand it) better than the OP. But ignorance for the sake of brevity is not helpful.
Sorry if this came across as a personal attack. I'm more interested in the meme than the poster; the meme must die. If that sounds like I'm overly critical, then you'll have to forgive me for (occasionally) expecting more out of this community than, say, a forum on CNN.
TL;DR : only use Tor if you know what the hell you are doing.
The Devil's in the details here and the OP provided sufficient details. Your summery doesn't. And furthermore, the "TL;DNR" meme is yet another example of willful ignorance in snarky packaging.
It's an issue of opportunity. If you want to sniff traffic, you have to put yourself in to a position to do so. Either you work for a large enough network that gives you access to the appropriate devices, convince those network owners that they should provide you with information, insert your own devices in someone else's network, or you build your own network large enough for sufficient targets. Setting up an exit node allows you to slip in your own device in a large network with very little cost.
Question for you. Do you believe that the regular flu shout should be mandatory for "front-line hospital workers"?
Question for you. Do you believe there is no effective difference between the usual seasonal flu strain and the H1N1 strain?
Shouldn't it be MORE shocking if china wasn't spying on us?
The shock I'm talking about is somewhat less-than-genuine.
And America is NOT spying on China?
Does it matter? Sure - some element is going to be all outraged. After all, who isn't shocked to find gambling going on? But really this is all about pointing out that there is, indeed, an issue that needs to be addressed. And if we don't address it, we have nobody but ourselves to blame.
It's not news to people who are in these environments - in that line of business. Its probably news to some of the general public.
I have hope that their OSS commitment will eventually bear fruit. That hasn't happened yet AFAIK. But I'm waiting.
Wait - you're expecting mere FACTS to dissuade trolls? You must be n.... wait a minute.
Yes, and there's a whole community that would like to help you do that. That second answer is the real point here. They don't want to open source it because they don't believe in open source. It's that simple. Hopefully this will kill the last of the NVIDIA apologists.
My next purchase will be AMD/ATI as soon as the drivers give me performance that match NVIDIA. I'm hoping that time comes soon.
Foswiki? Pretty decent wysiwyg module built in.
so the OSS crowd have sour grapes about people buying sharepoint and not utilising all it's features? So why even bring sales features into it, since that's not the arguement?
if people spent even 1/2 the time working on competing apps rather then whinging about MS, OSS might actaully make some headway.
That's a great job at re-framing what I said. But of course, that's not what I said. It isn't an issue of using features. It's an issue of simply USING it. Are those sales figures representing successful installs like the marketing is implying they are? That's the point. If those are simply sales of software that lead to abandoned projects, then it's not a very compelling reason to make that investment oneself.
Oh - and nice red herring about competing apps. I've set up wikis that have been more effective than some of the SharePoint installs I've seen.
Aren't there Wikis that do that already?
The issue isn't whether the sales numbers are good. The issue is whether it is really successful - are that many people actually using it? There's a world of difference between, say 80% happy, productive customers and 15% happy, productive customers. When marketing is using these numbers to imply that your own purchase would open the gates of success, what those numbers really mean are important and worth criticizing.
OK, sure. Bait the rally of Apple fanbois. But please note there are quite a few who didn't think apple blocking the Pre was a Good Thing either (but hey - that smacks of reason and it won't be as effective as bait).
I can't say I was all that swayed by the ad either. And I know what it's about. And I am (at this point) really very interested in the Droid. But again - not because of the ad.
I'm keen for an Android phone. But the G1 didn't quite do it for me. The hardware just wasn't quite there. I'm hoping the Droid delivers. Especially as my account is currently with Verizon. I guess I'm kind of almost an early adopter. Which may or may not make me Verizon's target audience.
I saw the ad on TV as well (my wife ignored it). I also saw Verizon's "there's a map for that" commercial which seemed to be much more directed. But then, the early Droid commercial is for a product they haven't even released yet. It's all about that buzz thing. So I guess it's supposed to be mysterious and buzz-worthy. As if the bloggers posting early snapshots and pondering over the device specs aren't enough. :P
T-Mobile seems to do things differently than a lot of other carriers in the US market. Sort of explains why.
More observation than point.
It always makes me leery when you don't actually get to SEE the product they're advertising. On the one hand, they're promoting intrigue as to what it will look like, on the other hand, it may be a soapbox with buttons drawn on with Crayola markers and they're not sure of how the public will receive it's looks.
I doubt it's either brilliant marketing or worry. It seems to be standard fare these days to swing around "mystery" like a 10 pound hammer. Generate buzz. Viral marketing. Get the bloggers all twittered. Or whatever else it is marketing folks do these days.
The advertising campaign isn't really hooking me. But none the less, isn't marketing to early adopters a viable strategy? You need to get a toehold somewhere. You have to get someone interested in the device and to look past Apple's marketing. And Apple is certainly marketing. They're not just sticking the product out there and letting it speak for itself.