Grammatical/arithmetical nitpick: if you reload it six times, that means you load it seven times. (Not meant to be taken seriously, but not meant to be funny either)
Nope, not unless the gun was new, as you only load a gun once. Every time thereafter is a reload. I hope he doesn't try that with a new gun he's never loaded before. You need practice to make sure you do it right!
No, Spaghetti Westerns. Typically made from the mid 60s and early 70s, they made Clint Eastwood into the star he is today. Fast cuts, trippy music, lots of gunplay, and they were heavily (and poorly) dubbed, as most supporting roles were cast with italian actors.
Assuming those numbers are correct, and assuming they use several year old algorithms:
Google can break an RSA-512 key. 12 times a day.
It would take them 8 months to break an RSA-1024 key.
Yeah, if they gave up making money for awhile...
Wait, isn't a Google principle a former NSA brain? Dude, I take it back, it's starting to make sense to me now! Track us all with a cookie that expires in 2038, learn our IPs, save every search, and break our encryption! Damn, they're good! Too good to be gonvernment, that's for sure!
As the parent said: historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
I'd say that your example fits the category of "very rarely".
I was merely pointing out the irony of such a closely contested election with so many people of the opinion that Mr. Bush "stole" the outcome while Mr. Gore failed to carry his own state. Kinda funny, huh?
I'll be more explicit next time. Or maybe use an {/irony} tag.;)
2. Every ticket would have a Texan, Californian, or New Yorker on the ticket. Politicians from the aforementioned states would be completely ignored. And before anyone nitpicks this one, historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
Except Gore in the last election (Tennesee). What were we talking about again?
Re:Obvously the server got hit with one of these..
on
HDD Assault Cannon
·
· Score: 1
It was hopelessly slashdotted before it hit the main page... No Wayback machine archive... No Google cache...
They will turn around and spread the risk (and the profits). Many entities will be absorbing the risks. The more Linux is found to be non-infringing, the more will be willing to stand in the money line (and the lower the retruns...). If a judgement is ever made, many will be paying into it. While your observation is statistically correct, is does not consider the standard business methods used in the insurance industry.
You are aware that with a complete copy of the original directories, even with "whole file replacements," you're now just one step away from getting a diff?
Ouch! OK, I guess sometimes the obvious escapes me. I still stand by my original assertion, however. (Just remove the implication about not having diffs.;) No one has taken issue with my conclusion anyway...
Any slower and Microsoft would just start shipping exploits instead of patches.
This is essentially the point of the author...
"They [hackers] wait until the patch for the vulnerability is released, then they reverse-engineer the patch. This is orders of magnitude easier than finding the vulnerability directly."
I believe this idea is flawed. A general description may give a would-be "zero-day hax0r" a place to look, but patches are distributed not as patches to individual files (e.g. diffs) but as whole file replacements.
To further reflect the sophistication of the author, he also spews this gem:
"An exploit is a method devised to take advantage of a specific software vulnerability using a software virus, Trojan horse or worm. When the exploit is done without a virus, Trojan or worm, it's using an undocumented feature."
So if I design my public place as a faraday cage to prevent the reception of unwanted signals, passive as it is, this too would be illegal? So buildings are allowed to prevent reception as long as that is not the intent?
Sounds goofy enough to be law to me!
Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
At work, a user has to have an incredibly good reason to have administrative access to his/her machine, though. Some companies have got it right, but others haven't.
I have yet to see a machine, regardless of OS, that I couldn't root within minutes, given physical access. So having your users not have root access on their local machines is just like the privacy lock on the bathroom door... It helps polite people stay polite but really doesn't keep anybody out who wants in...
Re:Proprietary in one form or the other
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
I've heard of small efforts to confuse and annoy the NSA by the regular use of encrypted email by people with nothing to hide, but such things are difficult to use at the moment, what with the key exchanges, the requirements to use particular mailers, and the fact that many people don't particularly want to participate in that little game, especially since it does leave you open to scrutiny.
Wanna annoy the NSA? (As ill-advised as that is...):
Append with appropriate headers/footers and poof! Genuine uncrackable email message! Of course, they might "find" a key that makes the message look very incriminating...;)
A shit load of people know how DES works. There have been masses of books published as well as articles on varients people have developed that enhance certain features of the original ect.
Bruce's book ("Applied Cryptography") is so well written and clear I was able to write my own implementation of DES in an Excel macro in an hour or so. Slow as hell, but it worked perfectly...
Then show me the mathematical proof that factoring (or whatever you want to base your crypto system on) is hard. Nobody has come forward with such a proof. Encryption is based on problems that "lots of people have worked on really hard without finding fast solutions," not mathematical rigor.
Predict the next value in my random one-time pad...
Actually they can subpoena to get the private key and if they don't get the key or the key was destroyed, the person that sent the message could go to jail for obstruction of justice. If someone has something illegal to hide will some way or another get in trouble.
So you have two pads, one for the legit message and the other decrypting to something innocent... Not rocket science..
While I certainly enjoyed your reply, I must take issue with the idea of random being in any way related to perception. As you say, it is what it is and that stands alone. Kind of like your point of sound being related to perception. I say no, even if the sound is not heard, that does not make it any less of a sound.
Now that we've taken this topic as far off course as it can be, I going to run away and hide!;)
A bell curve is a pattern, but is formed by random data.
An attribute of random is a normal distibution of values, so the reverse is also true, that is, if the result is not a bell curve, then the values aren't random.
That said, I'm not a stats guy. Thanks for making me think!
If you analyze closely enough the events leading to the generation of so-called random numbers, you should be able to predict the output and thereby render it not random.
But if that were the case (i.e. observation resulting in predictability), then I would assert that, regardless of the observation, the result is not random but merely pseudorandom (or in the case of online casinos and cryptography, "random enough"). Mere observation has nothing to do with whether or not it's random (quantum examples not withstanding, of course).
So my (classic) question still stands. Is there such thing as random? It's a simple question, yet it entails the essence of all existance. Are personality traits, auto accidents, war, love, and a fondness for espresso all predictable? Are we destined for our fate? Or do we choose our paths? Are criminals in jail for fulfilling their destiny, or is there really such a thing as good and evil?
Here's irony for you: Are we destined to prove whether or not random exists?
As for 17 being the most random number, does that mean it is the most likely (or even the least likely) result when observing random events? Does that not make it un-random? (Random being an equal likelihood of any result.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Mitnick assists police in finding bomb hoaxer" Monday May 03, @10:12AM Rejected
(sigh...)
Grammatical/arithmetical nitpick: if you reload it six times, that means you load it seven times.
(Not meant to be taken seriously, but not meant to be funny either)
Nope, not unless the gun was new, as you only load a gun once. Every time thereafter is a reload. I hope he doesn't try that with a new gun he's never loaded before. You need practice to make sure you do it right!
Don't know about liquid armor, but I imagine if I was in an active war zone, I might fill my own armor with liquid!
Italian westerns? Ohh, you mean easterns...
No, Spaghetti Westerns. Typically made from the mid 60s and early 70s, they made Clint Eastwood into the star he is today. Fast cuts, trippy music, lots of gunplay, and they were heavily (and poorly) dubbed, as most supporting roles were cast with italian actors.
They are considered classics now, as are the likes of "Fistful of Dollars" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" Wonderfully loony and fun to watch.
Oh jeeze. Just looked up my neighborhood.
;)
I can't afford to live there! Everyone else makes $30 grand a year more than I do!
So you're the one dragging down property values! Yes, move away! Do us all a favor!
Assuming those numbers are correct, and assuming they use several year old algorithms:
Google can break an RSA-512 key. 12 times a day.
It would take them 8 months to break an RSA-1024 key.
Yeah, if they gave up making money for awhile...
Wait, isn't a Google principle a former NSA brain? Dude, I take it back, it's starting to make sense to me now! Track us all with a cookie that expires in 2038, learn our IPs, save every search, and break our encryption! Damn, they're good! Too good to be gonvernment, that's for sure!
As the parent said: historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
;)
I'd say that your example fits the category of "very rarely".
I was merely pointing out the irony of such a closely contested election with so many people of the opinion that Mr. Bush "stole" the outcome while Mr. Gore failed to carry his own state. Kinda funny, huh?
I'll be more explicit next time. Or maybe use an {/irony} tag.
2. Every ticket would have a Texan, Californian, or New Yorker on the ticket. Politicians from the aforementioned states would be completely ignored. And before anyone nitpicks this one, historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
Except Gore in the last election (Tennesee). What were we talking about again?
It was hopelessly slashdotted before it hit the main page... No Wayback machine archive... No Google cache...
They will turn around and spread the risk (and the profits). Many entities will be absorbing the risks. The more Linux is found to be non-infringing, the more will be willing to stand in the money line (and the lower the retruns...). If a judgement is ever made, many will be paying into it. While your observation is statistically correct, is does not consider the standard business methods used in the insurance industry.
You are aware that with a complete copy of the original directories, even with "whole file replacements," you're now just one step away from getting a diff?
;) No one has taken issue with my conclusion anyway...
Ouch! OK, I guess sometimes the obvious escapes me. I still stand by my original assertion, however. (Just remove the implication about not having diffs.
Any slower and Microsoft would just start shipping exploits instead of patches.
This is essentially the point of the author...
"They [hackers] wait until the patch for the vulnerability is released, then they reverse-engineer the patch. This is orders of magnitude easier than finding the vulnerability directly."
I believe this idea is flawed. A general description may give a would-be "zero-day hax0r" a place to look, but patches are distributed not as patches to individual files (e.g. diffs) but as whole file replacements.
To further reflect the sophistication of the author, he also spews this gem:
"An exploit is a method devised to take advantage of a specific software vulnerability using a software virus, Trojan horse or worm. When the exploit is done without a virus, Trojan or worm, it's using an undocumented feature."
Conclusion? This guy is a putz...
So if I design my public place as a faraday cage to prevent the reception of unwanted signals, passive as it is, this too would be illegal? So buildings are allowed to prevent reception as long as that is not the intent?
Sounds goofy enough to be law to me!
At work, a user has to have an incredibly good reason to have administrative access to his/her machine, though. Some companies have got it right, but others haven't.
I have yet to see a machine, regardless of OS, that I couldn't root within minutes, given physical access. So having your users not have root access on their local machines is just like the privacy lock on the bathroom door... It helps polite people stay polite but really doesn't keep anybody out who wants in...
*cough* Nortel *cough*
Just supporting your point, minus. Believe me, I won't do that again... >
I've heard of small efforts to confuse and annoy the NSA by the regular use of encrypted email by people with nothing to hide, but such things are difficult to use at the moment, what with the key exchanges, the requirements to use particular mailers, and the fact that many people don't particularly want to participate in that little game, especially since it does leave you open to scrutiny.
;)
Wanna annoy the NSA? (As ill-advised as that is...):
dd if=/dev/random of=/home/pegr/email.out count=4096
Append with appropriate headers/footers and poof! Genuine uncrackable email message! Of course, they might "find" a key that makes the message look very incriminating...
A shit load of people know how DES works. There have been masses of books published as well as articles on varients people have developed that enhance certain features of the original ect.
Bruce's book ("Applied Cryptography") is so well written and clear I was able to write my own implementation of DES in an Excel macro in an hour or so. Slow as hell, but it worked perfectly...
Then show me the mathematical proof that factoring (or whatever you want to base your crypto system on) is hard. Nobody has come forward with such a proof. Encryption is based on problems that "lots of people have worked on really hard without finding fast solutions," not mathematical rigor.
Predict the next value in my random one-time pad...
Actually they can subpoena to get the private key and if they don't get the key or the key was destroyed, the person that sent the message could go to jail for obstruction of justice. If someone has something illegal to hide will some way or another get in trouble.
So you have two pads, one for the legit message and the other decrypting to something innocent... Not rocket science..
So what's significant about "Fresh blood through tired skin"? (Kethinov's decoded sig...)
Except that it's NOT your data. You have a license to use it.
Then why do you pay sales tax?
While I certainly enjoyed your reply, I must take issue with the idea of random being in any way related to perception. As you say, it is what it is and that stands alone. Kind of like your point of sound being related to perception. I say no, even if the sound is not heard, that does not make it any less of a sound.
;)
Now that we've taken this topic as far off course as it can be, I going to run away and hide!
A bell curve is a pattern, but is formed by random data.
An attribute of random is a normal distibution of values, so the reverse is also true, that is, if the result is not a bell curve, then the values aren't random.
That said, I'm not a stats guy. Thanks for making me think!
If you analyze closely enough the events leading to the generation of so-called random numbers, you should be able to predict the output and thereby render it not random.
But if that were the case (i.e. observation resulting in predictability), then I would assert that, regardless of the observation, the result is not random but merely pseudorandom (or in the case of online casinos and cryptography, "random enough"). Mere observation has nothing to do with whether or not it's random (quantum examples not withstanding, of course).
So my (classic) question still stands. Is there such thing as random? It's a simple question, yet it entails the essence of all existance. Are personality traits, auto accidents, war, love, and a fondness for espresso all predictable? Are we destined for our fate? Or do we choose our paths? Are criminals in jail for fulfilling their destiny, or is there really such a thing as good and evil?
Here's irony for you: Are we destined to prove whether or not random exists?
As for 17 being the most random number, does that mean it is the most likely (or even the least likely) result when observing random events? Does that not make it un-random? (Random being an equal likelihood of any result.)