have never connected anything but a single firewall/router to the telco DSL box. Does the vulnerability still matter?
sounds like it. Apparently only if you changed the default ip address of the 2 wire box, or had a reason to not use the DNS cache from within it, would this have helped deflect this vulnerability. (after all, NAT still lets you "out" to the router, where the vulnerability is.)
Although it appears firefox with script block would have stopped this.
if people have a choice between a dvr or a bluray player, they'll take the dvr.
netflix can get you 20 blue ray disks per month for ~$16 a month. isn't video-on-demand at least 2 to 5 times more costly, and not so many features? then you have Miro, which can get you even cheaper than that (plus you could browse sites like slashdot in the left over bandwidth.)
Well, today with the paper system you have 20-30 people personally handling your ballots, at some point you have one small group handling all of the ballots. IMO it is a-lott simpler to secure one device type at the endpoints with redundant servers secured at the end and not have to care about the transport, than to try and secure a hundred thousand individual pieces of paper.
How do you even ensure it's the same computer?
at some point some people have to be trusted, obviously no small group will get away with replacing hundreds of voting machines. Their are many places/ways to catch and detect hardware/software changes to a simple device. It has proven very difficult, near impossible, historically to do the same with paper.
Anyone with competence to go to a website, and enter their receipt and remember the text they entered would verify the entire route of their vote was in place. Only expert verification would be of the validity of the algorithms used to encrypt it. Which shouldn't be more than a page or 2 of code, I would think. (couldn't be touch screen, but something simple) A few hundred tests prior to the actual vote to certify things, and only enough memory/hardware to accomplish the single encryption in the machines.
Since none of this level of security is available now, with paper ballots.
if you understand the current system, I would bet your one of less than 2% of voters. IE know all of who/how/what/where did your vote get from the ballot box to TV final results?
1) system needs to work 2) enough people know how the system works, and can verify it works to instill confidence.
Get the algorithm to be understood/testable by every person who passes college level calculus, get the system to where the rest know how to use it.
And how do you insure the paper ballot was counted correctly? (I can't answer that) Simply change order of names on the paper ballot would do now. As a start: If you had a end to end E-Vote solution, you could easily get end to end verifiability. Something as simple as allowing the voter to enter their own random string at the vote screen. With redundant open back-end server algorithms, if you generated a encrypted packet with that string, and your votes, and encrypted with sever generated PGP-key. A very short printout of the packet sent to the redundant servers, could be taken by the voter. Now without any way to sell a verifiable vote, you could go to the multiple servers and verify they all got your exact packet, and verify that packet getting your string back. Then the only things that need careful watching is a simple encryption device, and final server (which can be independent solutions by independent company's.) And unlike all voting to date, end to end integrity could be verified.
not at all the same situation as a neighbour casually passing by in the street
Their are a-lott of options toward avoiding contact with the world if that seams important to you. Those options generally entail being removed from many of the advantages of community life. For example, no windows would takes away your free views to and through others properties, and then you have no concern here. Also The Google van will never have a street view of my house, I have 800' drive on my private property, then 1.5 miles on private shared roads. I would freely give that permission if requested though. I do have to pay an additional $300 a year in maintance, where as the houses across the street have the same tax rate as me, but get these services for no additional cost (my tax dollars at work also.) Even the property tax assessor got really sheepish when caught looking for my house from the private (but shared roads.) Despite me giving permission, he immediately turned around without a second look.
Incorrect. There is no throttle body at all. This is trivial to research - check it out.
I did, entire first 2 pages of google search showed parts, and talk about issues with the cabling to the "throttle valve" on several of the 7 series cars. don't know about the body, but the valve is their.
Now the throttle plate typically controls only air flow, and the rest of things are done through the computer adjusting
All EFI gasoline cars I know of, the only human interface to the engine system is controlling this air restriction. Then the computer measures the air flow affected by this, usually with a Mass air flow sensor, and adjusts fuel, timing to keep it close to stoichiometric efficiency. Then further tunes this based on knock sensor, Exhaust gases, etc for emissions (not economy that is only negatively affected by the adjustments.)
Of course you're correct about engines being most efficient at max torque.
Enough said? If your designing a system for efficiency, you would design everything else to load you engine under this condition as much as possible. With this said the only debate about cars should be is the system designed to run efficiently at a steady state typical highway speed, if so then hard accelerate to that speed is the way to go.
I work on electric vehicle automation, this is what we do, jump right to max torque, accelerate their, jump engine rpm to max HP anytime the wheel motors are lingering outside their efficiency range (near stall for example.) Were now working on ways to shutdown the engine during other times, and supplement the power otherwise.
They have no throttle plate at all
Any gasoline engine without air restriction for control would run lean. running a gas engine made of metals lean for extended periods will destroy it. I assume what your referring to is using a stepper motor for throttle control, and no hard linkage to the pedal. That changes nothing in my opinion. Things like variable compression, turbos, and supercharges would affect where the efficient engine speed is at, and may get nearly as good of efficiency in a wider range. It will still be less efficient than running the engine at higher loads whenever needed.
The only vehicle exceptions to the faster accel is more efficient are electrics. Battery's are more efficient at lower currents, motors are more efficient at lower torques, higher speeds. If accel can happen without the need for gasoline, then it's a different game. Now floored in most factory tuned automatics keeps the tranny in in-efficient modes, but a calibration with harder lockups, etc will fix that (I am a manual tranny guy, bang for the buck is still much better their. Lower maintaince + fewer parts (1 clutch, not 3) + lower weight = better acceleration for the same economy.)
sorry, efficiency would be work per gallon of fuel. So maximizing HP/gallon consumed. So of course accelerating at max rate to 60mph, you'll burn more fuel per second while accelerating, however you will be burning that fuel over a shorter time. So the rate at which the fuel was burned would be greater, but the total fuel burned accelerating from 0 to 60 will be less.
Driving faster (top speed) would definitely hurt economy, if that means more braking. So I am assuming you do not drive faster or brake faster, only start faster. Doing jackrabbit starts only hurts fuel economy if that causes you to use your brakes more.
Now, I am also only talking fuel. You may wear out your engine/tranny/rear-end/tires/spark plugs/etc faster. Especially if these components were not designed with the duty cycle in mind.
I actually got this from a car and driver article of a study by BMW, showing if you accelerate to the same top speed, and take entire MPG over a set distance. Best fuel economy in a manual trans car comes from full throttle, then shifting at the max torque rpm (varies by engine, but it is a "short shift" at lower rpm.) Next best comes from maintaining fastest accel possible. Worst was accelerating slowly shifting later.
ALL gasoline engines (EFI or tuned properly) get best efficiency at full throttle (at a given rpm.) The "gas" pedal actually connects to a butterfly valve. This simply increases air resistance reducing the air flow to the engine. so saying a engine gets better efficiency at full throttle, is the same as saying it gets better economy with a clean air filter. Absolute best efficiency is always close to the rpm where peak torque of the engine is obtained. To capitalize on this, most modern automatic transmission cars (except for some high performance cars) will have the engine at full throttle at 1/4 pedal position. The remainder of pedal position changes at what rpm the engine shifts, so finding the sweet spot position for acceleration is not so easy.
If it's green when you see it, assume it will turn yellow at any time: prepare to stop... If it is red when you see it, assume the idiots coming the other way will run the yellow or red. Wait a second after it turns green then Go.
being in a major city near a retirement destinations, I am probably seeing the more extreme downside of this practice. 1) if your stopping/slowing when others aren't, your going to be causing accidents. Granted those accidents won't be "your fault" legally, still not something I like to see regardless. 2) those who wait, and then pull slowly up to speed causes the biggest problems in our city traffic. You realize how much gas, etc those few seconds cost society? It should be illegal to pull from a light at less than 3/4 throttle (or 100% if you driving a prius or similar) during congestion periods. Those few seconds are going to cut in half or more the amount of cars that will pass through most lights, that means twice as much space is needed for roads, that means more cars are stopping at each light, that means dozens of cars a 1/2 mile back are braking then accelerating, would they could coast through, if just 5 cars had gone quickly. (Not to mention most cars get better efficiency at full throttle)
I will agree that supplier contract is the major reason why. But I disagree that is the only reason, and their are lots of other reasons why apple choose the particular DRM, and continuous to push and make available some tracks that could be DRM free. Obviously it is a purely financial reason why apple doesn't freely replace the DRM version with the none DRM version immediately upon the non-DRM version becoming available to them.
Several of his statements similar to "I never said that". Make me suspect that he doesn't consider reading aloud to be his words. Now considering he looks really dumb anytime he isn't reading aloud, for once I have to agree with him. That doesn't mean the speech writer/puppet masters who pull his strings, shouldn't have to answer for their actions the next time their at their jobs.
But, soon those new machines that reshuffle the cards every hand will replace chutes and it'll be a moot point.
thats already trivial, and already equivalent to video poker. Any casinos who still want gamblers like me, and my friends, who go to the tables occasionally and basically try to count cards at a $5 table, betting a max of $20 per hand and generally come out within $200 (usually within $50) per gambling evening at the casino. Will always offer decent chances to try and count, and throw out those who are overly successful.
if your car was at the scene of the crime you're responsible for the fine.
definitely will depend on local laws, (And this is not legal advice.) My experience in AZ is different: 1)that your not responsible until you acknowledge notification (so if you just throw away the mail. and you, and nobody signs a certified letter on your behalf, and you never contact anyone thus acknowledging receipt, then no responsibility.)
living in the middle of no-where AZ, this was the end of my personal experience. 2) Once you have been legally served, now as a citizen notified of a crime, I think you are legally required to truthfully give all details to the authorities. They (in AZ) will send you a picture of the driver. if that is un-identifiable it is a easy win. If it matches your drivers license photo, it is a easy loss. If you truthfully testify against the person in the photo, again your not it. If you lie, your opening yourself up to some very serious crime, to get out of a relatively small fee.
Although having no bearing on the subject at hand.
>have a cruel punishment as long as it is usual, and an unusual punishment as long as it is not cruel because the wording in the 8th amendment is cruel AND unusual.
from the Magna Carta, which applies to both US and English law
the right and duty of the jury to pass final judgment on all laws, the moral intent of the law
typically this is more often used to throw out a unjust law, but I assume it works both ways. In the case of the 8th amendment this would clearly throw out any law allowing cruel but usual punishment.
Can it be better? Yes it can. Is it a national crisis? I just don't think so. Do I want my FIOS? Yes I do.
Not knowing the future, national crisis is of course impossible to say for sure. Is broadband the tool of the future, and how much is practice and availability an advantage? It is impossible for most people who grow up without a tool to imagine was how those who have that tool use it, and thus what and how would be best supplied to those using it. So with that in mind, I don't see how the US could be as competitive in the computing market in the future. How important that becomes, and how long will it take for the mindset of these now tech deprived Americans to catch back up in this market, is yet to be seen. This will also infiltrate the productivity of all other businesses. So as the rest of the world figures out how to leverage these tools in the daily lives, and then those tools are provided to the company's who employ those people at no cost. If you don't believe this, it should be obvious why so much work is being put into this in other countries. If your building business that need to be connected to the world. All else being equal, you would choose the locations that already had the best infrastructure, so you as a business wouldn't have to build it from scratch.
It's also time to quit surfing as your log-in user.
That is really going to be determined what the consumers priority is. If your computers primary use is something other than browsing, and you occasionally use a browser, then this makes sense. If on the other hand, your computers primary use is browsing but you occasionally do something else. Then protecting your computer and dismissing all browser vulnerabilities could make things much worse, instead of better.
Example, most people use the same password for many purposes. Once any part of your computing security is lost, regardless it being in a separate user space, your just slowing down the rate at which the consumer loses. So in a environment where the user becomes aware of the problem, and is also smart enough to isolate the possible damage quickly, this helps.
Browsers need to be made secure, or browsers will have to go-away as a option for interface to any data of value. So if as you seam to claim that browsers cannot be made secure, then online banking, online web access, online applications will have to be ended. Or I guess a separate application be made for access to these. But that is basically saying we have to make obscurity our security because we can't make a general use application secure.
when it came to test user interaction the Mac was the first one tested.
Sounded like the only reason the other machines weren't tested first, was because no one had a ready exploit to test, so no one requested a test on any of the others. if their was something special about the configuration of the machines the mac being tested first would have had some meaning. Since all of these were production PC's, their would be no reason to test a exploit on any of them, until you had already proven a exploit. So everyone at a hacking contest with a computer, would be capable of testing for exploits, without touching any of the contest PC's.
The instant it's found out he is illegally organizing the wiretap he would be fired, no question about it.
That the whole point, correct? The FBI was,and is, illegally organizing wiretaps, and not only is no one getting fired, they are giving each other pats on the back, and giving immunity whenever possible. Furthermore, instead of opening up the past reasons for breaking the law. They are basically saying "well it would be good in these type of scenarios." So it must be ok then and now... They are not saying that was the *only* uses, or even the intended reason for the past abuses.
. If the entire police precinct or FBI department was corrupt then it's a different story,
So that is a very BIG point. The majority (at least those with any power now) clearly don't care about acting within the law now. Are those the people you want having access to *all* of the nations private secrets. Lets face it, one person knowing all of the common actions of one other person, not so important. knowing most of the actions of all American's is ripe for abuse. Having stored this history for most actions past and present for all, is insanely ripe for abuse. Especially when it is the people with a history of not caring about what is right and wrong, let alone legal.
comment whether this affects the probabilities adversely for a player counting cards?
Mostly it would extend the time between winning counts, assuming a similar % of cards delt before the shuffle. Of course if they use a 5 Deck hand, and shuffle after just 50 or so cards are dealt, then their is not enough shown to count at all. With 5 hands playing, and a single deck, and you are at the end of the table, you could conceivably get enough cards on the table in the second hand to have a real good sense of the cards left.
The huge security hole in the credit card system is the users.
A security hole is users. The biggest, doubtfull.
I have had fraudulent CC activity 2*, first time was because my CC company sent me un-requsted cash advance checks that were stolen from my mailbox (the guilty are now in jail) second time was after a self serve gas station, guessing a camera pointed at the card reader.
Both of these are easily solved by the bank, it is going to be difficult for the users to keep appraised of all the new fraud attacks. Simple electrical tape will cover, and re-stick if needed to be exposed. But a better card design incorporating similar would be desired. Not sending junk, would solve the first...
Your example is highly unlikely to cause fraud, 1)monitoring phone calls for a number is time consuming per paying result. 2)an occasional CC number doesn't typically pay enough per effort.
so targeting high traffic places is where the fraud will be directed as well.
Slashdot Mirror
sounds like it. Apparently only if you changed the default ip address of the 2 wire box, or had a reason to not use the DNS cache from within it, would this have helped deflect this vulnerability. (after all, NAT still lets you "out" to the router, where the vulnerability is.)
Although it appears firefox with script block would have stopped this.
netflix can get you 20 blue ray disks per month for ~$16 a month.
isn't video-on-demand at least 2 to 5 times more costly, and not so many features?
then you have Miro, which can get you even cheaper than that (plus you could browse sites like slashdot in the left over bandwidth.)
at some point some people have to be trusted, obviously no small group will get away with replacing hundreds of voting machines. Their are many places/ways to catch and detect hardware/software changes to a simple device. It has proven very difficult, near impossible, historically to do the same with paper.
Anyone with competence to go to a website, and enter their receipt and remember the text they entered would verify the entire route of their vote was in place.
Only expert verification would be of the validity of the algorithms used to encrypt it. Which shouldn't be more than a page or 2 of code, I would think. (couldn't be touch screen, but something simple)
A few hundred tests prior to the actual vote to certify things, and only enough memory/hardware to accomplish the single encryption in the machines.
Since none of this level of security is available now, with paper ballots.
if you understand the current system, I would bet your one of less than 2% of voters. IE know all of who/how/what/where did your vote get from the ballot box to TV final results?
1) system needs to work
2) enough people know how the system works, and can verify it works to instill confidence.
Get the algorithm to be understood/testable by every person who passes college level calculus, get the system to where the rest know how to use it.
And how do you insure the paper ballot was counted correctly? (I can't answer that) Simply change order of names on the paper ballot would do now.
As a start: If you had a end to end E-Vote solution, you could easily get end to end verifiability. Something as simple as allowing the voter to enter their own random string at the vote screen. With redundant open back-end server algorithms, if you generated a encrypted packet with that string, and your votes, and encrypted with sever generated PGP-key. A very short printout of the packet sent to the redundant servers, could be taken by the voter. Now without any way to sell a verifiable vote, you could go to the multiple servers and verify they all got your exact packet, and verify that packet getting your string back.
Then the only things that need careful watching is a simple encryption device, and final server (which can be independent solutions by independent company's.)
And unlike all voting to date, end to end integrity could be verified.
Their are a-lott of options toward avoiding contact with the world if that seams important to you. Those options generally entail being removed from many of the advantages of community life. For example, no windows would takes away your free views to and through others properties, and then you have no concern here. Also The Google van will never have a street view of my house, I have 800' drive on my private property, then 1.5 miles on private shared roads. I would freely give that permission if requested though. I do have to pay an additional $300 a year in maintance, where as the houses across the street have the same tax rate as me, but get these services for no additional cost (my tax dollars at work also.)
Even the property tax assessor got really sheepish when caught looking for my house from the private (but shared roads.) Despite me giving permission, he immediately turned around without a second look.
oh, and the first link:
but those systems still use an electric motor operated throttle to control engine speed.
I did, entire first 2 pages of google search showed parts, and talk about issues with the cabling to the "throttle valve" on several of the 7 series cars. don't know about the body, but the valve is their.
All EFI gasoline cars I know of, the only human interface to the engine system is controlling this air restriction.
Then the computer measures the air flow affected by this, usually with a Mass air flow sensor, and adjusts fuel, timing to keep it close to stoichiometric efficiency. Then further tunes this based on knock sensor, Exhaust gases, etc for emissions (not economy that is only negatively affected by the adjustments.)
Enough said? If your designing a system for efficiency, you would design everything else to load you engine under this condition as much as possible. With this said the only debate about cars should be is the system designed to run efficiently at a steady state typical highway speed, if so then hard accelerate to that speed is the way to go.
I work on electric vehicle automation, this is what we do, jump right to max torque, accelerate their, jump engine rpm to max HP anytime the wheel motors are lingering outside their efficiency range (near stall for example.) Were now working on ways to shutdown the engine during other times, and supplement the power otherwise.
Any gasoline engine without air restriction for control would run lean. running a gas engine made of metals lean for extended periods will destroy it. I assume what your referring to is using a stepper motor for throttle control, and no hard linkage to the pedal. That changes nothing in my opinion. Things like variable compression, turbos, and supercharges would affect where the efficient engine speed is at, and may get nearly as good of efficiency in a wider range. It will still be less efficient than running the engine at higher loads whenever needed.
The only vehicle exceptions to the faster accel is more efficient are electrics. Battery's are more efficient at lower currents, motors are more efficient at lower torques, higher speeds. If accel can happen without the need for gasoline, then it's a different game. Now floored in most factory tuned automatics keeps the tranny in in-efficient modes, but a calibration with harder lockups, etc will fix that (I am a manual tranny guy, bang for the buck is still much better their. Lower maintaince + fewer parts (1 clutch, not 3) + lower weight = better acceleration for the same economy.)
sorry, efficiency would be work per gallon of fuel. So maximizing HP/gallon consumed. So of course accelerating at max rate to 60mph, you'll burn more fuel per second while accelerating, however you will be burning that fuel over a shorter time. So the rate at which the fuel was burned would be greater, but the total fuel burned accelerating from 0 to 60 will be less.
Driving faster (top speed) would definitely hurt economy, if that means more braking. So I am assuming you do not drive faster or brake faster, only start faster. Doing jackrabbit starts only hurts fuel economy if that causes you to use your brakes more.
Now, I am also only talking fuel. You may wear out your engine/tranny/rear-end/tires/spark plugs/etc faster. Especially if these components were not designed with the duty cycle in mind.
I actually got this from a car and driver article of a study by BMW, showing if you accelerate to the same top speed, and take entire MPG over a set distance. Best fuel economy in a manual trans car comes from full throttle, then shifting at the max torque rpm (varies by engine, but it is a "short shift" at lower rpm.) Next best comes from maintaining fastest accel possible. Worst was accelerating slowly shifting later.
ALL gasoline engines (EFI or tuned properly) get best efficiency at full throttle (at a given rpm.) The "gas" pedal actually connects to a butterfly valve. This simply increases air resistance reducing the air flow to the engine. so saying a engine gets better efficiency at full throttle, is the same as saying it gets better economy with a clean air filter. Absolute best efficiency is always close to the rpm where peak torque of the engine is obtained.
To capitalize on this, most modern automatic transmission cars (except for some high performance cars) will have the engine at full throttle at 1/4 pedal position. The remainder of pedal position changes at what rpm the engine shifts, so finding the sweet spot position for acceleration is not so easy.
being in a major city near a retirement destinations, I am probably seeing the more extreme downside of this practice.
1) if your stopping/slowing when others aren't, your going to be causing accidents. Granted those accidents won't be "your fault" legally, still not something I like to see regardless.
2) those who wait, and then pull slowly up to speed causes the biggest problems in our city traffic. You realize how much gas, etc those few seconds cost society? It should be illegal to pull from a light at less than 3/4 throttle (or 100% if you driving a prius or similar) during congestion periods. Those few seconds are going to cut in half or more the amount of cars that will pass through most lights, that means twice as much space is needed for roads, that means more cars are stopping at each light, that means dozens of cars a 1/2 mile back are braking then accelerating, would they could coast through, if just 5 cars had gone quickly. (Not to mention most cars get better efficiency at full throttle)
waiting for a greasemonkey update in 5,4,3...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2175
I will agree that supplier contract is the major reason why. But I disagree that is the only reason, and their are lots of other reasons why apple choose the particular DRM, and continuous to push and make available some tracks that could be DRM free. Obviously it is a purely financial reason why apple doesn't freely replace the DRM version with the none DRM version immediately upon the non-DRM version becoming available to them.
Several of his statements similar to "I never said that". Make me suspect that he doesn't consider reading aloud to be his words. Now considering he looks really dumb anytime he isn't reading aloud, for once I have to agree with him.
That doesn't mean the speech writer/puppet masters who pull his strings, shouldn't have to answer for their actions the next time their at their jobs.
thats already trivial, and already equivalent to video poker. Any casinos who still want gamblers like me, and my friends, who go to the tables occasionally and basically try to count cards at a $5 table, betting a max of $20 per hand and generally come out within $200 (usually within $50) per gambling evening at the casino. Will always offer decent chances to try and count, and throw out those who are overly successful.
definitely will depend on local laws, (And this is not legal advice.)
My experience in AZ is different:
1)that your not responsible until you acknowledge notification (so if you just throw away the mail. and you, and nobody signs a certified letter on your behalf, and you never contact anyone thus acknowledging receipt, then no responsibility.)
living in the middle of no-where AZ, this was the end of my personal experience.
2) Once you have been legally served, now as a citizen notified of a crime, I think you are legally required to truthfully give all details to the authorities. They (in AZ) will send you a picture of the driver. if that is un-identifiable it is a easy win. If it matches your drivers license photo, it is a easy loss. If you truthfully testify against the person in the photo, again your not it. If you lie, your opening yourself up to some very serious crime, to get out of a relatively small fee.
from the Magna Carta, which applies to both US and English law
typically this is more often used to throw out a unjust law, but I assume it works both ways. In the case of the 8th amendment this would clearly throw out any law allowing cruel but usual punishment.
Not knowing the future, national crisis is of course impossible to say for sure. Is broadband the tool of the future, and how much is practice and availability an advantage?
It is impossible for most people who grow up without a tool to imagine was how those who have that tool use it, and thus what and how would be best supplied to those using it. So with that in mind, I don't see how the US could be as competitive in the computing market in the future. How important that becomes, and how long will it take for the mindset of these now tech deprived Americans to catch back up in this market, is yet to be seen.
This will also infiltrate the productivity of all other businesses. So as the rest of the world figures out how to leverage these tools in the daily lives, and then those tools are provided to the company's who employ those people at no cost.
If you don't believe this, it should be obvious why so much work is being put into this in other countries. If your building business that need to be connected to the world. All else being equal, you would choose the locations that already had the best infrastructure, so you as a business wouldn't have to build it from scratch.
That is really going to be determined what the consumers priority is. If your computers primary use is something other than browsing, and you occasionally use a browser, then this makes sense.
If on the other hand, your computers primary use is browsing but you occasionally do something else. Then protecting your computer and dismissing all browser vulnerabilities could make things much worse, instead of better.
Example, most people use the same password for many purposes. Once any part of your computing security is lost, regardless it being in a separate user space, your just slowing down the rate at which the consumer loses. So in a environment where the user becomes aware of the problem, and is also smart enough to isolate the possible damage quickly, this helps.
Browsers need to be made secure, or browsers will have to go-away as a option for interface to any data of value. So if as you seam to claim that browsers cannot be made secure, then online banking, online web access, online applications will have to be ended. Or I guess a separate application be made for access to these. But that is basically saying we have to make obscurity our security because we can't make a general use application secure.
Sounded like the only reason the other machines weren't tested first, was because no one had a ready exploit to test, so no one requested a test on any of the others.
if their was something special about the configuration of the machines the mac being tested first would have had some meaning.
Since all of these were production PC's, their would be no reason to test a exploit on any of them, until you had already proven a exploit.
So everyone at a hacking contest with a computer, would be capable of testing for exploits, without touching any of the contest PC's.
That the whole point, correct? The FBI was
Furthermore, instead of opening up the past reasons for breaking the law. They are basically saying "well it would be good in these type of scenarios." So it must be ok then and now... They are not saying that was the *only* uses, or even the intended reason for the past abuses.
So that is a very BIG point. The majority (at least those with any power now) clearly don't care about acting within the law now. Are those the people you want having access to *all* of the nations private secrets. Lets face it, one person knowing all of the common actions of one other person, not so important. knowing most of the actions of all American's is ripe for abuse. Having stored this history for most actions past and present for all, is insanely ripe for abuse. Especially when it is the people with a history of not caring about what is right and wrong, let alone legal.
Mostly it would extend the time between winning counts, assuming a similar % of cards delt before the shuffle. Of course if they use a 5 Deck hand, and shuffle after just 50 or so cards are dealt, then their is not enough shown to count at all. With 5 hands playing, and a single deck, and you are at the end of the table, you could conceivably get enough cards on the table in the second hand to have a real good sense of the cards left.
A security hole is users. The biggest, doubtfull.
I have had fraudulent CC activity 2*,
first time was because my CC company sent me un-requsted cash advance checks that were stolen from my mailbox (the guilty are now in jail)
second time was after a self serve gas station, guessing a camera pointed at the card reader.
Both of these are easily solved by the bank, it is going to be difficult for the users to keep appraised of all the new fraud attacks. Simple electrical tape will cover, and re-stick if needed to be exposed. But a better card design incorporating similar would be desired. Not sending junk, would solve the first...
Your example is highly unlikely to cause fraud,
1)monitoring phone calls for a number is time consuming per paying result.
2)an occasional CC number doesn't typically pay enough per effort.
so targeting high traffic places is where the fraud will be directed as well.