I dont think he is trying to show shit. He is simply saying that VA are talking through their ass when they say that only the shell server was owned and that us users shouldn't worry our pretty little heads.
why? Actually the best thing you can do is pull the network cable, dont turn off the machine and call your security provider. They will do a real analysis and then clean and secure your system. Reinstall is a good way to get back into the exact same insecure state again.
re-installing is *not* the solution. Checksum your binaries when you first install (and dont have the network plugged in when you do it ok?) and if/when you get owned, take the box offline, pull out the harddrive, put it into a machine with no harddrives, boot off your forensic analysis floppy and check it. Hopefully, the security team at VA Linux knows this.
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 1
get on irc and ask, he done told you where he hangs out.
And of course, the tendancy towards smart cards (which aren't) will only make this problem worse. A bit of biometrics might help: a thumbpad on the side of the card, maybe.
Exactly right, stealing a laptop is not a social attack.
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 2
oh yer, he was wrong. Dont misunderstand me, I dont condone his actions. But I dont condone VA Linux failing to notice backdoors for 5 months when they are supposed to have an expert security team.
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 1
he never claimed he could, his claim is that they cannot and in hacking their network he is demonstrating that his claim is true. ie. he is "schooling" them on the validity of his claim. I'm sorry but I sure hope no-one hires VA Linux's security team (if they even looked at the security of these systems).
Any story that contains a link to The Register should be placed in the this-probably-isnt-true department and we should be able to deselect them in our options.
You can go to a casino and say "please bar me from entry for a week" and they've got to do it, it's the law. Slashdot needs a "please ban me from posting for a week" button. The closest you can get is a 24 hour ban by being modded down 5 times in 24 hours, thus the point of the above post, and what do I get? Score:4, Funny.
too true. Although the analogy he was defending was anything but logical, he was defending the use of analogy in general.
Re:so you never get exposed to new music
on
Launchcast Sued
·
· Score: 1
my friends listen to shit.
Re:Intresting, but impractical for general web use
on
You Are What You Click
·
· Score: 1
build it into IE.
so you never get exposed to new music
on
Launchcast Sued
·
· Score: 1
That way you can always listen to the same small set of music for the rest of your life. ie. say I like rap, and I say, no that sux to a whole lot of non-rap music and eventually all I ever hear is rap -- but out there somewhere is a bunch of non-rap songs I would like if I ever heard them, but I never will, so I will live my sheltered little rap life and never be aware that there are songs to be appreciated in other genres. Sure, 99.9% of christian rock music sux ass, but there is maybe 3 songs that are really quite good, but I'll never know because I want to listen to rap. (In case you actually care about my music preferences, it aint rap, but there are 3 or 4 rap songs that I like). Thank god the rest of the world doesn't work like this. *cough* Slashdot *cough*
you give way way too much credit to the average music listener. Figure it out, no-one gets their neck bent out of straight for this kind of crap. It's just music, they don't care.
Great. The law is brought up in the case (and pretty much ever subsequent case that references it) "essential step" and "no other
manner" are the key phrases, and that is why it protects nothing but the authorized use of the program. I'm sorry, I don't have a link to the case, I'll look around. The reason I say this is not informative is because you havn't read the case where this and a number of other arguments are shut down. As you are not informed about the case, you can not be informative.:)
you still havn't given me your argument. I used the word "illegal" to refer to ruling that Napster was prohibited by contributory copyright law. I have not in any way stated that because copyright law doesn't say this is ok it must be prohibited. Do you have an argument against my use of the word or not? If so, please state it clearly (1). If not, at least clearly define what you think the word "illegal" means (2) and what the word "unlawful" means (3) and what you believe the difference between these two words are (4) before you start making claims about the common misuse of the word "illegal" (5). We're not mind readers.
Re:With slight modification...
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Well I was going for intent, and I was following the Christian commandments. No 10 is stated here, and in the context of licenses I think it is analogous.
you might of had something. Please continue, because I havn't "caught on to this concept" either. What are you trying to say, that Napster is illegal but lawful? I'm at a loss to think of an example of something that is illegal and simultaniously "allowed" as you put it. In fact, I kind of hold the word "illegal" to mean "prohibited by law". Please, enlighten us.
No lawyer can give you a straight answer, exactly how do you string out a law suit? How do you make a court case cost a lot of money? If I can get myself a free lawyer or (shock) I defend myself, where does the money go? Don't say "court fees" like it is some all encompassing answer. Tell me, exactly where does the money go? I'm tempted to get myself sued just so I can find out and write up a FAQ.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont think he is trying to show shit. He is simply saying that VA are talking through their ass when they say that only the shell server was owned and that us users shouldn't worry our pretty little heads.
why? Actually the best thing you can do is pull the network cable, dont turn off the machine and call your security provider. They will do a real analysis and then clean and secure your system. Reinstall is a good way to get back into the exact same insecure state again.
re-installing is *not* the solution. Checksum your binaries when you first install (and dont have the network plugged in when you do it ok?) and if/when you get owned, take the box offline, pull out the harddrive, put it into a machine with no harddrives, boot off your forensic analysis floppy and check it. Hopefully, the security team at VA Linux knows this.
get on irc and ask, he done told you where he hangs out.
And of course, the tendancy towards smart cards (which aren't) will only make this problem worse. A bit of biometrics might help: a thumbpad on the side of the card, maybe.
Exactly right, stealing a laptop is not a social attack.
oh yer, he was wrong. Dont misunderstand me, I dont condone his actions. But I dont condone VA Linux failing to notice backdoors for 5 months when they are supposed to have an expert security team.
he never claimed he could, his claim is that they cannot and in hacking their network he is demonstrating that his claim is true. ie. he is "schooling" them on the validity of his claim. I'm sorry but I sure hope no-one hires VA Linux's security team (if they even looked at the security of these systems).
sigh.
yes, and it will be exactly these kinds of rulings that will be the downfall of copyright. woo hoo.
Any story that contains a link to The Register should be placed in the this-probably-isnt-true department and we should be able to deselect them in our options.
so if we were to napster the binaries around who would be responsible to fork the source?
You can go to a casino and say "please bar me from entry for a week" and they've got to do it, it's the law. Slashdot needs a "please ban me from posting for a week" button. The closest you can get is a 24 hour ban by being modded down 5 times in 24 hours, thus the point of the above post, and what do I get? Score:4, Funny.
too true. Although the analogy he was defending was anything but logical, he was defending the use of analogy in general.
my friends listen to shit.
build it into IE.
That way you can always listen to the same small set of music for the rest of your life. ie. say I like rap, and I say, no that sux to a whole lot of non-rap music and eventually all I ever hear is rap -- but out there somewhere is a bunch of non-rap songs I would like if I ever heard them, but I never will, so I will live my sheltered little rap life and never be aware that there are songs to be appreciated in other genres. Sure, 99.9% of christian rock music sux ass, but there is maybe 3 songs that are really quite good, but I'll never know because I want to listen to rap. (In case you actually care about my music preferences, it aint rap, but there are 3 or 4 rap songs that I like). Thank god the rest of the world doesn't work like this. *cough* Slashdot *cough*
they could always make their own boy bands.
you give way way too much credit to the average music listener. Figure it out, no-one gets their neck bent out of straight for this kind of crap. It's just music, they don't care.
what the fuck are you on about?
Can we officially declare it now? Netscape is dead, long live Mozilla.
Great. The law is brought up in the case (and pretty much ever subsequent case that references it) "essential step" and "no other :)
manner" are the key phrases, and that is why it protects nothing but the authorized use of the program. I'm sorry, I don't have a link to the case, I'll look around. The reason I say this is not informative is because you havn't read the case where this and a number of other arguments are shut down. As you are not informed about the case, you can not be informative.
you still havn't given me your argument. I used the word "illegal" to refer to ruling that Napster was prohibited by contributory copyright law. I have not in any way stated that because copyright law doesn't say this is ok it must be prohibited. Do you have an argument against my use of the word or not? If so, please state it clearly (1). If not, at least clearly define what you think the word "illegal" means (2) and what the word "unlawful" means (3) and what you believe the difference between these two words are (4) before you start making claims about the common misuse of the word "illegal" (5). We're not mind readers.
Well I was going for intent, and I was following the Christian commandments. No 10 is stated here, and in the context of licenses I think it is analogous.
you might of had something. Please continue, because I havn't "caught on to this concept" either. What are you trying to say, that Napster is illegal but lawful? I'm at a loss to think of an example of something that is illegal and simultaniously "allowed" as you put it. In fact, I kind of hold the word "illegal" to mean "prohibited by law". Please, enlighten us.
No lawyer can give you a straight answer, exactly how do you string out a law suit? How do you make a court case cost a lot of money? If I can get myself a free lawyer or (shock) I defend myself, where does the money go? Don't say "court fees" like it is some all encompassing answer. Tell me, exactly where does the money go? I'm tempted to get myself sued just so I can find out and write up a FAQ.