The fact that just about every single file needs to be replaced isn't very surprising. This is a major update. Like a Service Pack, or a full operating system upgrade. In the Linux world this would be upgrading to the latest release of the distribution, particularly in the Ubuntu world where 6 months is the release cycle. apt-get dist-upgrade. It is why I switched to LTS releases.
This is the equivalent of an apt-get dist-upgrade on Ubuntu, not a simple update. The 30 minutes sounds like it is the portion that occurs after the reboot, not the download and update itself. I'm trying to recall if there is anything I have to do after a dist-upgrade on Ubuntu once it reboots,..
Video streaming is apparently a costly medium, and would likely have few options for malware delivery. Most streamers are passive, not active users. Ads which require interaction are a nuisance to a majority of users, which would mean low engagement and smaller numbers infected.
Furthermore, if there was an incident of malware which could be traced back to ads on Youtube, there would be a change to prevent such ads in the future. Interactive streaming ads are a relatively new and niche medium at the moment and can be changed or killed off easily with minimal damage to the cashflow.
So in this case I would say the typical argument against advertisements on the internet does not apply to YouTube.
Going from routinely visiting Walmart, to a once in a blue moon trip to this exotic wonderland known as Toys R Us was quite an experience. I feel sad for kids these days.
Then you've got a Microsoft tech remoting i to your machine via the update ticket, or a Microsoft tech calling you up and asking you to install TeamViewer so he can remote in... *hint* *hint*
By not having the device phone home to fix, without a special support agreement anyway, it avoids customers getting used to unsolicited support calls, and thus hopefully fewer individuals scammed.
Beware of Shadow Copies skewing the results. Also, I'm not entitely sure that WinSxS folder works quite how it was originally intended. I've seen some interesting consequences,...
Excel remains an MDI application, but inside each document it also has tabs. Tabs and windows in a single window. Now Excel will run an MDI in a tab, so you can have windows and tabs in your windows and tabs?
No. It involves intercepting unencrypted traffic over the network. The USB NIC is only a foolproof option to guarantee that the traffic is intercepted.
Further down it was propose that an infected computer in an office could similarly infect neighboring computers via voice commands. Infect one machine through a locked door, and get the entire office infected overnight.
"So this attack is not only limited to the physical access scenario but also can be used by attackers to expand their access and jump from one computer to another"
Quite possible. That would serve to indicate the conflation and confusion was unintentional, and instead demonstrates the poor quality of news sources. Though it probably does so anyway, I haven't had time to read the article yet to see if the author points out the errors in logic to the reader.
The USB was not required. It was merely a VERY effective means of exploiting this weakness.
The USB allowed a direct Man in the Middle attack, which is why it doesn't work for HTTPS sites. A highly coordinated effort does not require physical access to the machine itself, on a weak link in key infrastructure and audible proximity to the device in question.
The USB adapter serves the same purpose as a poisoned DNS cache or routing table.
The USB device did not install software, Cortana did, as she was instructed to do so.
Verbage of the OP suggests confusion and conflation.
I wouldn't be surprised if they hired a Hack-a-thon veteran to set this thing up, but still couldn't understand the difference between a hacker (A), and a "hacker" (B) (slang).
This does not require physical access.
A device can be reasonably securedfrom tampering, but stillbe accessible by various interfaces.
Physical access is typically available when one has access to the microphone, but physical access isn't required in all possible scenarios.
Encryption on digital cameras is rare. Because it is rare; it is suspiscious. Unless you are a spy working for an intelligence agency, you're going to get the same punishment regardless of whether they can decrypt the photos.
Encrypting my photos means I can't decrypt them when I get home because I lost the decryption key. Furthermore, it means I have to remember to decrypt them before backing them up, because I will eventually lose the decryption key.
If you can't decypt it, the you can't take the photos out of the country.
Problem still exists, and now you've got built-in ransomware on your device, because the majority of you customers don't know a thing about encyption. I for one hate encryption of my personal devices, it makes it difficult to make unencrypted backups or to switch vendors.
Better to use encrypted LTE and upload to Dropbox, then delete the photos. That way the photos have already made it out, and there is less risk to the photographer.
That is what the term is intended to convey. And perhaps the expression "I set the code free" conveys that. However, the phrase "free software" does not convey that.
We are arguing about terminology and interpretation, not the intended meaning. It is about how it will be received, not what it expresses. "Free software" may express one thing, but the other party hears something else entirely. This is why Stallman said they needed to "shock" recipients, or use additional language.
The biggest problem is that "free software" is a generic term typically associated with Shareware and Freeware, which still exists. So the term already has meaning. The term "Open Source" doesn't typically have to compete with existing terminology, and where it does it associates favorably with that Unix/BSD heritage. To those who are not steeped in the roots, Open Source is a new term. I learned Open Source before I knew anything about Unix, BSD, or servers. However, I learned about Freeware and Shareware even before that.
In the order I was introduced:
Nintendo
Windows
"Free Software": Freeware/Shareware
MacOS
Linux
Open Source Software
Closed Source Software
Servers
Unix/BSD
"Free Software"
MacOS X
iOS (iPhone)
Android
iOS (Cisco)
"Open" Software
Free as in freedom doesn't really click when it comes to software. What does it mean for software to be "free"? What can software do when it is free to do whatever it wants?
The phrase doesn't make any logical sense, and so is quickly dismissed by my brain. "Free as in freedom" is for living creatures, or systems which can do more, not code which is fairly static. Perhaps from the author or publisher's viewpoint the code has been set free, but from an end user perspective, I'm looking to cage it up again for a stable implementation.
Hate to say it, but the linked article paints Stallman as an idiot.
Makes it seem like he reads "open" as sealed behind glass. Not "open" as in freely accessible.
I can understand there being a prevalence of confusion around the term "open", as source code was often available in the Unix and BSD worlds. However it does ring truer for me than "free". "Free" has never meant public domain, nor "open" during my life. "Free" has always meant "free as in beer".
Even more so, it isn't the software that is free, but me. "Open" implies freedom, as the doors are open. Which means I am free to use the software as I see fit.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that just about every single file needs to be replaced isn't very surprising. This is a major update. Like a Service Pack, or a full operating system upgrade. In the Linux world this would be upgrading to the latest release of the distribution, particularly in the Ubuntu world where 6 months is the release cycle. apt-get dist-upgrade. It is why I switched to LTS releases.
This is the equivalent of an apt-get dist-upgrade on Ubuntu, not a simple update. The 30 minutes sounds like it is the portion that occurs after the reboot, not the download and update itself. I'm trying to recall if there is anything I have to do after a dist-upgrade on Ubuntu once it reboots,..
Video streaming is apparently a costly medium, and would likely have few options for malware delivery. Most streamers are passive, not active users. Ads which require interaction are a nuisance to a majority of users, which would mean low engagement and smaller numbers infected.
Furthermore, if there was an incident of malware which could be traced back to ads on Youtube, there would be a change to prevent such ads in the future. Interactive streaming ads are a relatively new and niche medium at the moment and can be changed or killed off easily with minimal damage to the cashflow.
So in this case I would say the typical argument against advertisements on the internet does not apply to YouTube.
Going from routinely visiting Walmart, to a once in a blue moon trip to this exotic wonderland known as Toys R Us was quite an experience. I feel sad for kids these days.
Then you've got a Microsoft tech remoting i to your machine via the update ticket, or a Microsoft tech calling you up and asking you to install TeamViewer so he can remote in... *hint* *hint*
By not having the device phone home to fix, without a special support agreement anyway, it avoids customers getting used to unsolicited support calls, and thus hopefully fewer individuals scammed.
It seems to be an industry standard for ISP routers in the USA at this point.
Beware of Shadow Copies skewing the results. Also, I'm not entitely sure that WinSxS folder works quite how it was originally intended. I've seen some interesting consequences,...
Excel remains an MDI application, but inside each document it also has tabs. Tabs and windows in a single window. Now Excel will run an MDI in a tab, so you can have windows and tabs in your windows and tabs?
That literally looks like they just pulled up Edge qnd opened several tabs, mostly for the web version of Office 365.
No. It involves intercepting unencrypted traffic over the network. The USB NIC is only a foolproof option to guarantee that the traffic is intercepted.
Quite possible. That would serve to indicate the conflation and confusion was unintentional, and instead demonstrates the poor quality of news sources. Though it probably does so anyway, I haven't had time to read the article yet to see if the author points out the errors in logic to the reader.
The USB was not required. It was merely a VERY effective means of exploiting this weakness.
The USB allowed a direct Man in the Middle attack, which is why it doesn't work for HTTPS sites. A highly coordinated effort does not require physical access to the machine itself, on a weak link in key infrastructure and audible proximity to the device in question.
The USB adapter serves the same purpose as a poisoned DNS cache or routing table.
The USB device did not install software, Cortana did, as she was instructed to do so.
But was it intentional?
Verbage of the OP suggests confusion and conflation.
I wouldn't be surprised if they hired a Hack-a-thon veteran to set this thing up, but still couldn't understand the difference between a hacker (A), and a "hacker" (B) (slang).
I thought Gnome had a registry?
This does not require physical access. A device can be reasonably securedfrom tampering, but stillbe accessible by various interfaces. Physical access is typically available when one has access to the microphone, but physical access isn't required in all possible scenarios.
It is also worth noting, this does not require physical access, merely physical proximity.
Just call it the "Slashdot Effect", sheesh.
That is exactly what I thought when I read DDoS. Would my guess be accurate in assuming that Slashdot is now hosted in Russia?
Encryption on digital cameras is rare. Because it is rare; it is suspiscious. Unless you are a spy working for an intelligence agency, you're going to get the same punishment regardless of whether they can decrypt the photos.
Encrypting my photos means I can't decrypt them when I get home because I lost the decryption key. Furthermore, it means I have to remember to decrypt them before backing them up, because I will eventually lose the decryption key.
If you can't decypt it, the you can't take the photos out of the country.
Problem still exists, and now you've got built-in ransomware on your device, because the majority of you customers don't know a thing about encyption. I for one hate encryption of my personal devices, it makes it difficult to make unencrypted backups or to switch vendors.
Better to use encrypted LTE and upload to Dropbox, then delete the photos. That way the photos have already made it out, and there is less risk to the photographer.
In the order I was introduced:
Nintendo
Windows
"Free Software": Freeware/Shareware
MacOS
Linux
Open Source Software
Closed Source Software
Servers
Unix/BSD
"Free Software"
MacOS X
iOS (iPhone)
Android
iOS (Cisco)
"Open" Software
That is what the term is intended to convey. And perhaps the expression "I set the code free" conveys that. However, the phrase "free software" does not convey that.
We are arguing about terminology and interpretation, not the intended meaning. It is about how it will be received, not what it expresses. "Free software" may express one thing, but the other party hears something else entirely. This is why Stallman said they needed to "shock" recipients, or use additional language.
The biggest problem is that "free software" is a generic term typically associated with Shareware and Freeware, which still exists. So the term already has meaning. The term "Open Source" doesn't typically have to compete with existing terminology, and where it does it associates favorably with that Unix/BSD heritage. To those who are not steeped in the roots, Open Source is a new term. I learned Open Source before I knew anything about Unix, BSD, or servers. However, I learned about Freeware and Shareware even before that.
In the order I was introduced: Nintendo Windows "Free Software": Freeware/Shareware MacOS Linux Open Source Software Closed Source Software Servers Unix/BSD "Free Software" MacOS X iOS (iPhone) Android iOS (Cisco) "Open" Software
Free as in freedom doesn't really click when it comes to software. What does it mean for software to be "free"? What can software do when it is free to do whatever it wants?
The phrase doesn't make any logical sense, and so is quickly dismissed by my brain. "Free as in freedom" is for living creatures, or systems which can do more, not code which is fairly static. Perhaps from the author or publisher's viewpoint the code has been set free, but from an end user perspective, I'm looking to cage it up again for a stable implementation.
Hate to say it, but the linked article paints Stallman as an idiot.
Makes it seem like he reads "open" as sealed behind glass. Not "open" as in freely accessible.
I can understand there being a prevalence of confusion around the term "open", as source code was often available in the Unix and BSD worlds. However it does ring truer for me than "free". "Free" has never meant public domain, nor "open" during my life. "Free" has always meant "free as in beer".
Even more so, it isn't the software that is free, but me. "Open" implies freedom, as the doors are open. Which means I am free to use the software as I see fit.