Switching to electric vehicles gives us more control over where and when polution is released. If we abstract the energy extraction process from the vehicle itself, we create resource independent vehicles. Freedom and eliminating localized polution, two things which are probably worth the cost.
The next thing to consider is adoption. When electric vehicles are considered a basic cost, the economy will restructure itself around the "higher" cost of electric vehicles. As long as emissions standards are raised to eliminate cheaper alternatives, electric vehicles will be affordable for Americans. The economy can't function without providing workers with a mode of transportation, its a cost of doing business.
Without emissions controls, there are several ways we can increase the energy efficiency of the vehicles we have today. As recently demonstrated by Volkswagon. We to decide what is important to us, and legislate it to protect it from those who would selfishly take it away for their own profits.
Nope.
I generally don't store my passwords in a centralized database. Merely a salted hash of the password using irreversible encryption. You know, a "public key".
I'm not sure I do either, getting totally confused by this blockchain concept. I think my comment was intended for another poster who said the blockchain/wallet would act as some kind of PKI management database. Facilitating the use of public and private key pairs for the general public at a lower cost than the current going rates of SSL certificates. So if this thing works, SSL cert vendors might go out of business, as "root" authorities will no longer be required. The blockchain will be the root CA, in some fashion.
SSL public key signatures in blockchains are used as signatures in the history. Like a list of names and signatures on a title deed, it traces the ownership of the currency. There is little to be gained in breaching older segments of the block chain. The history of the chain is used for integrity verification and remidiation of theft attempts.
And that is how I view blockchain, a remidiation tool, not a preventative measure.
So in taking a blockchain which tracks the transfer of nothing, it would appear to reduce or eliminate the remidiation effect. Which leaves me befuddled as to what advantage this blockchain has over a database? Is this simply a peer 2 peer network of public key databases? Or is this a public profile of a person based on the companies they typically do business with?
Not really sold on the verification by way of digital signature.
Blockchain seems like a good idea for maintaining the integrity of public information.
However I can't fathom a solution for a consumer for which blockchain provides sufficient security. Who or what is the ultimate authority? Is it turtles all the way down?
I'm not so sure. It is this content distribution system which has allowed the possibility of a Russian influence USA election to have become a reality.
Everybody is a publisher, and there is little to no verification, or publishing standards to hold a person to. Things are not vetted, they are simply shared. A significant portion of information is now essentially gossip.
Sure there may be some established content creators, but news on a feed somewhere is not required to come from a well established content creator. All news, gossip, and creators are lumped together and given rank based on clicks rather than quality. So confusion, click bait, and conspiracy may rank higher than quality content.
The chaos sucks to be honest. Plenty to talk about, but little to plan a future around aside from expecting mass panic and hysteria at some point, when we are forced to relearn the lesson of the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.
I don't see an advantage to blockchain in your comment. Blockchain is used to make PKI management eaiser? I can't visualize the entire concept, start to finish. In order to understand what advantage blockchain has over other options, or to understand where vulnerabilities might occur. I wouldn't know how to implement blockchain to manage PKI for my own use, not in a manner I trusted to be secure.
As long as the password is not stored using reversible encryption, then it is for most practical purposes a private key, and not a shared secret.
However, more important is the claim I was making that a password is an effective solution for certain security vulnerabilities created by other solutions.
A magazine is static content with low levels of user feedback and input on article quality and interest. The production values, and expected print form releases increase costs above most of their competitors, and now above market value.
Blogs and other web based publishing methods have all sorts of metrics and numbers to gauge interest. Article comments even give you insight into the reaction of a publication, which maybe even lets you gauge public relations.
So you have a high supply of low cost, high traffic sites handled by enthusiasts who are willing to work for the love of the job, and are happy with almost any peanuts or profits thrown their way. Then you've got a high cost competitor who's job is to reduce that supply to a manageable influx of interest to their demographic, and add some polish and refinement to the articles. This additional work takes time, which their target demographic will have likely already spent sorting and refining the information on their own. So the magazine publisher ends up dishing out old news, or just peddling the same content as thr enthusiasts/hobbyists at the same level of quality, but more expensive tools.
As I understand it, blockchain is like a bunch of trees growing in synchonicity. Exact duplicates. If a tree doesn't grow exactly the same, it is considered defective and cut down.
A blockchain might function as a web accessible smart card or key fob which functions for all accessible websites. This keyfob would need to be protected in some way.
So your describing it as part of a three factor authentication, where two factors are pairs of PGP keys, where both public keys are stored in publically accessible databases, and the third factor is a temporary secret?
Where does the audit trail of blockchain come into play?
I just had a thought. A block chain is sticking a tracking device on a credential, and following it around the network. If that credential shows up going two different directions at once that would be a pretty big red flag. Might have some place in corporate or enterprise authentication methods.
Using the private key for authentication, but not storing it on the machine, but rather in your head, is a very effective means of improving security even if the machine is not locked.
The blockchain essentially becomes the"root certificate. If an individual account is compromised but the "root certificate" (block chain) is not, the key for that account (password) can be "revoked" or "changed".
However, there will most likely be a window of opportunity before the "certificate" gets revoked, that is there is a window before the block chain is forked by a trusted authority, or otherwise before the integrity of the block chain is restored and the fraudulent access chain is no longer trusted.
It is perhaps an automated mitigation strategy.
Your talking about public and private usage, when the real discussion seems to be about "Single Sign-On", or SSO.
Otherwise what advantage does public and private keys for an individual offer over Kerberos NTLM authetication against a domain controller?
If you're talking about multiple servers on different domains, then you're actually talking about implementing a SSO configuration for multiple domains using pre-shared keys in place of pre-shared passwords.
Pre-shared keys require less typing, but are not always the ideal solution. How do you enable a more fine grained security approach to minimize the damage when a system is physically vulnerable? Say you turned your back and somebody tried to log into one of those server while you were working on another machine in the cubicle or office?
I think it is incredibly smart for a long term thinking company who plans to relocate or downsize.
The housing's proximity to Microsoft's headquarters will make it extremely valuable. There is also the historical aspect, even if Microsoft relocates. And if Microsoft relocates then it is an incredible PR boost. Who wouldn't want such an incredible business that raises property values, and cleans up before they leave? As opposed to leaving an abandoned building behind like a deserted ghost town.
Maybe their projections point towards downsizing and reduced revenues. So they are redeveloping the property with the intention of being able to sell it back to the community at a high value.
They are pitching it as something modern, to appeal to their stockholders, or at least not spook them and undermine the company's future.
Not just live with. It is getting to a point where these products are required to remain competitive in the workforce. My concern is that the employee is more dispensible than the disagreeable technology.
I'd just as soon drop Windows and all mainstream tech, but my job in I.T. is kind of dependent on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8.1? That has been there since Vista. Windows 8 just made it confusing, and hid it away.
This! Once I learned that, I could text without even looking at my phone!
Most Extreme Pizza Delivery Challenge!
After five hours of driving, a half hour break isn't a big deal?
I think you underestimate the value of a forced 30 minute break in a five hour trip.
Switching to electric vehicles gives us more control over where and when polution is released. If we abstract the energy extraction process from the vehicle itself, we create resource independent vehicles. Freedom and eliminating localized polution, two things which are probably worth the cost.
The next thing to consider is adoption. When electric vehicles are considered a basic cost, the economy will restructure itself around the "higher" cost of electric vehicles. As long as emissions standards are raised to eliminate cheaper alternatives, electric vehicles will be affordable for Americans. The economy can't function without providing workers with a mode of transportation, its a cost of doing business.
Without emissions controls, there are several ways we can increase the energy efficiency of the vehicles we have today. As recently demonstrated by Volkswagon. We to decide what is important to us, and legislate it to protect it from those who would selfishly take it away for their own profits.
Nope. I generally don't store my passwords in a centralized database. Merely a salted hash of the password using irreversible encryption. You know, a "public key".
I'm not sure I do either, getting totally confused by this blockchain concept. I think my comment was intended for another poster who said the blockchain/wallet would act as some kind of PKI management database. Facilitating the use of public and private key pairs for the general public at a lower cost than the current going rates of SSL certificates. So if this thing works, SSL cert vendors might go out of business, as "root" authorities will no longer be required. The blockchain will be the root CA, in some fashion.
SSL public key signatures in blockchains are used as signatures in the history. Like a list of names and signatures on a title deed, it traces the ownership of the currency. There is little to be gained in breaching older segments of the block chain. The history of the chain is used for integrity verification and remidiation of theft attempts.
And that is how I view blockchain, a remidiation tool, not a preventative measure.
So in taking a blockchain which tracks the transfer of nothing, it would appear to reduce or eliminate the remidiation effect. Which leaves me befuddled as to what advantage this blockchain has over a database? Is this simply a peer 2 peer network of public key databases? Or is this a public profile of a person based on the companies they typically do business with?
Not really sold on the verification by way of digital signature.
Blockchain seems like a good idea for maintaining the integrity of public information.
However I can't fathom a solution for a consumer for which blockchain provides sufficient security. Who or what is the ultimate authority? Is it turtles all the way down?
I'm not so sure. It is this content distribution system which has allowed the possibility of a Russian influence USA election to have become a reality.
Everybody is a publisher, and there is little to no verification, or publishing standards to hold a person to. Things are not vetted, they are simply shared. A significant portion of information is now essentially gossip.
Sure there may be some established content creators, but news on a feed somewhere is not required to come from a well established content creator. All news, gossip, and creators are lumped together and given rank based on clicks rather than quality. So confusion, click bait, and conspiracy may rank higher than quality content.
The chaos sucks to be honest. Plenty to talk about, but little to plan a future around aside from expecting mass panic and hysteria at some point, when we are forced to relearn the lesson of the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast.
I don't see an advantage to blockchain in your comment. Blockchain is used to make PKI management eaiser? I can't visualize the entire concept, start to finish. In order to understand what advantage blockchain has over other options, or to understand where vulnerabilities might occur. I wouldn't know how to implement blockchain to manage PKI for my own use, not in a manner I trusted to be secure.
As long as the password is not stored using reversible encryption, then it is for most practical purposes a private key, and not a shared secret.
However, more important is the claim I was making that a password is an effective solution for certain security vulnerabilities created by other solutions.
A magazine is static content with low levels of user feedback and input on article quality and interest. The production values, and expected print form releases increase costs above most of their competitors, and now above market value.
Blogs and other web based publishing methods have all sorts of metrics and numbers to gauge interest. Article comments even give you insight into the reaction of a publication, which maybe even lets you gauge public relations.
So you have a high supply of low cost, high traffic sites handled by enthusiasts who are willing to work for the love of the job, and are happy with almost any peanuts or profits thrown their way. Then you've got a high cost competitor who's job is to reduce that supply to a manageable influx of interest to their demographic, and add some polish and refinement to the articles. This additional work takes time, which their target demographic will have likely already spent sorting and refining the information on their own. So the magazine publisher ends up dishing out old news, or just peddling the same content as thr enthusiasts/hobbyists at the same level of quality, but more expensive tools.
Makes sense, but still doesn't give me a complete picture.
The block chain stores your/my public keys, and I guess any public keys of entities you/I do business with.
Where do your/my private keys go? And how are they kept secured?
As I understand it, blockchain is like a bunch of trees growing in synchonicity. Exact duplicates. If a tree doesn't grow exactly the same, it is considered defective and cut down.
A blockchain might function as a web accessible smart card or key fob which functions for all accessible websites. This keyfob would need to be protected in some way.
So your describing it as part of a three factor authentication, where two factors are pairs of PGP keys, where both public keys are stored in publically accessible databases, and the third factor is a temporary secret?
Where does the audit trail of blockchain come into play?
I just had a thought. A block chain is sticking a tracking device on a credential, and following it around the network. If that credential shows up going two different directions at once that would be a pretty big red flag. Might have some place in corporate or enterprise authentication methods.
Using the private key for authentication, but not storing it on the machine, but rather in your head, is a very effective means of improving security even if the machine is not locked.
The blockchain essentially becomes the"root certificate. If an individual account is compromised but the "root certificate" (block chain) is not, the key for that account (password) can be "revoked" or "changed".
However, there will most likely be a window of opportunity before the "certificate" gets revoked, that is there is a window before the block chain is forked by a trusted authority, or otherwise before the integrity of the block chain is restored and the fraudulent access chain is no longer trusted. It is perhaps an automated mitigation strategy.
Its reinventing the wheel, but it is a different technique/implementation.
Does the blockchain mindset or methodology provide a superior visualization or understanding of the beat use implementation of the solution?
Can people understand it better, so they can use it better?
It is simply a password manager for more complex passwords.
A downgrade in security most definitely, but it should have the same pros and cons of a password manager.
Which is essentially certificate revocation by the upstream certificate authority.
Your talking about public and private usage, when the real discussion seems to be about "Single Sign-On", or SSO.
Otherwise what advantage does public and private keys for an individual offer over Kerberos NTLM authetication against a domain controller?
If you're talking about multiple servers on different domains, then you're actually talking about implementing a SSO configuration for multiple domains using pre-shared keys in place of pre-shared passwords.
Pre-shared keys require less typing, but are not always the ideal solution. How do you enable a more fine grained security approach to minimize the damage when a system is physically vulnerable? Say you turned your back and somebody tried to log into one of those server while you were working on another machine in the cubicle or office?
I think it is incredibly smart for a long term thinking company who plans to relocate or downsize.
The housing's proximity to Microsoft's headquarters will make it extremely valuable. There is also the historical aspect, even if Microsoft relocates. And if Microsoft relocates then it is an incredible PR boost. Who wouldn't want such an incredible business that raises property values, and cleans up before they leave? As opposed to leaving an abandoned building behind like a deserted ghost town.
Maybe their projections point towards downsizing and reduced revenues. So they are redeveloping the property with the intention of being able to sell it back to the community at a high value.
They are pitching it as something modern, to appeal to their stockholders, or at least not spook them and undermine the company's future.
Not just live with. It is getting to a point where these products are required to remain competitive in the workforce. My concern is that the employee is more dispensible than the disagreeable technology.
I'd just as soon drop Windows and all mainstream tech, but my job in I.T. is kind of dependent on it.