Microsoft knew about it for far further back than today.
To patch an exploit, it first has to be reported. Then it has to be reported by a reputable source, with information on how to recreate it, in order to prove there is a flaw that can be exploited.
Then the developers have to come up with a solution to the exploit, and then spend man hours coding the remedy into a patch.
The patch must then be tested to make sure it doesn't break existing functionality. If it breaks anything then a judgement call regarding the patchability of the flaw, or a rewrite of the patch will be required.
Once the patch passes internal QA testing, it must then be rolled into the patch distribution system, and vendors notified of the patch's release and availability.
The time it takes depends on the severity of the exploit, the complexity of the code affected, and the experience and creativity of the programmers resolving the issue. I'd expect the time Microsoft knew about this flaw to be "days" at minimum, especially given a standard release schedule of once month.
Well, I wouldn't say that slavery absolutely leaves the world less well off.
The results are not cut and dried. There are some who benefit from others managing their money for them. Motivation can lead to greater "equity", even if it isn't reflected in an actual income.
Such things can likely be achieved through other means. We are all individuals, and we react in a variety of ways to a variety of stimuli.
But we are not omniscient, we cannot know what is best for the individual, which is why freedom of choice, freedom to make decisions for oneself, is the fair and just option.
Running electric vehicles off coal wouldn't result in less overall pollution? Sufficient coal to power said vehicles produces as much polution as petroleum fueled vehicles?
There is perhaps an argument for shifting the air polution outside of densely populated areas reducing the amount of smog in cities.
The solar would be on your roof whether it was economically feasible or not.
The determining factor is whether it is affordable to you at a time when you are open to purchasing it.
The cost of production can be artificially reduced for a short amount of time. Making
things appear economically feasible when they are not. Efficiencies from mass production can reduce the cost, while mass production can spread the cost to make a thing economically feasible.
The question is when or if the sustainability of "clean energy" sources begin to contribute back to the economy as a whole, and not just back to your wallet in an illusory manner. Ideally the economic role which solar panels play in your life should become the sustainable economic model once the cost balance tips in favor of that economic model.
They already charge for data, so just allocate it like the phone has mobile hotspot enabled. Have the data count towards the number, not the devices.
I have a faimly member who has done similar. She bought a Tablet which shares a number with her phone. The same messages and such go to both devices.
I'd like to point out that 24/3 is what I would consider an incredible amount of bandwidth.
5/0.3 is the max around here, and they've stopped selling internet altogether. Only customers before 2014 have it.
LTE is crap. Barely get a signal, and it cuts out entirely on a periodic basis. No cable, no DSL, no fiber. Satellite is the only option once you drop your current provider.
Those "jobs" about improving the lives of everyone are likey not profit generating.
The economy is weak, so it is harder to afford luxuries, which those jobs would provide.
No consumers buying luxury improvements for quality of life, means no profits. No profits, no jobs. No jobs, no profits.
1. It is too much to ask a company who's livelihood is based on the accuracy of such data, but rather merely the risk level the data indicates.
This data is hardly considered to be "crown jewels" by Equifax. Despite being that valuable for most who participate in our economy.
2. The actual crown jewels are not part of the Internet of Things. They are offline only devices which require physical access to steal. Thus they can be secured. Stealing the crown jewels requires actions which will be noticed and reacted upon immediately. Online information is inherently insecure, because it is designed to be accessible and copied. Any attemps to steal that data would look little different to legitimate access of that data.
What if we made credit rejections due to credit theft or other incorrect data a prosecutable offense against the businesses and such that are out there.
Right now they don't demand accurate data upon which to base decisions upon, only a reasonable assurance that the risk is low. The businesses then inerrantly uses this data as the entire or a significant part of the basis for making this decision.
Due to the significant impact of such denials for consumers, then either credit should be removed from our economy entirely, including the national debt, or businesses should be held to a higher standard for intelligence gathering and denial, so that they hold the big three intelligence organizations to a high standard of accuracy.
Or we could just stop using the SSN altogether, anduse another number, like a Universal Credit History ID, or UCHID.
Then we could have puns when a bloke applies for credit, just look at him funny and say "you kid?" (You kidding me?).
Pair the UCHID with other means of protecting it, such as a changeable password, and problem solved.
Great idea, but one that costs money.
Are we willing to invest in such a concept? Are businesses willing to invest in such a concept? Was the Equifax breach big enough, and of enough consequence to actually change anything.
But yeah, using the same "username" and "password" is typically considered poor security. Definitely agree with you.
Nobody will remember the actual primary key, but everybody has to remember their SSN. So for looking up a record, it is the primary field to locate that record. Given it is as unique as the primary key, it is essentially the human readable version/alternative for the primary key.
Not sure how much increased security will help. You'd think Equifax would be a big target. At least for a fairly large identity theft ring. Might even be bigger and/or more deficated players looking to get data from Equifax. Ones where money isn't an issue.
What happens if cooperation is necessary for sustainability, but people don't cooperate and control the thermostats themselves?
Who then should have the final say?
So companies are delegating the terms of the contracts, and deciding what their customers get. Because there is some feature of the phone that is such a hot ticket item, perhaps one of those "no-no's" mention in the OP? Don't really see a solution to this. Apparently the gains outweigh the losses for most individuals.
Collecting data is useful if that data cannot be collected after the fact, say when it is known that it is needed. Having that data means you can refer back to it when the original information is unavailable. Using AI and neural networks on that data is a breach of civilian privacy, and a dangerous move towards incompetence.
Camouflage and other stealth techniques may be applied to keep machine learning from accurately tagging certain things.
Incorrectly tagged data in a sea of unimportant data is data that was essentially never collected.
Slashdot Mirror
Or down through the ceiling, always makes for a good entrance.
Microsoft knew about it for far further back than today. To patch an exploit, it first has to be reported. Then it has to be reported by a reputable source, with information on how to recreate it, in order to prove there is a flaw that can be exploited. Then the developers have to come up with a solution to the exploit, and then spend man hours coding the remedy into a patch. The patch must then be tested to make sure it doesn't break existing functionality. If it breaks anything then a judgement call regarding the patchability of the flaw, or a rewrite of the patch will be required. Once the patch passes internal QA testing, it must then be rolled into the patch distribution system, and vendors notified of the patch's release and availability. The time it takes depends on the severity of the exploit, the complexity of the code affected, and the experience and creativity of the programmers resolving the issue. I'd expect the time Microsoft knew about this flaw to be "days" at minimum, especially given a standard release schedule of once month.
Well, I wouldn't say that slavery absolutely leaves the world less well off. The results are not cut and dried. There are some who benefit from others managing their money for them. Motivation can lead to greater "equity", even if it isn't reflected in an actual income. Such things can likely be achieved through other means. We are all individuals, and we react in a variety of ways to a variety of stimuli. But we are not omniscient, we cannot know what is best for the individual, which is why freedom of choice, freedom to make decisions for oneself, is the fair and just option.
Running electric vehicles off coal wouldn't result in less overall pollution? Sufficient coal to power said vehicles produces as much polution as petroleum fueled vehicles? There is perhaps an argument for shifting the air polution outside of densely populated areas reducing the amount of smog in cities.
The solar would be on your roof whether it was economically feasible or not. The determining factor is whether it is affordable to you at a time when you are open to purchasing it. The cost of production can be artificially reduced for a short amount of time. Making things appear economically feasible when they are not. Efficiencies from mass production can reduce the cost, while mass production can spread the cost to make a thing economically feasible. The question is when or if the sustainability of "clean energy" sources begin to contribute back to the economy as a whole, and not just back to your wallet in an illusory manner. Ideally the economic role which solar panels play in your life should become the sustainable economic model once the cost balance tips in favor of that economic model.
What is the point of referring to this as a "Zero Day" exploit? Providing some kind of definition of zero-day?
They already charge for data, so just allocate it like the phone has mobile hotspot enabled. Have the data count towards the number, not the devices. I have a faimly member who has done similar. She bought a Tablet which shares a number with her phone. The same messages and such go to both devices.
I'd like to point out that 24/3 is what I would consider an incredible amount of bandwidth. 5/0.3 is the max around here, and they've stopped selling internet altogether. Only customers before 2014 have it. LTE is crap. Barely get a signal, and it cuts out entirely on a periodic basis. No cable, no DSL, no fiber. Satellite is the only option once you drop your current provider.
Type it enough, and you will pretty quickly. You should know the name of the software you install. I still call it soffice, the others are forks.
Those "jobs" about improving the lives of everyone are likey not profit generating. The economy is weak, so it is harder to afford luxuries, which those jobs would provide. No consumers buying luxury improvements for quality of life, means no profits. No profits, no jobs. No jobs, no profits.
1. It is too much to ask a company who's livelihood is based on the accuracy of such data, but rather merely the risk level the data indicates. This data is hardly considered to be "crown jewels" by Equifax. Despite being that valuable for most who participate in our economy. 2. The actual crown jewels are not part of the Internet of Things. They are offline only devices which require physical access to steal. Thus they can be secured. Stealing the crown jewels requires actions which will be noticed and reacted upon immediately. Online information is inherently insecure, because it is designed to be accessible and copied. Any attemps to steal that data would look little different to legitimate access of that data.
What if we made credit rejections due to credit theft or other incorrect data a prosecutable offense against the businesses and such that are out there. Right now they don't demand accurate data upon which to base decisions upon, only a reasonable assurance that the risk is low. The businesses then inerrantly uses this data as the entire or a significant part of the basis for making this decision. Due to the significant impact of such denials for consumers, then either credit should be removed from our economy entirely, including the national debt, or businesses should be held to a higher standard for intelligence gathering and denial, so that they hold the big three intelligence organizations to a high standard of accuracy.
Can we get this upvoted please? Absolutely agree!
Or we could just stop using the SSN altogether, anduse another number, like a Universal Credit History ID, or UCHID. Then we could have puns when a bloke applies for credit, just look at him funny and say "you kid?" (You kidding me?). Pair the UCHID with other means of protecting it, such as a changeable password, and problem solved.
Great idea, but one that costs money. Are we willing to invest in such a concept? Are businesses willing to invest in such a concept? Was the Equifax breach big enough, and of enough consequence to actually change anything. But yeah, using the same "username" and "password" is typically considered poor security. Definitely agree with you.
Nobody will remember the actual primary key, but everybody has to remember their SSN. So for looking up a record, it is the primary field to locate that record. Given it is as unique as the primary key, it is essentially the human readable version/alternative for the primary key.
Not sure how much increased security will help. You'd think Equifax would be a big target. At least for a fairly large identity theft ring. Might even be bigger and/or more deficated players looking to get data from Equifax. Ones where money isn't an issue.
What happens if cooperation is necessary for sustainability, but people don't cooperate and control the thermostats themselves? Who then should have the final say?
So companies are delegating the terms of the contracts, and deciding what their customers get. Because there is some feature of the phone that is such a hot ticket item, perhaps one of those "no-no's" mention in the OP? Don't really see a solution to this. Apparently the gains outweigh the losses for most individuals.
Shouldn't break anything. Really just one more pop-up that the users will ignore to their own detriment.
Typically have to agree to the wifi before the router will allow ANY traffic, including VPN traffic.
Does this mean that Google is going to be asking me to identify what is, and is not espionage?
Collecting data is useful if that data cannot be collected after the fact, say when it is known that it is needed. Having that data means you can refer back to it when the original information is unavailable. Using AI and neural networks on that data is a breach of civilian privacy, and a dangerous move towards incompetence.
Camouflage and other stealth techniques may be applied to keep machine learning from accurately tagging certain things. Incorrectly tagged data in a sea of unimportant data is data that was essentially never collected.
Autocorrect failure perhaps?