As has already been said, that's not how it works. If you have a 250GB device, then when you unlock it you see a 250GB volume. And indeed if you write 250GB to it then yes, you overwrite the hidden volume (you can mount it with protection against that, but to do so requires the hidden volume's key)
hidden volumes...[w]ill not fool someone in data forensics
How exactly? Unless "they" know something that other cryptographers don't, there is no way to tell that a hidden volume exists just by looking at the data. You either need the decryption key to turn the gibberish back into data, or you need to observe the file covertly to watch as the supposedly unused parts of the filesystem mysteriously start changing. Of course, if you're able to do that, you may as well just install a keylogger and forget all of the tedious questioning malarkey.
Well the second link was meant to point here, but the others are right. If you read them through you will see that they are all claiming that the problem is caused by DRM, despite a complete absence of evidence.
If they are meant to be humourous then my sense of humour must be completely broken. I'm sure there are more comments of equal paranoia to be found in previous installments of this saga.
As Mark said in the article, they fucked up a bit by hard-coding the packet throttling when it's not always necessary. So, on your computer and your network, the throtling is clearly not needed (as evidenced by your experience with XP) but the throttling takes place anyway.
You've also not mentioned whether you actually suffer from the network slowdowns; if you don't then your post can be summarised as "every version of Windows works just fine, thank-you". If you do, then read above, and wait for a fix that identifies your computer as powerful enough to not need such a draconian throttling.
Is that it sucks donkey cock. Seriously, even IE is far better at version 7, and if you want something to run on Linux as well, then Opera is streets head in every aspect.
The only good thing about Firefox is the Firebug extension. But if you're not developing a site or script then there's not really anything good to be said for FF.
Yup, it's true. And they all run BSD too. Look a bit further down the list and you'll see Windows battling it out with IRIX (plus a couple of Windows installs in the very high places).
You may want to look at the Windows powertools options. You can switch to having focus follow the mouse, and probably to middle-click paste (but I'm not 100% certain of that one).
I'm currently using an XP box (Yes! Right now!!!!) and it has a couple of hundred TCP connections open according to netstat. That is just due to downloading a series of Scrubs.
Look, I'm more than a bit drunk and rambling, so I guess I should cut to the chase and ask: "What the fuck are you talking about?"
That really shouldn't come as a surprise. How can the browser supply the password to a site if it's not somewhere on the hard disk waiting to be read? The only sensible way is to encrypt it with a key that the user must enter on browser startup, which most people would find a fucking annoying nag rather than a necessary security feature.
I'm part with you - NT4 was a great solid server platform. However, I think that Win2k was an improvement, keeping the stability but adding a much better front-end and consumer application support. I finally upgraded to XP last year (only because Cubase required it), but otherwise I'd still be using the same 2k install from...umm...2000.
I'm curious what you preferred about NT4 over 2k, as I really do think the latter is a great OS. Though I admit it ran behind a Linux firewall as well, but an external firewall's just common sense, not a lack of faith in the desktop OS (my Linux systems run behind an external Linux firewall too).
Because PHP 5 isn't just a few new libraries, constructs and bug fixes - it's a different object model, and as the other reply said, some misfeatures are deprecated for security reasons.
PHP 5 is an upgrade to PHP 4 in the same way that C++ is an upgrade to C.
Yeah! Useless fucks! Unleash the righteous rage, brother!
Or, you know, talk about a subject you have basic understanding of. POST doesn't prevent CSRF in any significant way.
Speaking as someone whose moral code is at least slightly more advanced than Ghegis Khan's, I can safely say that yes I certainly would convict someone who murdered a thief who posed no threat.
It's even worse than you think. I've just examined some viruses in the wild, and every last one hijacks standard Windows system calls in order to read and write to the file system. Some have even found a way of hijacking the GDI to display adverts to users.
Hell, if I saw that link I'd click on it for sure. Well, I might drop to Cygwin and use lynx "just in case", but there's no way I'd not investigate such a link.
Slashdot Mirror
As has already been said, that's not how it works. If you have a 250GB device, then when you unlock it you see a 250GB volume. And indeed if you write 250GB to it then yes, you overwrite the hidden volume (you can mount it with protection against that, but to do so requires the hidden volume's key)
How exactly? Unless "they" know something that other cryptographers don't, there is no way to tell that a hidden volume exists just by looking at the data. You either need the decryption key to turn the gibberish back into data, or you need to observe the file covertly to watch as the supposedly unused parts of the filesystem mysteriously start changing. Of course, if you're able to do that, you may as well just install a keylogger and forget all of the tedious questioning malarkey.
This confuses me :(((((((((((((((
Is it ironic that you don't know the meaning of the word "semantics"? Why yes. Yes, I do believe it is.
I wonder if that tells you something...
Well the second link was meant to point here, but the others are right. If you read them through you will see that they are all claiming that the problem is caused by DRM, despite a complete absence of evidence.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=280101&cid= 20366549 2 8200 = 20377327
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/26/16
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=280101&cid
If they are meant to be humourous then my sense of humour must be completely broken. I'm sure there are more comments of equal paranoia to be found in previous installments of this saga.
You've also not mentioned whether you actually suffer from the network slowdowns; if you don't then your post can be summarised as "every version of Windows works just fine, thank-you". If you do, then read above, and wait for a fix that identifies your computer as powerful enough to not need such a draconian throttling.
I read many posts on this very forum explaining that it was due to calling home and DRM. Clearly this article is nothing more than a smokescreen.
The only good thing about Firefox is the Firebug extension. But if you're not developing a site or script then there's not really anything good to be said for FF.
Linux? Well...Linux doesn't fare too well.
You may want to look at the Windows powertools options. You can switch to having focus follow the mouse, and probably to middle-click paste (but I'm not 100% certain of that one).
I'm currently using an XP box (Yes! Right now!!!!) and it has a couple of hundred TCP connections open according to netstat. That is just due to downloading a series of Scrubs.
Look, I'm more than a bit drunk and rambling, so I guess I should cut to the chase and ask: "What the fuck are you talking about?"
But thanks for clarifying anyway - I'm sure it's useful for people "playing along at home".
That really shouldn't come as a surprise. How can the browser supply the password to a site if it's not somewhere on the hard disk waiting to be read? The only sensible way is to encrypt it with a key that the user must enter on browser startup, which most people would find a fucking annoying nag rather than a necessary security feature.
I'm curious what you preferred about NT4 over 2k, as I really do think the latter is a great OS. Though I admit it ran behind a Linux firewall as well, but an external firewall's just common sense, not a lack of faith in the desktop OS (my Linux systems run behind an external Linux firewall too).
PHP 5 is an upgrade to PHP 4 in the same way that C++ is an upgrade to C.
I'd prefer to skim-read and then write a post about my cock, actually.
Is that in the same way that my cock is almost 2 yards long?
Yeah! Useless fucks! Unleash the righteous rage, brother! Or, you know, talk about a subject you have basic understanding of. POST doesn't prevent CSRF in any significant way.
Jesus Christ, get some fucking perspective.
I don't think you know what Zend Optimizer is.
What - some sort of system that would let the user decide whether to cancel or allow the action? Intriguing...
When will Microsoft patch these vulnerabilities?!
Hell, if I saw that link I'd click on it for sure. Well, I might drop to Cygwin and use lynx "just in case", but there's no way I'd not investigate such a link.