Re:What, you want me to put wallpaper on my window
on
Anti-Wi-Fi Wallpaper
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not sure if you are aware, but WiFi is used for other applications than Internet access. Companies use it in inventory control applications in stores and warehouses and all kinds of places. I think they would be very interested to know they could prevent someone from setting with a laptop snooping what's going on with their inventory.
Hospitals and doctors offices would be especially interested to help keep their information inside their walls and further comply with regulations.
They would likely make more money selling to organizations like that anyway than selling to individuals.
With the UNIX server market (and hence Sun's) shrinking and the Linux server market growing, it would be beyond failure to fulfill fiduciary duty for Sun managment not to recognize Linux as a stategic threat.
For reference:
http://news.com.com/IBM+rises,+Sun+sinks+in+serv er +market/2100-1010_3-5165213.html
Choice quote:
The overall Unix server market shrank 4 percent to $16.7 billion, while the Linux server market grew 90 percent to $2.8 billion, Gartner said.
It is simple economics really. When you saturate a market and recurring revenue from returning customers is less than the market penetration rate, your revenue will eventually begin to decline. That means you have to find ways to make the most out of revenue streams. Cutting overhead is one of them (i.e. outsourcing). Developing a recurring revenue model (i.e. service) is a better one because you can only cut costs so far before you start to cut things that matter.
Open source software doesn't suffer this same burden. The model for open source has always been one of service and recurring revenue. Sure there are some one time sale profits but service contracts are where its at.
Simplified, Microsoft has made themselves a commodity and as such their profits are shrinking. Open source is gaining albeit slowly. Sit back and watch, you haven't seen anything yet. It will all get uglier before it gets better.
You are correct. I am always amused by the push to integrate things on WAP's that are already very well done on external devices. Encryption is best done via VPN, authentication is best done on an LDAP, RADIUS or some other platform. Likewise, QoS is best handled by an external device. Simple common sense says that the more functionality and responisibility you shove onto a WAP the more you bog it down and decrease capacity.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects?
They should audit any and all code that is going into critical systems such as weapons logic regardless of open or closed source. I argue open source is better in this regard because they can compile the code themselves and check the compiled binaries to see if they are identical to delivered binaries.
But more to the point, it is unlikely that everytime a new Linux kerenel was released that it would be integrated into such a tight environment as special embedded apps. A one-time audit and then a reference freeze would be all that is necessary. Then highly customize that reference version with in-house folks. Any "backdoors" would be the result of a failed audit or failed oversight of in-house development.
If what you say is true, then automobile manufacturers shouldn't advertise that their cars have 350 hp (most won't NEED it), have a 8000 lb towing capacity (most wont USE it), or any other of the features that cater to only a few.
The first automobile I ever bought, I made SURE it had a trailer hitch just in case I ever wanted to tow anything. I never did in the 4 years I owned it, but I had the peace of mind knowing I could if I wanted.
The same goes with having access to the code. Having the peace of mind knowing you have total control over what's under the hood.
I had a choice and I bought this machine with Windows 2000 preinstalled. It now runs Linux. Why? Better hardware and better warranty.
My laptop runs Windows XP and the only reason it isn't running Linux is that so far, Linux doesn't seem to handle its hardware very well. As soon as that changes, guess what OS my laptop will run?
1) There are in-plane phones that charge your out the ass to use them. Cell phones kind of bypass that. It isn't surprising that they don't allow cell phones in-flight.
2) I have read that cell companies say that the phones would confuse the cell network due to being able to "see" so many towers. I don't buy that as I have used my cell on top of a 250ft tower on top of a tall mountain well within the range of at least 10 cell towers. No problem as far as I could see.
3) When the terrorists took over the planes in 2001, passengers were using cell phones to make calls while the planes were going. The pilots were NOT professionals. They had enough training to steer them into buildings and that is about it. They didn't crash because of cell phones being used. Hmmmm.
You can bet that cell phones are not a danger to make planes crash. That isn't the reason they are banned. You can bet on that.
Not true. A well designed firewall has multiple segments amongst which one should be where public servers and servers only are positioned. The access rules to them applies the same to the inside as well as the outside with the exception to network services which should be on their own segment and have only inside access with potentially its own firewall in case the public one is compromised.
Firewalling is not insufficient if done correctly.
Since you obviously aren't very well versed on security, I will help you.
this is not a security hole
Any unfettered access to ports that aren't being used IS a security disaster, period. Do some reading as I don't feel like teaching you all about it.
I get an unfirewalled, public IP from my ISP.
This practice by ISP's is one of the biggest reasons beyond Microsoft for the spread of Code Red, Blaster and all the other IP scanning worms/viruses out there.
It is up to the student to make sure they're protected. If they can't do that (or pay someone to do it for them), then they shouldn't be online.
The first sentence is rediculous. I won't even delve into how rediculous. But they DO in fact pay someone--the University. Every university I know of removes viruses and such from students computers. They pay for that in their "technology fee" or whatever their school calls it.
Um, firewalled servers with private IPs aren't exactly very useful.
Here is a cluestick for you--NAT. Go look it up. Any network security admin worth one cent knows there is no reason to give the outside (or inside) world access to port 7754 or any other random unused port. There is no reason a web server should allow anythying other than port 80 access and maybe a few others.
Professors and students who live off campus might want to do work from home.
Cluestick #2--VPN.
How many people were running servers before that now couldn't?
I bet dollars to doughnuts most schools out there specifically forbid that due to porn and all the other crap people would use it for. My school had a clause that the Internet was to be used for academic purposes only and any violations were grounds for revoking the priveledge to use it. It is THEIR pipe and they can dictate how people use it.
Putting up a firewall solves nothing
I pray you are trolling and you don't really believe any of what you just said.
I cannot sympathize with his point of view regarding the senseless murder of thousands of innocent lives.
Which is why you wouldn't be on any jury of which I am glad. It has nothing to do with anything having to do with the violations of which he is accused.
I did almost the same thing for my college except I didn't admit to actually perform the hacking. I published HOW to hack the entire network, where to go and what software to get. For example, every Lexmark printer on campus was not password protected. By downloading the readily available Markvision management software, you could oh say change the LED display screen language to Mandarin.
Among the big security problems were:
-All students getting unfirewalled public IPs (I shit you not)
-All servers having unfirewalled public IPs
-E-mail hosted on old (probably unpatched) HP-Unix with the most basic of unshadowed DES passwords
-NT servers (see above) without the latest patches
When I contacted the IT department with comment on all of this prior to publishing, they said something like, "the average student doesn't know how to take advantage of all of those issues." That comment frosted me and prompted me to publish.
The result? A firewall was installed in a matter of days and public IPs went private. Yes, I could have run any kind of server I wanted unhindered (and did) but I was concerned for the welfare of the students who would have their computers molested by crackers.
Of course I later applied for a network admin job at the school upon graduating and didn't get the job so maybe that wasn't so smart. But I did get a better job instead. In fact, the job formerly held by the guy my alma matter chose instead of me. How's that for irony?
The term "regulated" is merely an attempt to get around that little part of the Constitution guaranteeing free speech. Do you really think that if the framers of the Constitution had known about airwaves that they wouldn't have extended the same consideration there as well? Hardly. That is why they gave "Freedom of the press" because in those days, that WAS the airwaves.
I wish people would wake up and realize what this is all about. Hint: it has nothing to do with children.
But I for one want some kind of assurance that I can sit down with my child and watch television
And what are you going to do when your child goes out in the world and hears it? Put on ear muffs?
If it is that big of an issue for you, I highly suggest you pre-screen all entertainment before subjecting your child to it. When they get old enough, discuss the words with them and let them know you don't feel them appropriate and that they shouldn't use them.
If you think by keeping your child from hearing them on PBS or any other television program is going to stop them from ever hearing them then you are out of touch with reality.
Besides, a simple "Adult Language" rating should be enough for you to realize it might not be on par with Barney.
Obviously. The very fact that they felt they had to bleep out anything indicates the problem. The Constitution doesn't say, "Freedom of speech unless it is a bad word."
I can't speak for others, but I want to be the one to decide what is and isn't right for me instead of some jerk off (oops, is that censored?) that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
Which is why when I was in school, I found people in my major and we shared books. Did homework together which inevitably cut down on the time it took. "You do number 1 and I'll do number 6." It was like distributed learning. Figure it out and then explain it to each other. This wouldn't always work, but it often did.
Ok, so by the time you spend all of the time and effort to do all of this, you could deploy a fully self contained thin client in what, 10 minutes?
The only way I see this as a good idea for any low budget organization is if they get donated lots and lots of monitors, keyboards, mice and computers with graphics cards for this project.
Well, there are problems with that. The GUI isn't intuitive in my opinion and not all things available on the command line are implemented in the GUI. Statistical data is readily available and easily found in the GUI but not in the command line. Intricate settings are easy to find on the command line but not in the GUI.
I guess what I am saying is that the GUI and the command line feel like there is no consistency between them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if you are aware, but WiFi is used for other applications than Internet access. Companies use it in inventory control applications in stores and warehouses and all kinds of places. I think they would be very interested to know they could prevent someone from setting with a laptop snooping what's going on with their inventory.
Hospitals and doctors offices would be especially interested to help keep their information inside their walls and further comply with regulations.
They would likely make more money selling to organizations like that anyway than selling to individuals.
With the UNIX server market (and hence Sun's) shrinking and the Linux server market growing, it would be beyond failure to fulfill fiduciary duty for Sun managment not to recognize Linux as a stategic threat.
v er +market/2100-1010_3-5165213.html
For reference:
http://news.com.com/IBM+rises,+Sun+sinks+in+ser
Choice quote:
The overall Unix server market shrank 4 percent to $16.7 billion, while the Linux server market grew 90 percent to $2.8 billion, Gartner said.
This got +5 Insightful? Sure, ok.
Unless you are the CEO, CIO or any other CxO of Lockheed Martin, I would say your words are worth less than used toilet paper.
Obviously you didn't search very hard. Browse doen to the "Linux Desktops Playing a Critical Part in Big Enterprise" section.
5 0. html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT80865953
It is simple economics really. When you saturate a market and recurring revenue from returning customers is less than the market penetration rate, your revenue will eventually begin to decline. That means you have to find ways to make the most out of revenue streams. Cutting overhead is one of them (i.e. outsourcing). Developing a recurring revenue model (i.e. service) is a better one because you can only cut costs so far before you start to cut things that matter.
Open source software doesn't suffer this same burden. The model for open source has always been one of service and recurring revenue. Sure there are some one time sale profits but service contracts are where its at.
Simplified, Microsoft has made themselves a commodity and as such their profits are shrinking. Open source is gaining albeit slowly. Sit back and watch, you haven't seen anything yet. It will all get uglier before it gets better.
You are correct. I am always amused by the push to integrate things on WAP's that are already very well done on external devices. Encryption is best done via VPN, authentication is best done on an LDAP, RADIUS or some other platform. Likewise, QoS is best handled by an external device. Simple common sense says that the more functionality and responisibility you shove onto a WAP the more you bog it down and decrease capacity.
-filter noise
-authentication
-encryption
-routing
On top of that they want to add QoS? Don't hold your breath on wide adoption. Look for cost to be just silly.
Can you honestly tell me that the government is going to hire a panel of people to check in in-depth source changes on OSS projects?
They should audit any and all code that is going into critical systems such as weapons logic regardless of open or closed source. I argue open source is better in this regard because they can compile the code themselves and check the compiled binaries to see if they are identical to delivered binaries.
But more to the point, it is unlikely that everytime a new Linux kerenel was released that it would be integrated into such a tight environment as special embedded apps. A one-time audit and then a reference freeze would be all that is necessary. Then highly customize that reference version with in-house folks. Any "backdoors" would be the result of a failed audit or failed oversight of in-house development.
With a laptop perched on a tower at 250ft above the top of a mountain while aligning some 802.11b antennas. Beautiful view. Nasty winds.
If what you say is true, then automobile manufacturers shouldn't advertise that their cars have 350 hp (most won't NEED it), have a 8000 lb towing capacity (most wont USE it), or any other of the features that cater to only a few.
The first automobile I ever bought, I made SURE it had a trailer hitch just in case I ever wanted to tow anything. I never did in the 4 years I owned it, but I had the peace of mind knowing I could if I wanted.
The same goes with having access to the code. Having the peace of mind knowing you have total control over what's under the hood.
I had a choice and I bought this machine with Windows 2000 preinstalled. It now runs Linux. Why? Better hardware and better warranty.
My laptop runs Windows XP and the only reason it isn't running Linux is that so far, Linux doesn't seem to handle its hardware very well. As soon as that changes, guess what OS my laptop will run?
Samba and Apache yes. Sendmail? Not sure I agree with that completely. There are much better mail programs out there than Sendmail.
Thunderbird is amazingly powerful at filtering spam after some training. It should help cut down on the hassle.
It isn't too hard to figure out:
1) There are in-plane phones that charge your out the ass to use them. Cell phones kind of bypass that. It isn't surprising that they don't allow cell phones in-flight.
2) I have read that cell companies say that the phones would confuse the cell network due to being able to "see" so many towers. I don't buy that as I have used my cell on top of a 250ft tower on top of a tall mountain well within the range of at least 10 cell towers. No problem as far as I could see.
3) When the terrorists took over the planes in 2001, passengers were using cell phones to make calls while the planes were going. The pilots were NOT professionals. They had enough training to steer them into buildings and that is about it. They didn't crash because of cell phones being used. Hmmmm.
You can bet that cell phones are not a danger to make planes crash. That isn't the reason they are banned. You can bet on that.
Not true. A well designed firewall has multiple segments amongst which one should be where public servers and servers only are positioned. The access rules to them applies the same to the inside as well as the outside with the exception to network services which should be on their own segment and have only inside access with potentially its own firewall in case the public one is compromised.
Firewalling is not insufficient if done correctly.
Since you obviously aren't very well versed on security, I will help you.
this is not a security hole
Any unfettered access to ports that aren't being used IS a security disaster, period. Do some reading as I don't feel like teaching you all about it.
I get an unfirewalled, public IP from my ISP.
This practice by ISP's is one of the biggest reasons beyond Microsoft for the spread of Code Red, Blaster and all the other IP scanning worms/viruses out there.
It is up to the student to make sure they're protected. If they can't do that (or pay someone to do it for them), then they shouldn't be online.
The first sentence is rediculous. I won't even delve into how rediculous. But they DO in fact pay someone--the University. Every university I know of removes viruses and such from students computers. They pay for that in their "technology fee" or whatever their school calls it.
Um, firewalled servers with private IPs aren't exactly very useful.
Here is a cluestick for you--NAT. Go look it up. Any network security admin worth one cent knows there is no reason to give the outside (or inside) world access to port 7754 or any other random unused port. There is no reason a web server should allow anythying other than port 80 access and maybe a few others.
Professors and students who live off campus might want to do work from home.
Cluestick #2--VPN.
How many people were running servers before that now couldn't?
I bet dollars to doughnuts most schools out there specifically forbid that due to porn and all the other crap people would use it for. My school had a clause that the Internet was to be used for academic purposes only and any violations were grounds for revoking the priveledge to use it. It is THEIR pipe and they can dictate how people use it.
Putting up a firewall solves nothing
I pray you are trolling and you don't really believe any of what you just said.
I cannot sympathize with his point of view regarding the senseless murder of thousands of innocent lives.
Which is why you wouldn't be on any jury of which I am glad. It has nothing to do with anything having to do with the violations of which he is accused.
Except that 1992 plus 11 years is 2003. I am guessing you mean to say 9 years.
I did almost the same thing for my college except I didn't admit to actually perform the hacking. I published HOW to hack the entire network, where to go and what software to get. For example, every Lexmark printer on campus was not password protected. By downloading the readily available Markvision management software, you could oh say change the LED display screen language to Mandarin.
Among the big security problems were:
-All students getting unfirewalled public IPs (I shit you not)
-All servers having unfirewalled public IPs
-E-mail hosted on old (probably unpatched) HP-Unix with the most basic of unshadowed DES passwords
-NT servers (see above) without the latest patches
When I contacted the IT department with comment on all of this prior to publishing, they said something like, "the average student doesn't know how to take advantage of all of those issues." That comment frosted me and prompted me to publish.
The result? A firewall was installed in a matter of days and public IPs went private. Yes, I could have run any kind of server I wanted unhindered (and did) but I was concerned for the welfare of the students who would have their computers molested by crackers.
Of course I later applied for a network admin job at the school upon graduating and didn't get the job so maybe that wasn't so smart. But I did get a better job instead. In fact, the job formerly held by the guy my alma matter chose instead of me. How's that for irony?
The term "regulated" is merely an attempt to get around that little part of the Constitution guaranteeing free speech. Do you really think that if the framers of the Constitution had known about airwaves that they wouldn't have extended the same consideration there as well? Hardly. That is why they gave "Freedom of the press" because in those days, that WAS the airwaves.
I wish people would wake up and realize what this is all about. Hint: it has nothing to do with children.
But I for one want some kind of assurance that I can sit down with my child and watch television
And what are you going to do when your child goes out in the world and hears it? Put on ear muffs?
If it is that big of an issue for you, I highly suggest you pre-screen all entertainment before subjecting your child to it. When they get old enough, discuss the words with them and let them know you don't feel them appropriate and that they shouldn't use them.
If you think by keeping your child from hearing them on PBS or any other television program is going to stop them from ever hearing them then you are out of touch with reality.
Besides, a simple "Adult Language" rating should be enough for you to realize it might not be on par with Barney.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Obviously. The very fact that they felt they had to bleep out anything indicates the problem. The Constitution doesn't say, "Freedom of speech unless it is a bad word."
I can't speak for others, but I want to be the one to decide what is and isn't right for me instead of some jerk off (oops, is that censored?) that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
Standard low powered devices are not going to go 40 miles much less 75 especially if you are playing by FCC rules.
Which is why when I was in school, I found people in my major and we shared books. Did homework together which inevitably cut down on the time it took. "You do number 1 and I'll do number 6." It was like distributed learning. Figure it out and then explain it to each other. This wouldn't always work, but it often did.
Ok, so by the time you spend all of the time and effort to do all of this, you could deploy a fully self contained thin client in what, 10 minutes?
The only way I see this as a good idea for any low budget organization is if they get donated lots and lots of monitors, keyboards, mice and computers with graphics cards for this project.
Well, there are problems with that. The GUI isn't intuitive in my opinion and not all things available on the command line are implemented in the GUI. Statistical data is readily available and easily found in the GUI but not in the command line. Intricate settings are easy to find on the command line but not in the GUI.
I guess what I am saying is that the GUI and the command line feel like there is no consistency between them.