In case you don't know, the SWIFT network is available to single worker companies and I believe the network infrastructure of these is probably not more than a modem-router and a computer.
Using cheap and crappy hardware at the link layer level of a network protocol doesn't make the protocol insecure, it makes it unreliable. You cannot crack on the protocol crypto because of a cheap, crappy and bad router/switch or whatever. It is simply just not involved at all in the cryptography and this is exactly for this reason you are using cryptography in first place, to avoid anybody to temper with your network traffic by cracking a networking component.
Seriously guys, don't you known nothing about cryptography?
All the information is totally irrelevant to determine the cause of the breach.
If you buy a cheap switch/router/hub you get a poor performance switch/router/hub or an unreliable switch/router/hub, not a hackable network. The protocol is totally encrypted end to end and getting access to a switch won't give you the keys to anything. So, the cheap switch/router/hub is totally irrelevant in this picture.
Next, the lack of a firewall, again here, it all depends on how the network is built. Is it a single computer, single purpose network and the only port open on the computer is the port required by the SWIFT network? If yes, adding a firewall won't make it more secure neither. It is already listening on the port that would have been open by the firewall anyway. On another hand, if the computer is listening on multiple ports with pieces of software known to be flawn, it is likely to be vulnerable to an attack and maybe the encryption keys have been stolen or maybe not. We still don't know how the attack was successfully completed. So far, it is more likely someone just gave the keys and password to the hackers. It could be an inside job.
BTW, expensive switches/routers/hubs are not necessarily more secure than cheaper one. They are made to be more reliable on 7/24 operations and have an larger capacity. That's where most of the price difference is justified to the customer
It seems to me like a Schrodinger's cats fight. You are both right and wrong at the same time.
You just do not take into account there is no such thing like two types of radiation: internal vs external. These are only the exposure to the actually four types of radiations: high-energy photons (UV, X-rays and gamma-rays), beta radiation (electrons in fact), alpha radiation (helium nucleus or any other atom fragments) and neutrons. Some of these are actually blocked by the skin and a very thin layer of it in fact and others are not.
But skin cancer is due to exposition to high-energy photons which are penetrating (think about why we use X-rays in first place).
However, it is true, if the radioactive isotopes are ingested, they are much more likely to reach, damage critical organs and cause death. It doesn't mean exposition to radiation without ingesting it is harmless.
So, in conclusion, both arguments are strictly wrong. Opening the box shows us both cats are dead.
That guy is incompetent. The way he compares cost of each solution just doesn't make sense at all. You need to compare over a lifetime the total energy produced in both cases including maintenance costs. If you cannot produce electricity at night, what is the cost of this? You have to buy electricity outside the country? Build another facility just to provide electricity during the night? This guy should be fired.
No, there isn't a backdoor as such. It is a man-in-the-middle attack instead. You can decrypt all incoming trafic toward the BB server for non-enterprise users. You do not actually access the BB phone.
Exactly, it is not possible to measure directly the stress between to sliding plates. So, other methods have to be developed in order to gather information or explore indirect insight of a particular situation. The author of the article is pessimistic and is picking litterally a rabbit from his hat to make a point which isn't one. Who f... care about the Spartan rabbit who made a prediction more than 2000 years ago. Is he talking about modern science or not?
Ever heard about someone fracking in the middle of a large city? Get over it. Sometimes, it doesn't make any good to refrain over and over again the same song.
On the electricity generation side of the equation, it worth to look at the World Energy Ooutlook 2013 report from the International Energy Agency (the latest report is available at a fee). http://www.iea.org/publication...
On page 175, you can look at the generation sources and the projections for 2020 and 2035 depending on a current, new or agressive policies to move toward renewables or at least reduce the fossil fuels demand. In 2011, 68% of the electricity produced in the world was from fossil fuels. The projections in the most agressive case for 2035 is 34% of the worldwide electricity will still be produced burning fossil fuels.This is after two decades and half under an agressive and optimistic scenario.
Who cares? The point about TFA is all fossil fuels would be gone in a decade. Which I believe is just a load of bullshit. It is not going to happen within a decade for sure.
How do you believe you are going to produce the electricity required by the electric vehicles? Being electric is not some kind of magic. You have to produce this electricity somehow. A large chunk of worldwide electricty is produced using fossil fuels: Oil, gas and coal.
Slashdot Mirror
If the security of your network relies on the routers and switches, you are an idiot.
BTW, I am not saying it is a good sounding choice to use a 10$ switch/router or whatever. I am just saying it is not the cause of the hack.
Using cheap and crappy hardware at the link layer level of a network protocol doesn't make the protocol insecure, it makes it unreliable. You cannot crack on the protocol crypto because of a cheap, crappy and bad router/switch or whatever. It is simply just not involved at all in the cryptography and this is exactly for this reason you are using cryptography in first place, to avoid anybody to temper with your network traffic by cracking a networking component.
Seriously guys, don't you known nothing about cryptography?
If you buy a cheap switch/router/hub you get a poor performance switch/router/hub or an unreliable switch/router/hub, not a hackable network. The protocol is totally encrypted end to end and getting access to a switch won't give you the keys to anything. So, the cheap switch/router/hub is totally irrelevant in this picture.
Next, the lack of a firewall, again here, it all depends on how the network is built. Is it a single computer, single purpose network and the only port open on the computer is the port required by the SWIFT network? If yes, adding a firewall won't make it more secure neither. It is already listening on the port that would have been open by the firewall anyway. On another hand, if the computer is listening on multiple ports with pieces of software known to be flawn, it is likely to be vulnerable to an attack and maybe the encryption keys have been stolen or maybe not. We still don't know how the attack was successfully completed. So far, it is more likely someone just gave the keys and password to the hackers. It could be an inside job.
BTW, expensive switches/routers/hubs are not necessarily more secure than cheaper one. They are made to be more reliable on 7/24 operations and have an larger capacity. That's where most of the price difference is justified to the customer
It seems to me like a Schrodinger's cats fight. You are both right and wrong at the same time.
You just do not take into account there is no such thing like two types of radiation: internal vs external. These are only the exposure to the actually four types of radiations: high-energy photons (UV, X-rays and gamma-rays), beta radiation (electrons in fact), alpha radiation (helium nucleus or any other atom fragments) and neutrons. Some of these are actually blocked by the skin and a very thin layer of it in fact and others are not.
But skin cancer is due to exposition to high-energy photons which are penetrating (think about why we use X-rays in first place).
However, it is true, if the radioactive isotopes are ingested, they are much more likely to reach, damage critical organs and cause death. It doesn't mean exposition to radiation without ingesting it is harmless.
So, in conclusion, both arguments are strictly wrong. Opening the box shows us both cats are dead.
For 250$/hr you get a lame lawyer, why do you expect to get a really, really good hacker for that price?
That guy is incompetent. The way he compares cost of each solution just doesn't make sense at all. You need to compare over a lifetime the total energy produced in both cases including maintenance costs. If you cannot produce electricity at night, what is the cost of this? You have to buy electricity outside the country? Build another facility just to provide electricity during the night? This guy should be fired.
And so it is for any iPhone.
No, there isn't a backdoor as such. It is a man-in-the-middle attack instead. You can decrypt all incoming trafic toward the BB server for non-enterprise users. You do not actually access the BB phone.
If you don't believe that, you have no clue how cryptography works.
Well, I believe it is an hoax anyway.
"...something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."
That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.
Exactly, it is not possible to measure directly the stress between to sliding plates. So, other methods have to be developed in order to gather information or explore indirect insight of a particular situation. The author of the article is pessimistic and is picking litterally a rabbit from his hat to make a point which isn't one. Who f... care about the Spartan rabbit who made a prediction more than 2000 years ago. Is he talking about modern science or not?
You can avoid a lot of the riskiest situation. Being in an elevator, for example.
Ever heard about someone fracking in the middle of a large city? Get over it. Sometimes, it doesn't make any good to refrain over and over again the same song.
Honest answer: All of these.
Like /.ers worth being maniplated.
What's this about? I read too fast.
On page 175, you can look at the generation sources and the projections for 2020 and 2035 depending on a current, new or agressive policies to move toward renewables or at least reduce the fossil fuels demand. In 2011, 68% of the electricity produced in the world was from fossil fuels. The projections in the most agressive case for 2035 is 34% of the worldwide electricity will still be produced burning fossil fuels.This is after two decades and half under an agressive and optimistic scenario.
Who cares? The point about TFA is all fossil fuels would be gone in a decade. Which I believe is just a load of bullshit. It is not going to happen within a decade for sure.
How do you believe you are going to produce the electricity required by the electric vehicles? Being electric is not some kind of magic. You have to produce this electricity somehow. A large chunk of worldwide electricty is produced using fossil fuels: Oil, gas and coal.
Not actually renewables, they will build 40 nuclear reactors within the next five years.
They just need to close the curtains.
You don't, so, stop the bullshit.
A burqa makes the trick as well and they can exercise.