Ummm...you misunderstand. I'm the Conservative Christian...freaks are people who don't like me. Foes would be people that I don't like. You should probably read the FAQ.
"Linux is not being considered until the development model is safe."
Translated this reads: "I only know Windows so stop threatening me, for job security reasons we can't use Linux." Anyone that claims that the development model is unsafe is showing their fundamental misunderstanding of said development model. That would be the same as saying that the pharmaceutic industrie's development model is unsafe. It's essentially the same model. OSS allows for peer review, which ALWAYS makes more secure software. Look at crypto algorithms for another example.
Again, you're assuming that the point is to CATCH the attacker, rather to LEARN from the hacker. The case with Honeypots is usually the latter. Check out the Honeynet Project.
Re:How the heck
on
Wartrapping?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think the goal has less to do with actually catching the attackers and more to do with analyzing their attack methods. Traditionally the purpose of a honeypot is not to apprehend the attacker or even detect attacks (we have IDS' for that). The purpose is to analyze the methods that attackers are using to get into the networks to try to figure out ways of mitigating the attacks. Honeypots have been very effective in detecting new attacks and even new attack tools that otherwise would have taken much longer to actually find and deal with.
In this way I think that Wi-Fi honeypots could be VERY effective. Given the inherent insecurity of the protocols being used, any data that could be used to develop better standards is definitely welcome.
Re:Honeypot Symbol
on
Wartrapping?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
If you read the article you see that that's the suggestion. I'm thinking more along the lines of a bee smoking a joint..."honey" "pot".
I agree that security should be easy, and believe it or not I think that in some ways Microsoft is beginning to do a good job in this arena. Before you flame me hear me out. I'm not claiming that Microsoft OS's are secure, or that they're even as secure as Linux. However, they have found ways to integrate some basic security features in a user-friendly way. For example, the Internet Connection Firewall. Is it a great firewall? No, not at all. However, it does provide basic firewalling services, and it logs. I know that Redhat incorporates ipchains and allows for relatively simple configuration, but ICF just seems a bit more userfriendly. I would, however, like to see someone (I started to but don't have the time) write a perl script that goes through the logs looking for traffic patterns so you can do basic intrusion detection.
Again, in general I think that Microsoft has deployed some simple security tools like ICF, the MBSA, and even Windows Update that Redhat can't really compete with. Even up2date is a little more complicated than most people want to deal with. The RHN is a good service for enterprises, but for Joe User that doesn't want to pay it's just not that great. I have recently converted a family member to Redhat from Win2k, and one of their complaints is their inability to update their PC because "Free service limited due to high load..." Most people don't know what that means and don't care...it discourages them from even updating their computers at all. Overall, I think that Microsoft is winning the user-friendly security tool war, even though their software is not secure.
I think this is a very good thing, considering that to most people the idea that something designed in such an open manner is secure seems preposterous. I may even drag my Controller along in an effort to help to open her eyes to the fact that we don't have to pay big money for good security.
as a sysadmin i know all about the "it's an anomoly" excuse. What? You're monitor doesn't work? It must be an anomoly. In reality I stupidly forgot to plug it in...but you don't EVER tell users it was your fault:P
On a related note, it would be interesting for someone to study the effects of/. on society, along the same lines as this story. I don't know about anyone else, but/. tends to be one of my greatest joys and frustrations all in one. The ability to voice your opinion in such an open manner can have a staggering effect, and I would be interested to see a study trying to quantify exactly what that effect is.
that more people have a voice. The Internet has given the "common man" direct access to politicians and information about political topics. If citizens are more informed and can take a greater role in political decisions, there are likely to be less instances of protests and riots. It will improve the political debate by giving citizens a more "civilized" method of accessing politicians. Not that it will necessarily eliminate the days of the protest and riot, but it should help to make more informed and connected citizens.
...have one more thing to spend our evenings perusing. Did you see the mathematics section??? Way to go MIT! I'll definitely be a frequent visitor.
Where's your sense of danger???
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Come on, recycle bins are no fun at all. Where's the fun in having the files you "delete" stored in a folder until you REALLY want to delete them. It's much more fun to delete files knowing that there's a chance you may need them in the future and have no way of retrieving them (unless you're responsible and back your files up, but then again, what's fun about being responsible?).
As much as I would never use this thing, I'm definitely going to pitch it to my boss. She's relatively technical, sucked into a contract with Prodigy that ends at the end of the month, and can't afford even $500 for a new PC. She likes have an international provider because she travels a lot, so having AOL would be all right with her. Overall, if the goal is to get widespread adoption for Linux on the desktop, this could be a good thing.
While I've never seen Dark Star, the same theory is the basis for 'The Matrix.' The AI have the ability to alter our perceptions by altering our brain's interpretations of the electrical impulses.
First off, you can't deny that mutation happens. We see it all the time in the real world (not some lab), and we even see it in modern humans. People born with tails, extra digits on their hands or feet, more or less body hair than thier parents, etc... the list goes on. It's mutation, it really happens - and people who have these mutated genes pass them on to their offspring. As soon as those genes are passed on that's evolution in its simplest form. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. It is undeniable for it can be demonstrated in the real world for all to see. Whether you believe that it happens through pure chaos or if God caused those genes to mutate - or even some combination of the two - that's up to you. Darwin's Origin of Species [literature.org] describes in great detail and lays out all the facts that were known at the time. No scientist, whether they believe in creation or not, can deny that evolution occurred and is occuring.
Granted, I'm not an evolutionist, so my understanding of these things may be a bit different. But, I was under the impression (given to me by evolutionist friends) that evolution and mutation were different. Evolution is theory that a creature can evolve into a totally different creature, while mutation would be more similar to adaptation. I'm open to the fact that I may be wrong on this, so comments are welcome (and would occur even if they were not.
My second point...how can you state that evolution is fact and not theory when all of science claims that it is a theory?? Do you claim to know something that no other scientist knows, or have proof that noone else has or has seen? I'm curious.
How can you trust eyes (created through a series of random events) to see anything correctly? How do you trust your brain's (again, created through a series of random events) interpretation of what your eyes see? The ridiculousness goes on and on.
I posted comment yesterday about a totally unrelated topic. But in it I touch on something of what Cringely is talking about. If we actually mobilized in the way that we often talk about, we could really get something done. I really like the way that he thinks. If everyone hates the DMCA so much, why not actually try this?
Why can't we think for ourselves?
on
Ready, Steady, Evolve
·
· Score: -1, Insightful
Why does everyone insist on buying into the propaganda that is crammed down their throats by the liberal media and school systems? Someone PLEASE point me to some genuine, hard proof that evolution is reality because I assure you that I have never seen any. Just because evolution was taught as truth in high school and college, and it allows you to live your life any way that you want without concern for life after death or accountability to a higher power doesn't mean that you should buy it. Aren't we Americans supposed to be smarter and more responsible than that? How can anyone believe that our existence here is based on completely random events (the Big Bang theory, which seems to be the most popular among evolutionists)? That theory is easily refuted with the following:
If your existence came into being based on totally random events, then your brain also was the result of a random event. How then, can you possibly trust in your own thinking, which is what tells you to believe in evolution? It's kind of like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama. You can't have any faith in your own intelligence if that intelligence was brought about by completely random events. Creationists believe that a perfect God created us in his image. Therefore, our thinking is sound, because we were given the capacity to think by a God that knew what he was doing, not by random events that "just happened" to evolve into a brain capable of thought. It sounds as ridiculous as it is.
I realize that this is going to get modded down, but it frustrates me that so many people who pull this "I'm an intellectual therefore I believe in evolution not God" crap are actually simple drones of the left. Think for yourself, will ya?
Slashdot Mirror
Then there are those of us who actually care about quality and use .shn...Etree'ers unite!!
Ummm...you misunderstand. I'm the Conservative Christian...freaks are people who don't like me. Foes would be people that I don't like. You should probably read the FAQ.
"Linux is not being considered until the development model is safe."
Translated this reads: "I only know Windows so stop threatening me, for job security reasons we can't use Linux." Anyone that claims that the development model is unsafe is showing their fundamental misunderstanding of said development model. That would be the same as saying that the pharmaceutic industrie's development model is unsafe. It's essentially the same model. OSS allows for peer review, which ALWAYS makes more secure software. Look at crypto algorithms for another example.
Again, you're assuming that the point is to CATCH the attacker, rather to LEARN from the hacker. The case with Honeypots is usually the latter. Check out the Honeynet Project.
I think the goal has less to do with actually catching the attackers and more to do with analyzing their attack methods. Traditionally the purpose of a honeypot is not to apprehend the attacker or even detect attacks (we have IDS' for that). The purpose is to analyze the methods that attackers are using to get into the networks to try to figure out ways of mitigating the attacks. Honeypots have been very effective in detecting new attacks and even new attack tools that otherwise would have taken much longer to actually find and deal with.
In this way I think that Wi-Fi honeypots could be VERY effective. Given the inherent insecurity of the protocols being used, any data that could be used to develop better standards is definitely welcome.
If you read the article you see that that's the suggestion. I'm thinking more along the lines of a bee smoking a joint..."honey" "pot".
I agree that security should be easy, and believe it or not I think that in some ways Microsoft is beginning to do a good job in this arena. Before you flame me hear me out. I'm not claiming that Microsoft OS's are secure, or that they're even as secure as Linux. However, they have found ways to integrate some basic security features in a user-friendly way. For example, the Internet Connection Firewall. Is it a great firewall? No, not at all. However, it does provide basic firewalling services, and it logs. I know that Redhat incorporates ipchains and allows for relatively simple configuration, but ICF just seems a bit more userfriendly. I would, however, like to see someone (I started to but don't have the time) write a perl script that goes through the logs looking for traffic patterns so you can do basic intrusion detection.
Again, in general I think that Microsoft has deployed some simple security tools like ICF, the MBSA, and even Windows Update that Redhat can't really compete with. Even up2date is a little more complicated than most people want to deal with. The RHN is a good service for enterprises, but for Joe User that doesn't want to pay it's just not that great. I have recently converted a family member to Redhat from Win2k, and one of their complaints is their inability to update their PC because "Free service limited due to high load..." Most people don't know what that means and don't care...it discourages them from even updating their computers at all. Overall, I think that Microsoft is winning the user-friendly security tool war, even though their software is not secure.
I think this is a very good thing, considering that to most people the idea that something designed in such an open manner is secure seems preposterous. I may even drag my Controller along in an effort to help to open her eyes to the fact that we don't have to pay big money for good security.
$99 is all right, but free is better...let's hope they open the source and give it away :)
as a sysadmin i know all about the "it's an anomoly" excuse. What? You're monitor doesn't work? It must be an anomoly. In reality I stupidly forgot to plug it in...but you don't EVER tell users it was your fault :P
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a holographic version of Tribes 2.
Someone with the nickname passthecrackpipe is telling me to get a social life. Maybe you want to get a bit less of a social life there, buddy.
...but holograph is where it's at. I want to interact with my entertainment.
On a related note, it would be interesting for someone to study the effects of /. on society, along the same lines as this story. I don't know about anyone else, but /. tends to be one of my greatest joys and frustrations all in one. The ability to voice your opinion in such an open manner can have a staggering effect, and I would be interested to see a study trying to quantify exactly what that effect is.
that more people have a voice. The Internet has given the "common man" direct access to politicians and information about political topics. If citizens are more informed and can take a greater role in political decisions, there are likely to be less instances of protests and riots. It will improve the political debate by giving citizens a more "civilized" method of accessing politicians. Not that it will necessarily eliminate the days of the protest and riot, but it should help to make more informed and connected citizens.
...have one more thing to spend our evenings perusing. Did you see the mathematics section??? Way to go MIT! I'll definitely be a frequent visitor.
Come on, recycle bins are no fun at all. Where's the fun in having the files you "delete" stored in a folder until you REALLY want to delete them. It's much more fun to delete files knowing that there's a chance you may need them in the future and have no way of retrieving them (unless you're responsible and back your files up, but then again, what's fun about being responsible?).
As much as I would never use this thing, I'm definitely going to pitch it to my boss. She's relatively technical, sucked into a contract with Prodigy that ends at the end of the month, and can't afford even $500 for a new PC. She likes have an international provider because she travels a lot, so having AOL would be all right with her. Overall, if the goal is to get widespread adoption for Linux on the desktop, this could be a good thing.
Come on, if for no other reason:
what do you call an ensemble of penguins, a LUG?
While I've never seen Dark Star, the same theory is the basis for 'The Matrix.' The AI have the ability to alter our perceptions by altering our brain's interpretations of the electrical impulses.
First off, you can't deny that mutation happens. We see it all the time in the real world (not some lab), and we even see it in modern humans. People born with tails, extra digits on their hands or feet, more or less body hair than thier parents, etc... the list goes on. It's mutation, it really happens - and people who have these mutated genes pass them on to their offspring. As soon as those genes are passed on that's evolution in its simplest form. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. It is undeniable for it can be demonstrated in the real world for all to see. Whether you believe that it happens through pure chaos or if God caused those genes to mutate - or even some combination of the two - that's up to you. Darwin's Origin of Species [literature.org] describes in great detail and lays out all the facts that were known at the time. No scientist, whether they believe in creation or not, can deny that evolution occurred and is occuring.
Granted, I'm not an evolutionist, so my understanding of these things may be a bit different. But, I was under the impression (given to me by evolutionist friends) that evolution and mutation were different. Evolution is theory that a creature can evolve into a totally different creature, while mutation would be more similar to adaptation. I'm open to the fact that I may be wrong on this, so comments are welcome (and would occur even if they were not.
My second point...how can you state that evolution is fact and not theory when all of science claims that it is a theory?? Do you claim to know something that no other scientist knows, or have proof that noone else has or has seen? I'm curious.
How can you trust eyes (created through a series of random events) to see anything correctly? How do you trust your brain's (again, created through a series of random events) interpretation of what your eyes see? The ridiculousness goes on and on.
You know, there's faith. But there's also blind stupidity.
I assure you that it takes much more of your blind stupidity to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.
I posted comment yesterday about a totally unrelated topic. But in it I touch on something of what Cringely is talking about. If we actually mobilized in the way that we often talk about, we could really get something done. I really like the way that he thinks. If everyone hates the DMCA so much, why not actually try this?
Why does everyone insist on buying into the propaganda that is crammed down their throats by the liberal media and school systems? Someone PLEASE point me to some genuine, hard proof that evolution is reality because I assure you that I have never seen any. Just because evolution was taught as truth in high school and college, and it allows you to live your life any way that you want without concern for life after death or accountability to a higher power doesn't mean that you should buy it. Aren't we Americans supposed to be smarter and more responsible than that? How can anyone believe that our existence here is based on completely random events (the Big Bang theory, which seems to be the most popular among evolutionists)? That theory is easily refuted with the following:
If your existence came into being based on totally random events, then your brain also was the result of a random event. How then, can you possibly trust in your own thinking, which is what tells you to believe in evolution? It's kind of like spilling a glass of milk and hoping that it comes out as a map of Alabama. You can't have any faith in your own intelligence if that intelligence was brought about by completely random events. Creationists believe that a perfect God created us in his image. Therefore, our thinking is sound, because we were given the capacity to think by a God that knew what he was doing, not by random events that "just happened" to evolve into a brain capable of thought. It sounds as ridiculous as it is.
I realize that this is going to get modded down, but it frustrates me that so many people who pull this "I'm an intellectual therefore I believe in evolution not God" crap are actually simple drones of the left. Think for yourself, will ya?