A friend of mine wrote an email to this effect. It took me a minute of deliborate effort to unscramble "nriingoebhg." Of course, there were contextual clues, but they don't help that much if you can't parse it instantly.
Ye gods, that infernal CRT whine...most people can't hear it, but it drives me bats.
Agreed. But the solution to the CRT whine is to get a reasonably new CRT, which operates at a higher frequency. Just get it above 20KHz, and you can't hear it anymore.
OTOH, you can't do this for a TV. Damn are those large TVs loud...
Hmm, so it blocks C, N and T. Well, add that U and you have a rude word:)
So there you are, that's why it's blocked.
One of my friends put a little game in his login script. The computer would give 3 letters, and he had to type a word that began with those letters. Then it would show the other possibilities.
One day, he was logged in from a public computer (in a library or something). The computer gave him CUN. He typed in CUNEIFORM. The computer immediately crashed. Apparently some sysadmin had set a netnanny type filter in it...
Re:no privacy on mobile phones
on
Cracking GSM
·
· Score: 1
Encryption of the call is a fairly recent trend and I think it's a terrific idea, but any encryption can be broken in time. While the odds are low that someone may be listing in, guaranteed privacy is impossible.
This statement is misleading, if not downright false. First of all, a one-time pad cannot be broken, time or no time, if you have a good random source. Of course, this is impractical by itself, because you have to transport the pad.
Quantum "encryption" is being developed, and has already been used for line-of-sight transmissions over several miles. It isn't really encryption, but a method to detect eavesdroppers, and can give "guaranteed privacy" against them, at least over an optical link. You can't use it in radio, though.
Now, on a more practical end, there is no publicly known way to crack, say, a 448-bit Blowfish key. And don't give me that "with time" garbage. No amount of time and Moore's law could allow you to brute-force such a key; there isn't enough free energy in the universe. Realistically, you have to find a weakness in the code or the protocol.
I would agree with you that perfect-as-far-as-we-know privacy is impractical (watch out for those spooks with parabolic microphones), and truly "guaranteed" privacy is in impossible (how do you know that a Tibetan psychic can't just read your mind...), but "pretty good privacy" (heh), meaning, say, privacy worth betting your life on against major governments, is quite possible, and privacy good enough to stop random people from snooping your calls is fairly easy.
Why dont you look up the word legacy before posting something so dopey? Legacy doesnt mean obsolete, just that the newer technology came out of the older technology.
Until recently, legacy was only a noun. As a noun, it means "something handed down from the past." It isn't in my dictionary as an adjective, nor is it on any of the dictionaries of dictionary.com as such. I've personally only heard it used (as an adjective) to mean an obsolete system which has not been replaced because of the difficulties involved (either in terms of infrastructure or applications). This would certainly mean something "handed down from the past."
Today this shouldn't work (and doesn't per the example above). His "exploit" basically tricks the system into actually making it happen. The key is getting a controllable root suid file on the system....
His "exploit" isn't a full exploit.
The point is, suppose you have a suid program which *is* vulnerable to a buffer overflow. Say they find another unchecked buffer in sshd. It's almost guaranteed to happen eventually. The question is, what code do you drop in the buffer? That's what he wrote.
PS: I'd be willing to bet my other nut that this little buffer overflow trick, which is really useless, won't work anymore with the official Panther release.
It's a wee bit lower level than that... This is asm code, it should work on any PPC UNIX-based system with a few numbers changed (like the syscall codes).
Is there any program, or could anyone devise a program that could check if a CD is "copy protected" (defective)?
Yeah. Pop it into your computer. If your computer proceeds to crash or bitch about errors in the media, then it's copy-protected.
Or just look at the CD label. If it says "CD" on it, it's not copy protected. Copy protected "CDs" do not conform to the Red Book Standard, and so cannot legally be labeled as CDs.
You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.
This is just plain Not True. The recording industry makes it very clear that when you buy music, you are doing two things: 1) You are buying the physical CD from them. 2) You are buying a personal license to the copyrighted material on the CD.
Together, this means that you can make backups, rip/encode the songs, etc. Selling or giving the content of the CD to someone who does not have a license to it is copyright infringement. You can, however, transfer your license to them, but then you can't retain a copy yourself.
Sharing music on KaZaA is illegal only because downloading it (without owning a license) is copyright infringement, and therefore making it available for upload to people who don't have licenses is contributory copyright infringement.
Downloading music/movies from KaZaA is perfectly legal if you have a license to the copyrighted material (i.e., you bought the CD). I don't know about buying things from pirates, this might fall under some other crime, but it is not copyright infringement either if you own the CD already.
IANAL, but I got this information from lawyers, and from copyright license agreements.
I don't think hate crime is any better or worse than any other kind of crime. My point is that you shouldn't hate any group of people so much that you fantasize about killing them. Even though you don't end up doing it, the results can't be good.
Yeah? And where does that money come from? Does it magically appear to cover the cost? Or does the ISP have to use the money it gets from paying customers to cover the cost?
Spammers and relay owners are paying customers of ISPs. For every spam you read, for all the bandwidth you spend on it, some spammer spent that much, and some relay owner, and your mailserver owner, spent twice as much.
My name is Mike Hamburg. I live in South Bend, IN; you can look me up there if you care. I go to Harvard; my address is hamburg@fas.harvard.edu (it's in my profile).
I'm not a spammer, and I don't sympathise with them. But when you people post this stuff about killing spammers now that we have a list of them, it makes me think about when the list of abortion doctors was posted, and people actually did kill them. This is not something to joke about!
Clearly, using an open mail relay is theft, no matter how irresponsible the mail admin is (and this is still how most spam gets sent today).
Under current laws, spam is not illegal by itself, even if you use and open proxy.
Your ISP is paying real amounts of money for bandwidth. Not dial-up or DSL connections, but really big pipes that they share amongst their subscribers. They're also paying for disk space to store their customers' mail. Now if spam takes up 20% of their bandwidth and 40% of their mail spooler's disk space before they have an opportunity to filter it, who do you think pays for it? You do. And I do. Our monthly costs are in effect renting a tiny fragment of the resources of the internet, and roughly a third of the internet is now spam. (email and newsgroups, which translates to bandwidth, time, computing power, and storage)
My point was that I'm biased because spam doesn't cost me much personally; I already said that spam is a very expensive problem. However, those numbers are bullshit. Spam is not 30%, or even 20% of the internet's bandwidth. I don't have the true numbers, but the articles claiming that are just plain wrong. Music/video downloads and HTTP (esp the images) take much more bandwidth than spam. If anything, those damn Flash ads and animated GIFs take more.
Disk space and CPU for a mailserver are cheap. Small - midsize companies can deal with just one generic PC box regardless of spam if they configure it right, and big ones can afford a real server. Even 10,000 incoming spams a day would not be a disk-space problem for my (6-year-old) box to handle, on bandwidth, CPU or disk space.
It drives up the ISP's costs some, but it's the spammers and relay owners, and mailserver owners who pay most of those costs.
Where spam is most expensive is lost productivity due to having to read it. And there, it is very expensive. But not to me, because I don't get much in the first place, and then I filter it.
I don't give a shit if they think I'm a spammer. What are they going to do? Flame me? They're doing that anyway. Report me to Harvard (whence I connect)? So what, Harvard knows I'm not a spammer. Hunt me down? I'm aware that they're only joking, even if I'm disturbed by the jokes. Post my address? Fine, I have a filter and a fast connection, I can deal with a few more spams, and you won't find enough people pissed at me to do a Ralsky-style DOS.
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine wrote an email to this effect. It took me a minute of deliborate effort to unscramble "nriingoebhg." Of course, there were contextual clues, but they don't help that much if you can't parse it instantly.
"i don't have any of that. it's too confusing".
"I don't have any of that. We broke it ten years ago and have our own in-house algos. But if I told you that, I'd have to kill you."
Ye gods, that infernal CRT whine...most people can't hear it, but it drives me bats.
Agreed. But the solution to the CRT whine is to get a reasonably new CRT, which operates at a higher frequency. Just get it above 20KHz, and you can't hear it anymore.
OTOH, you can't do this for a TV. Damn are those large TVs loud...
Hmm, so it blocks C, N and T. Well, add that U and you have a rude word :)
So there you are, that's why it's blocked.
One of my friends put a little game in his login script. The computer would give 3 letters, and he had to type a word that began with those letters. Then it would show the other possibilities.
One day, he was logged in from a public computer (in a library or something). The computer gave him CUN. He typed in CUNEIFORM. The computer immediately crashed. Apparently some sysadmin had set a netnanny type filter in it...
Piracy, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
They did this with the Cube, but it didn't catch fire like the original iMacs
Actually, they did have some serious problems with the (fanless) cubes overheating in hot climates...
All your database are belong to us.
More likely your friend would be sued for NDA violation.
:-)
On second thought, post it as AC
OpenFirmware
Encryption of the call is a fairly recent trend and I think it's a terrific idea, but any encryption can be broken in time. While the odds are low that someone may be listing in, guaranteed privacy is impossible.
This statement is misleading, if not downright false. First of all, a one-time pad cannot be broken, time or no time, if you have a good random source. Of course, this is impractical by itself, because you have to transport the pad.
Quantum "encryption" is being developed, and has already been used for line-of-sight transmissions over several miles. It isn't really encryption, but a method to detect eavesdroppers, and can give "guaranteed privacy" against them, at least over an optical link. You can't use it in radio, though.
Now, on a more practical end, there is no publicly known way to crack, say, a 448-bit Blowfish key. And don't give me that "with time" garbage. No amount of time and Moore's law could allow you to brute-force such a key; there isn't enough free energy in the universe. Realistically, you have to find a weakness in the code or the protocol.
I would agree with you that perfect-as-far-as-we-know privacy is impractical (watch out for those spooks with parabolic microphones), and truly "guaranteed" privacy is in impossible (how do you know that a Tibetan psychic can't just read your mind...), but "pretty good privacy" (heh), meaning, say, privacy worth betting your life on against major governments, is quite possible, and privacy good enough to stop random people from snooping your calls is fairly easy.
Do you have a reference for this?
Why dont you look up the word legacy before posting something so dopey? Legacy doesnt mean obsolete, just that the newer technology came out of the older technology.
Until recently, legacy was only a noun. As a noun, it means "something handed down from the past." It isn't in my dictionary as an adjective, nor is it on any of the dictionaries of dictionary.com as such. I've personally only heard it used (as an adjective) to mean an obsolete system which has not been replaced because of the difficulties involved (either in terms of infrastructure or applications). This would certainly mean something "handed down from the past."
Encarta was the only dictionary I found that lists an adjective form: "associated with something that is outdated or discontinued"
According to this definition, a legacy system must be obsolete.
Nuclear explosions are hotter than the center of the sun.
Screw the RIAA. I wanna know what that is in Volkswagen Beetles!
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong... The correct unit to measure water is olympic-size swimming pools.
Today this shouldn't work (and doesn't per the example above). His "exploit" basically tricks the system into actually making it happen. The key is getting a controllable root suid file on the system....
His "exploit" isn't a full exploit.
The point is, suppose you have a suid program which *is* vulnerable to a buffer overflow. Say they find another unchecked buffer in sshd. It's almost guaranteed to happen eventually. The question is, what code do you drop in the buffer? That's what he wrote.
PS: I'd be willing to bet my other nut that this little buffer overflow trick, which is really useless, won't work anymore with the official Panther release.
It's a wee bit lower level than that... This is asm code, it should work on any PPC UNIX-based system with a few numbers changed (like the syscall codes).
Reboot holding down CMD-S. Or maybe that's CMD+S+U. It puts it in single-user mode.
It poses no greater good, so I don't want my tax money going to pay for people to download porn and MP3's. No fucking way.
--
Geek Girls Naked! [ccbill.com]
Heh.
Then I guess you'll be pissed, because the money's going to the EFF, not the FSF.
:-)
D'oh. Well, to one of those charitable tech-y TLAs.
Damn that's a lot of money on a $1 song. I'd be pissed if he weren't donating it to the FSF...
Is there any program, or could anyone devise a program that could check if a CD is "copy protected" (defective)?
Yeah. Pop it into your computer. If your computer proceeds to crash or bitch about errors in the media, then it's copy-protected.
Or just look at the CD label. If it says "CD" on it, it's not copy protected. Copy protected "CDs" do not conform to the Red Book Standard, and so cannot legally be labeled as CDs.
You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.
This is just plain Not True. The recording industry makes it very clear that when you buy music, you are doing two things:
1) You are buying the physical CD from them.
2) You are buying a personal license to the copyrighted material on the CD.
Together, this means that you can make backups, rip/encode the songs, etc. Selling or giving the content of the CD to someone who does not have a license to it is copyright infringement. You can, however, transfer your license to them, but then you can't retain a copy yourself.
Sharing music on KaZaA is illegal only because downloading it (without owning a license) is copyright infringement, and therefore making it available for upload to people who don't have licenses is contributory copyright infringement.
Downloading music/movies from KaZaA is perfectly legal if you have a license to the copyrighted material (i.e., you bought the CD). I don't know about buying things from pirates, this might fall under some other crime, but it is not copyright infringement either if you own the CD already.
IANAL, but I got this information from lawyers, and from copyright license agreements.
I don't think hate crime is any better or worse than any other kind of crime. My point is that you shouldn't hate any group of people so much that you fantasize about killing them. Even though you don't end up doing it, the results can't be good.
Yeah? And where does that money come from? Does it magically appear to cover the cost? Or does the ISP have to use the money it gets from paying customers to cover the cost?
Spammers and relay owners are paying customers of ISPs. For every spam you read, for all the bandwidth you spend on it, some spammer spent that much, and some relay owner, and your mailserver owner, spent twice as much.
My name is Mike Hamburg. I live in South Bend, IN; you can look me up there if you care. I go to Harvard; my address is hamburg@fas.harvard.edu (it's in my profile).
I'm not a spammer, and I don't sympathise with them. But when you people post this stuff about killing spammers now that we have a list of them, it makes me think about when the list of abortion doctors was posted, and people actually did kill them. This is not something to joke about!
Clearly, using an open mail relay is theft, no matter how irresponsible the mail admin is (and this is still how most spam gets sent today).
Under current laws, spam is not illegal by itself, even if you use and open proxy.
Your ISP is paying real amounts of money for bandwidth. Not dial-up or DSL connections, but really big pipes that they share amongst their subscribers. They're also paying for disk space to store their customers' mail.
Now if spam takes up 20% of their bandwidth and 40% of their mail spooler's disk space before they have an opportunity to filter it, who do you think pays for it?
You do. And I do. Our monthly costs are in effect renting a tiny fragment of the resources of the internet, and roughly a third of the internet is now spam. (email and newsgroups, which translates to bandwidth, time, computing power, and storage)
My point was that I'm biased because spam doesn't cost me much personally; I already said that spam is a very expensive problem. However, those numbers are bullshit. Spam is not 30%, or even 20% of the internet's bandwidth. I don't have the true numbers, but the articles claiming that are just plain wrong. Music/video downloads and HTTP (esp the images) take much more bandwidth than spam. If anything, those damn Flash ads and animated GIFs take more.
Disk space and CPU for a mailserver are cheap. Small - midsize companies can deal with just one generic PC box regardless of spam if they configure it right, and big ones can afford a real server. Even 10,000 incoming spams a day would not be a disk-space problem for my (6-year-old) box to handle, on bandwidth, CPU or disk space.
It drives up the ISP's costs some, but it's the spammers and relay owners, and mailserver owners who pay most of those costs.
Where spam is most expensive is lost productivity due to having to read it. And there, it is very expensive. But not to me, because I don't get much in the first place, and then I filter it.
I don't give a shit if they think I'm a spammer. What are they going to do? Flame me? They're doing that anyway. Report me to Harvard (whence I connect)? So what, Harvard knows I'm not a spammer. Hunt me down? I'm aware that they're only joking, even if I'm disturbed by the jokes. Post my address? Fine, I have a filter and a fast connection, I can deal with a few more spams, and you won't find enough people pissed at me to do a Ralsky-style DOS.