Why? You think they won't send you their root kit if you nicely ask them on the phone? Heck, they may even tell you how to get the thing installed on your phone!
If I got ahold of your computer, installed a CD drive in it, erased your OS, then installed Ubuntu on it, and used that to play tetris, is that considered a vulnerability too?
Yes. However, the critical vulnerability in that case would be in the physical security of my home.
Not only that. Attackers could get your phone banking credentials by just recognizing when you call a phone banking number, and then recording the initial part of your phone call and sending the files to the attacker. Remember, as much as smartphones are computers, they are still phones (in principle it could be done for VoIP on traditional computers, too, but I guess few people do phone banking over VoIP). In addition, they often are GPS appliances as well, so additionally an attacker could use them to track you. It may even become a vector for ordinary computer malware: The malware gets onto the phone when synchronizing with the computer, then sends itself to another phone, and then gets onto another computer when synchronizing with that phone. It may be a way to get into computers which are otherwise firewalled well.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
If the EU doesn't uphold this, it's members will.
Well, it says arbitrary interference. No doubt they will tell you that monitoring web searches is not arbitrary.
Still, a true plotter can draw lines in any direction. This can only draw horizontal lines.
And a true printer only draws dots. This draws horizontal lines.
However, I'm pretty sure the hardware would be able to draw vertical and diagonal lines as well (it can move the pen horizontally, and the paper vertically, and those mechanics are independent of each other). However, it probably can't draw lines in arbitrary directions (it's unlikely that it contains hardware to control the relative speed of the drawing head and the paper). Nevertheless, from the abilities of the hardware, it's more of a plotter than a printer. It's true that the driver obviously presents a printer interface, so from the software's view it's a printer. But then, you could write a driver for a full-ability pen plotter to do the same, so this doesn't change what the hardware is. Note that no matter what you put in the driver, for conventional printers you will never be able to produce anything but dots.
Actually the gadget doesn't draw dots, but horizontal lines. Basically it only rasterizes in one dimension (although I guess it actually "unrasterizes" a 2D raster).
Implicit copy constructors and assign operator bite. You don't expect them, and the STL makes heavy use of them.
If you don't expect them, you shouldn't claim to know C++.
Name mangling is not specified. Try to mix dlls build with gcc and msvc, fixed that hell? Now, try to build an dll with gcc that can replace a dll build with msvc.
It's also not specified with C (and if you think there's no name mangling in C: There were DOS compilers which preceded all global symbol names with an underscore, in order to avoid assembler conflicts with register names). It's just that on every platform today, there's a separate ABI standard or de-facto-standard for C (e.g. the psABI), and since today the OS interface is generally in C, any compiler has to follow the platform ABI. The same is not (yet) true for C++, but there are already standardization efforts (for example, while GCC in the past used a homegrown ABI, it now uses a standardized ABI which is also used by other compilers [while it's formally only an Itanium ABI, GCC uses the non-Itanium specific parts of it also for other platforms]).
Not mentioned in the FQA, but std::string is STUPID.
Agree here: std::string is not well designed. I'm pretty sure that if it were designed today, it would be designed differently.
If you have to interface with C code, and you have to allocate memory which will be deallocated in the C code, or deallocate memory which has been allocated in the C code (the latter is actually more common), you have to use malloc/free, because that's what the C code uses. It's an error to use delete on memory allocated with malloc, or free on memory allocated with new.
jeez why don't they just use a modern language other than C?
Because they don't desire to completely rewrite their large code base? The nice thing about C++ is that you don't have to rewrite all your C code to be able to use C++ features. You can introduce C++ features gradually.
Now you may argue that the code would almost certainly get better in a complete rewrite. But until that rewrite is finished, the compiler may have gotten irrelevant due to lack of development.
That's bvecause geology is just about the earth. Evolution also tells us about our place in the world. You will also find that the Copernican world view has generated much more heat than anything in geology. That's because, again, Copernicus told us something about our place in the universe. Copernicus told us that we are not living in the center of the universe, and Darwin told us that we are actually animals. Geology doesn't tell us anything about what is our place in the universe. Therefore it's not as controversial.
Basically there are four fundamental claims about our place in the world:
The earth is not the center of the universe.
Life is just organized matter.
Humans are just highly evolved animals.
The mind is just a function of the brain.
Point 1 has so much evidence that it now is generally accepted even by religious fundamentalists (or maybe I just don't know real fundamentalists). Point 2 and 3 have ample scientific evidence, but are still disputed by religious fundamentalists. Point 4 is still disputed even outside of religion.
Actually, there's a fifth claim which comes from modern physics, but that one isn't mainstream even in physics:
Even for those where this is true (most of my data still lives on my hard disk, and I like it that way), there's still a bit of personal data criminals are very interested in. Like your online banking password.
At least with our capitalist systems, we have Constitutions to chain our governments from being abusive, elections to remove dickheds from said government, and Courts to protect the citizens from abuse by one another or the corporations.
That's completely unrelated to capitalism. You can have a non-capitalistic democracy, and you can have a non-democratic capitalism.
If you ask a normal (non-geek) person if they would leave their house unlocked during the day in a bad neighborhood, what do you think they'd say? But if you ask them to not click links from reputable sources (or those that look suspicious), they look at you like you're crazy. THAT's the problem with preemptive security today. Not that it's hard or costly, but that the normal users are not convinced that they should care at all...
Not clicking suspicious links is not equivalent to not locking your door. It's equivalent to not trusting random strangers showing up at your door and asking you to let them in. Quite a lot people fail at that security measure also in real life.
In the real world, security is hard because matter is malleable. When an armored vehicle gets blown up, we don't say that it "failed to validate its inputs". It just didn't have enough armor. Even in cases where it survives, all it would have taken is larger projectile, or one moving a bit faster... When somebody pulls an SQL injection or something, though, it is because the targeted program did something wrong, not because of the inescapable limitations of matter.
Not all real life attacks are blowing something up. Ever heard of a locksmith? Ever heard about using social engineering to get into a building? Ever heard about brute-force searching a physical number lock? Or about breaking into a safe with the help of a stethoscope?
The only real class of security issues that mirror real-world attacks are DOS attacks and the like
You are behind the times. Today's attacks are Windows attacks.:-)
Much as I dislike PETA's immature, attention-whoring, hardline, hypocritical, etc. etc. stance in general, the "sea kittens" thing at least (somewhat) raises the issue about people's double standards when it comes to animal cruelty, etc. Let's be honest, if you're a cute animal, you'll get *way* more people fighting to protect you. Baby seals vs. nasty looking insects? No competition.
Especially interesting in this context is the following entry (emphasis by me):
March 3, 2008, Street of Dreams, Washington: ELF is the primary suspect for the intentional destruction, by using explosive devices, set fire to four multi-million dollar homes from the 2007 Seattle Street of Dreams in Woodinville, Washington, costing $7 million in damage.[6] Authorities describe the act as "domestic terrorism" after finding the initials of the Earth Liberation Front spray-painted in red letters, mocking claims that the homes were environmentally friendly: "Built Green? Nope black! McMansions in RCDs r not green. ELF." [7][8]
Slashdot Mirror
"I tried to phone you last week, but I couldn't. What happened?" - "I was compiling a new kernel."
Not burglar proof. But obviously very unattractive for burglars.
Why? You think they won't send you their root kit if you nicely ask them on the phone? Heck, they may even tell you how to get the thing installed on your phone!
Yes. However, the critical vulnerability in that case would be in the physical security of my home.
No. It clearly doesn't exist on traditional phones. You cannot install apps on them.
Not only that. Attackers could get your phone banking credentials by just recognizing when you call a phone banking number, and then recording the initial part of your phone call and sending the files to the attacker. Remember, as much as smartphones are computers, they are still phones (in principle it could be done for VoIP on traditional computers, too, but I guess few people do phone banking over VoIP). In addition, they often are GPS appliances as well, so additionally an attacker could use them to track you. It may even become a vector for ordinary computer malware: The malware gets onto the phone when synchronizing with the computer, then sends itself to another phone, and then gets onto another computer when synchronizing with that phone. It may be a way to get into computers which are otherwise firewalled well.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
If the EU doesn't uphold this, it's members will.
Well, it says arbitrary interference. No doubt they will tell you that monitoring web searches is not arbitrary.
And a true printer only draws dots. This draws horizontal lines.
However, I'm pretty sure the hardware would be able to draw vertical and diagonal lines as well (it can move the pen horizontally, and the paper vertically, and those mechanics are independent of each other). However, it probably can't draw lines in arbitrary directions (it's unlikely that it contains hardware to control the relative speed of the drawing head and the paper). Nevertheless, from the abilities of the hardware, it's more of a plotter than a printer. It's true that the driver obviously presents a printer interface, so from the software's view it's a printer. But then, you could write a driver for a full-ability pen plotter to do the same, so this doesn't change what the hardware is. Note that no matter what you put in the driver, for conventional printers you will never be able to produce anything but dots.
Actually the gadget doesn't draw dots, but horizontal lines. Basically it only rasterizes in one dimension (although I guess it actually "unrasterizes" a 2D raster).
If you don't expect them, you shouldn't claim to know C++.
It's also not specified with C (and if you think there's no name mangling in C: There were DOS compilers which preceded all global symbol names with an underscore, in order to avoid assembler conflicts with register names). It's just that on every platform today, there's a separate ABI standard or de-facto-standard for C (e.g. the psABI), and since today the OS interface is generally in C, any compiler has to follow the platform ABI. The same is not (yet) true for C++, but there are already standardization efforts (for example, while GCC in the past used a homegrown ABI, it now uses a standardized ABI which is also used by other compilers [while it's formally only an Itanium ABI, GCC uses the non-Itanium specific parts of it also for other platforms]).
Agree here: std::string is not well designed. I'm pretty sure that if it were designed today, it would be designed differently.
Never say never.
If you have to interface with C code, and you have to allocate memory which will be deallocated in the C code, or deallocate memory which has been allocated in the C code (the latter is actually more common), you have to use malloc/free, because that's what the C code uses. It's an error to use delete on memory allocated with malloc, or free on memory allocated with new.
Because they don't desire to completely rewrite their large code base?
The nice thing about C++ is that you don't have to rewrite all your C code to be able to use C++ features. You can introduce C++ features gradually.
Now you may argue that the code would almost certainly get better in a complete rewrite. But until that rewrite is finished, the compiler may have gotten irrelevant due to lack of development.
That's bvecause geology is just about the earth. Evolution also tells us about our place in the world. You will also find that the Copernican world view has generated much more heat than anything in geology. That's because, again, Copernicus told us something about our place in the universe. Copernicus told us that we are not living in the center of the universe, and Darwin told us that we are actually animals. Geology doesn't tell us anything about what is our place in the universe. Therefore it's not as controversial.
Basically there are four fundamental claims about our place in the world:
Point 1 has so much evidence that it now is generally accepted even by religious fundamentalists (or maybe I just don't know real fundamentalists). Point 2 and 3 have ample scientific evidence, but are still disputed by religious fundamentalists. Point 4 is still disputed even outside of religion.
Actually, there's a fifth claim which comes from modern physics, but that one isn't mainstream even in physics:
Except that evolution isn't about how the world started. It isn't even about how life started. It's about how life, once it existed, evolved.
22 years? That means it's older that Linux. Thus it's ancient. :-)
Even for those where this is true (most of my data still lives on my hard disk, and I like it that way), there's still a bit of personal data criminals are very interested in. Like your online banking password.
[quote]
[/quote]
[b]I feel your pain.[/b]
Really, why can't slashdot at least get with the 90's? ::evil::
Probably because bbcode was one of the most useless inventions ever. Replace angle brackets with square brackets ... what an innovation!
That's completely unrelated to capitalism. You can have a non-capitalistic democracy, and you can have a non-democratic capitalism.
I think normal bullets are sufficient for that. Unless some of the users are wizards, of course.
Not clicking suspicious links is not equivalent to not locking your door. It's equivalent to not trusting random strangers showing up at your door and asking you to let them in. Quite a lot people fail at that security measure also in real life.
Not all real life attacks are blowing something up. Ever heard of a locksmith? Ever heard about using social engineering to get into a building? Ever heard about brute-force searching a physical number lock? Or about breaking into a safe with the help of a stethoscope?
You are behind the times. Today's attacks are Windows attacks. :-)
For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three!
I'll kill you by not eating a poisonous animal!
Sea Kittens?
Much as I dislike PETA's immature, attention-whoring, hardline, hypocritical, etc. etc. stance in general, the "sea kittens" thing at least (somewhat) raises the issue about people's double standards when it comes to animal cruelty, etc. Let's be honest, if you're a cute animal, you'll get *way* more people fighting to protect you. Baby seals vs. nasty looking insects? No competition.
Not to mention tapeworms. :-)
Especially interesting in this context is the following entry (emphasis by me):
Eating someone else's dog is certainly not OK. Just like it would not be OK to eat someone else's pig. Or someone else's banana, for that matter.