People always use this analogy... that of leaving your door unlocked and someone walking in, or leaving your door locked and someone testing it.
I was told once that because I port scanned a computer I could be charged with breaking and entering. It was bullshit but...
What if a store leaves their door open? or even closed, with the door unlocked? or even closed with the door unlocked, and a big "closed" sign out front? If you walk in not noticing the sign, see that no-one's there and leave, you're going to be a little confused if the police try to charge you with breaking and entering. There was no breaking here, and there was no breaking with the port scan. Trespassing maybe? on a store? I see no "no trespassing" sign.
How do you distinguish between a store (public service on the internet) and an unlocked house (home computer with an unintentionally left open anonymous ftp server) ? It's not like we have zoning regulations or something.
Sometimes when someone sends me a link to a file for download, I'll remove the filename from the URL and get an index site listing what else they have available. The person might not have intended for me to be able to download the rest of their files, am I trespassing on them?
How do you even define this random checking for existance of services as being malicious? because it's ssh its malicious? What about ftp? What about www? If I type in a random URL into a web browser to see if a site exists, and they didn't want me there, am I trespassing? Is the automation what makes it malicious? If I try a random ftp server, and they let me in "with email address as password" and they didn't want me there, am I breaking and entering? What if I look for anonymous ftp services automatedly? Search engines browse the web automatedly. What if I really did type the wrong IP address when trying to login to my box as root? What if it actually let me in!? Where do you draw the line?
They should've included the standard deviation or something within countries... I wonder how many cafes they checked within each country. I know I paid much less than 2.50 for internet access in szechuan china.
There's a section at this link ("And In Theory: Maybe Java should be faster") about why it makes sense that java performs better than C++ in some situations:
http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmar k.html
There are many things that java can do to optimize that C++ by it's nature just can't do. So many people make the assumption that java being faster than C++, as you say, "just doesn't make any sense." It does make sense.
Yes there will *always* be some bias in any benchmark, but every language has its pluses and minuses. There are many cases where a well written java program will perform better than a C++ program, even if the C++ program is written really well (and vice versa).
The third point at the link I reference, "Run time compilation," which he considers the least convincing, does apply to 90% of the code I write because I'm usually using java in web applications.
Yahoo! doesn't include bulk email as contributing to your usage. Does anyone know if gmail does?
I was happy to see my limit go from 6mb to 100mb this morning...
I'm still hoping something like petmail will replace smtp email though.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read this article. In college at the computer labs (each computer had it's host name written on it and we had accounts on all of them) I'd ssh into friends computers and write a quick while(1){fork;} to crash their computers (they did it to me too, we were just entertaining each other while doing homework). What's the point of this fancy longer chunck of code? It's no better...
yes, usually you sign in in a library, but it's just not true about the coffee shops, and often not true about universities.
There are three coffee shops within 3 blocks of my apartment that offer free wireless. I can access one coffee shop's network from a neighboring shop that doesen't even offer network access.
If I walk a half a mile down the street I can go into another coffee shop and pay an hourly rate to sit at a plugged in computer, and no one would know who I was or what I was doing. I know of at least 3-4 shops like this in my city, and I could find more if I needed to.
Comp USA also offers free walk up internet connected terminals that I could use to do whatever I want.
I spent a month going to kinkos and using their free laptop plugins 8 hours per day. no-one had any idea who I was (I'd just got there, and moved out of the area at the end of the month). They did not require me to "sign in" in any way.
If I needed to (because there was an un-enforced 30 minute usage limit) I could walk across the street and leach off a wireless network... It was convenient, but would have made no difference in responsibility or difficulty if I was doing something illegal.
I've gone to many walk-up network terminals where I pump in quarters to access the internet, and no-one is even around to see me.
If I want to do something on the internet, and don't want to be traced, it is *very* easy to avoid being traced. Securing open wireless networks is not going to change that. No one else who provides network access to the public is held responsible for the actions of the networks users, and holding random non-tech savy users responsible for their open wireless networks is non-sense.
I don't secure my network, and I wish others didn't either. I wish people would stop being so afraid. These silly articles aren't helping.
Are you claiming that it's my responsibility to ensure that nothing illegal is done using my network connection? I've heard that argument before and I think it's a load of crap.
Do they hold libraries responsible for hacking done on free network connections they provide?
Do they hold universities responsible for hacking done on free network connections they provide. I don't just meant by their students, who pay for it, I can walk into most universities and plug my laptop into any random jack and get a connection). Either way though, it's the user of the network who is responsible for the hacking.
Are coffee shops with open wireless networks to be held responsible for hacking done through their wireless networks? (or through their free plug-ins?)
Even paid network access in coffee shops record nothing about who you are... trying to hold someone responsible for something done by a person using their network connection is just ridiculous. If you were to hold a network provider responsible every time, just think how many ISP's could be sued for every damaging hack ever performed.
I don't see why any household wireless user ever sets up a closed wireless network. I'm seeing more and more articles about the percentage of insecure wireless networks and I think all of these articles are ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
I was told once that because I port scanned a computer I could be charged with breaking and entering. It was bullshit but...
What if a store leaves their door open? or even closed, with the door unlocked? or even closed with the door unlocked, and a big "closed" sign out front? If you walk in not noticing the sign, see that no-one's there and leave, you're going to be a little confused if the police try to charge you with breaking and entering. There was no breaking here, and there was no breaking with the port scan. Trespassing maybe? on a store? I see no "no trespassing" sign.
How do you distinguish between a store (public service on the internet) and an unlocked house (home computer with an unintentionally left open anonymous ftp server) ? It's not like we have zoning regulations or something.
Sometimes when someone sends me a link to a file for download, I'll remove the filename from the URL and get an index site listing what else they have available. The person might not have intended for me to be able to download the rest of their files, am I trespassing on them?
How do you even define this random checking for existance of services as being malicious? because it's ssh its malicious? What about ftp? What about www? If I type in a random URL into a web browser to see if a site exists, and they didn't want me there, am I trespassing? Is the automation what makes it malicious? If I try a random ftp server, and they let me in "with email address as password" and they didn't want me there, am I breaking and entering? What if I look for anonymous ftp services automatedly? Search engines browse the web automatedly. What if I really did type the wrong IP address when trying to login to my box as root? What if it actually let me in!? Where do you draw the line?
They should've included the standard deviation or something within countries... I wonder how many cafes they checked within each country. I know I paid much less than 2.50 for internet access in szechuan china.
It also crashed internet explorer when I clicked it.
There's a section at this link ("And In Theory: Maybe Java should be faster") about why it makes sense that java performs better than C++ in some situations: http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmar k.html
There are many things that java can do to optimize that C++ by it's nature just can't do. So many people make the assumption that java being faster than C++, as you say, "just doesn't make any sense." It does make sense.
Yes there will *always* be some bias in any benchmark, but every language has its pluses and minuses. There are many cases where a well written java program will perform better than a C++ program, even if the C++ program is written really well (and vice versa).
The third point at the link I reference, "Run time compilation," which he considers the least convincing, does apply to 90% of the code I write because I'm usually using java in web applications.
Yahoo! doesn't include bulk email as contributing to your usage. Does anyone know if gmail does? I was happy to see my limit go from 6mb to 100mb this morning...
I'm still hoping something like petmail will replace smtp email though.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read this article. In college at the computer labs (each computer had it's host name written on it and we had accounts on all of them) I'd ssh into friends computers and write a quick while(1){fork;} to crash their computers (they did it to me too, we were just entertaining each other while doing homework). What's the point of this fancy longer chunck of code? It's no better...
yes, usually you sign in in a library, but it's just not true about the coffee shops, and often not true about universities.
There are three coffee shops within 3 blocks of my apartment that offer free wireless. I can access one coffee shop's network from a neighboring shop that doesen't even offer network access.
If I walk a half a mile down the street I can go into another coffee shop and pay an hourly rate to sit at a plugged in computer, and no one would know who I was or what I was doing. I know of at least 3-4 shops like this in my city, and I could find more if I needed to.
Comp USA also offers free walk up internet connected terminals that I could use to do whatever I want.
I spent a month going to kinkos and using their free laptop plugins 8 hours per day. no-one had any idea who I was (I'd just got there, and moved out of the area at the end of the month). They did not require me to "sign in" in any way. If I needed to (because there was an un-enforced 30 minute usage limit) I could walk across the street and leach off a wireless network... It was convenient, but would have made no difference in responsibility or difficulty if I was doing something illegal.
I've gone to many walk-up network terminals where I pump in quarters to access the internet, and no-one is even around to see me.
If I want to do something on the internet, and don't want to be traced, it is *very* easy to avoid being traced. Securing open wireless networks is not going to change that. No one else who provides network access to the public is held responsible for the actions of the networks users, and holding random non-tech savy users responsible for their open wireless networks is non-sense.
I don't secure my network, and I wish others didn't either. I wish people would stop being so afraid. These silly articles aren't helping.
Are you claiming that it's my responsibility to ensure that nothing illegal is done using my network connection? I've heard that argument before and I think it's a load of crap. Do they hold libraries responsible for hacking done on free network connections they provide? Do they hold universities responsible for hacking done on free network connections they provide. I don't just meant by their students, who pay for it, I can walk into most universities and plug my laptop into any random jack and get a connection). Either way though, it's the user of the network who is responsible for the hacking. Are coffee shops with open wireless networks to be held responsible for hacking done through their wireless networks? (or through their free plug-ins?) Even paid network access in coffee shops record nothing about who you are... trying to hold someone responsible for something done by a person using their network connection is just ridiculous. If you were to hold a network provider responsible every time, just think how many ISP's could be sued for every damaging hack ever performed. I don't see why any household wireless user ever sets up a closed wireless network. I'm seeing more and more articles about the percentage of insecure wireless networks and I think all of these articles are ridiculous.
Did you watch the video? It *is* ported to windows. He was running it through cygwin.