The security of your computer and your network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks. It's not enough for you to maintain a secure network. If everybody else doesn't maintain their security, we're all more vulnerable to attack. When there are lots of insecure computers connected to the Internet, worms spread faster and more extensively, distributed denial-of-service attacks are easier to launch, and spammers have more platforms from which to send e-mail. The more insecure the average computer on the Internet is, the more insecure your computer is.
It's like malaria: everyone is safer when we all work together to drain the swamps and increase the level of hygiene in our community.
This is the backdrop from which to understand Microsoft's Windows XP security upgrade: Service Pack 2. SP2 is a major security upgrade. It includes features like Windows Firewall, an enhanced personal firewall that is turned on by default, and a better automatic patching feature. It includes a bunch of small security improvements. It makes Windows XP more secure.
In early May, stories were written saying that Microsoft would make this upgrade available to all XP users, both licensed and unlicensed. To me, this was a very smart move on Microsoft's part. Think about all the ways it benefits Microsoft. One, its licensed users are more secure. Two, its licensed users are happier. Three, worms that attack Microsoft products are less virulent, which means Microsoft doesn't look as bad in the press. Microsoft wins, Microsoft's customers win, the Internet wins. It's the kind of marketing move that businessmen write best-selling books about.
Sadly, the press was wrong. Soon after, Microsoft said the initial comments were wrong, and that SP2 would not run on pirated copies of XP. Those copies would not be upgradeable, and would remain insecure. Only legal copies of the software could be secured.
This is the wrong decision, for all the same reasons that the opposite decision was the correct one.
Of course, Microsoft is within its rights to deny service to those who have pirated its products. It makes sense for them to make sure performance or feature upgrades do not run on pirated software. They want to deny people who haven't paid for Microsoft products the benefit of them, and entice them to become licensed users. But security upgrades are different. Microsoft is harming its licensed users by denying security to its unlicensed users.
This decision, more than anything else Microsoft has said or done in the last few years, proves to me that security is not the first priority of the company. Here was a chance to do the right thing: to put security ahead of profits. Here was a chance to look good in the press, and improve security for all their users worldwide. Microsoft claims that improving security is the most important thing, but their actions prove otherwise.
SP2 is an important security upgrade to Windows XP, and I hope it is widely installed among licensed XP users. I also hope it is quickly pirated, so unlicensed XP users can also install it. In order for me to remain secure on the Internet, I need everyone to become more secure. And the more people who install SP2, the more we all benefit.
I've reconsidered my comment. I can think of lots of Republicans who think the social security fund is their money to borrow from and to spend. Let me rephrase then.
If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
The answer here is simple: because this is the National Library. The government can do whatever it wants because it makes the rules. We serfs must follow its edicts, but we should not expect it to be bound by its own rules.
(1) As a creationist, I think that it is important to challenge students to challenge this pervasive scientific theory. Although my degree was in physics rather than biology, the evidence that I see presented for evolution raises more than reasonable doubt.
(2) As a conservative resident of Cobb County, I want the federal courts to back out of our local business and let our schools teach the way that they see fit.
We decided that it shouldn't be possible to 'steal' parked (locked but not returned) bikes from paying customers with the backdoor code. This required a few more lines of code. We also ascertained that with the backdoor code it's not possible to park a bike, because the user knowing the backdoor wouldn't pay anything and would therefore not be motivated to take care of the bike (for example not locking it properly), thus preventing paying customers to rent the bike. To differentiate a HackABike from its untreated fellow bikes even from afar, we taught it a different blinking sequence and removed a sticker on the lock box.
So stealing for individuals is wrong, but stealing from a big, bad company is okay? This is a great example of moral relativism.
I don't know if I'd really worry about that. There is plenty of other loose stuff that people have out on takeoff (books, approved electronics, babies, purses full of who knows what, etc.)
I'd mainly be concerned with interference during landing. A fancy airplane will land itself in zero visability as long as the navigational signals are correct.
You may be right about violating FCC rules. I'm not sure about that one, but I'd like to know.
As for interfering with other peoples' phones, I don't see any reason why that would happen. A room full of people can all use their cell phones at the same time.
Good grief. If they were going to blow up a plane with a phone, then they'd leave it on anyway. If someone else were going to blow up a plane with the phone of someone on board, then there are probably plenty of other ways to do it.
I'm not worried about a phone causing navigational system confusion, but a phone jammer would be a bigger worry than terrorists using cell phones because of a new law.
As a private pilot, I always leave my cell phone on when I fly VFR. (So far I haven't flown into any mountains due to navigational system confusion.)
The only way that I can get my phone to work is to descend very low in a rural area. If I'm up more than about 2000' AGL, then the phone doesn't work. I figure that it gets confused because it probably sees a dozen towers with strong signals.
Commercial aircraft would probably have to install special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly.
Information, by its very nature, is copyable. DRM schemes may stop a casual user from copying information, but it is theoretically impossible to make an invincible DRM system like this due to the very nature of information.
That having been said, Google is smart enough to know this. They have to put what they can in place in order to convince publishers to agree to their system.
Home heating I would believe; cheaper electricity from nuclear sources would solve the same problem. I know that plastics use oil, but I'd have a tough time believing that a huge percentage of oil goes into plastics.
And why should the government limit allowed household power consumption when a cheap, safe and plentiful source of energy - like nuclear energy - is available? Let technology take us forward, not backward.
(1) Waste can be disposed of easily and safely without pumping pollution directly into the athmosphere. The safety comes from modern designs that can't "melt down."
(2) See my followup for your critism on the use of oil.
This is a quick follow-up and is not intended to be included in my original question.
Some may object to my linking dependence on foreign oil with nuclear power since most oil is used for automobile fuel. I find the link in the belief that as electricity becomes more plentiful, cleaner and cheaper - all effects of nuclear power - then the market will drive the production of electric cars as an alternative to internal combustion.
Because of this, I believe that pro-nuclear is also pro-environment.
Your party's issue statement on nuclear power calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new, safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?
Not to mention vendors "retiring" old software and hardware so that it's no longer supported. Eventually something is going to break - you have to plan for failure.
During a production phase isn't the time that you want to have to put in an unplanned upgrade because something broke which can't be repaired or replaced.
When (not if) the source code is leaked, then how long will it be before MSFT claims that office code was integrated into OpenOffice. How much in royalties will they demand?
Good point. I'm a pilot who's sick of FAA over-regulation. I'm not saying that there is no need of some regulation, but you know something's wrong when it takes 11 years to get approval for something that the government does routinely.
If people want to do aerobatics over sparsely populated areas in class E or G airspace, let 'em take their own risk.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading a Crypto-Gram article on this a while back. Here's some great, relevant commentary from Schneier. The original link is http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0406.html#4.
The security of your computer and your network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks. It's not enough for you to maintain a secure network. If everybody else doesn't maintain their security, we're all more vulnerable to attack. When there are lots of insecure computers connected to the Internet, worms spread faster and more extensively, distributed denial-of-service attacks are easier to launch, and spammers have more platforms from which to send e-mail. The more insecure the average computer on the Internet is, the more insecure your computer is.
It's like malaria: everyone is safer when we all work together to drain the swamps and increase the level of hygiene in our community.
This is the backdrop from which to understand Microsoft's Windows XP security upgrade: Service Pack 2. SP2 is a major security upgrade. It includes features like Windows Firewall, an enhanced personal firewall that is turned on by default, and a better automatic patching feature. It includes a bunch of small security improvements. It makes Windows XP more secure.
In early May, stories were written saying that Microsoft would make this upgrade available to all XP users, both licensed and unlicensed. To me, this was a very smart move on Microsoft's part. Think about all the ways it benefits Microsoft. One, its licensed users are more secure. Two, its licensed users are happier. Three, worms that attack Microsoft products are less virulent, which means Microsoft doesn't look as bad in the press. Microsoft wins, Microsoft's customers win, the Internet wins. It's the kind of marketing move that businessmen write best-selling books about.
Sadly, the press was wrong. Soon after, Microsoft said the initial comments were wrong, and that SP2 would not run on pirated copies of XP. Those copies would not be upgradeable, and would remain insecure. Only legal copies of the software could be secured.
This is the wrong decision, for all the same reasons that the opposite decision was the correct one.
Of course, Microsoft is within its rights to deny service to those who have pirated its products. It makes sense for them to make sure performance or feature upgrades do not run on pirated software. They want to deny people who haven't paid for Microsoft products the benefit of them, and entice them to become licensed users. But security upgrades are different. Microsoft is harming its licensed users by denying security to its unlicensed users.
This decision, more than anything else Microsoft has said or done in the last few years, proves to me that security is not the first priority of the company. Here was a chance to do the right thing: to put security ahead of profits. Here was a chance to look good in the press, and improve security for all their users worldwide. Microsoft claims that improving security is the most important thing, but their actions prove otherwise.
SP2 is an important security upgrade to Windows XP, and I hope it is widely installed among licensed XP users. I also hope it is quickly pirated, so unlicensed XP users can also install it. In order for me to remain secure on the Internet, I need everyone to become more secure. And the more people who install SP2, the more we all benefit.
Heh. I wish that someone could moderate funny and insightful at the same time.
I've reconsidered my comment. I can think of lots of Republicans who think the social security fund is their money to borrow from and to spend. Let me rephrase then.
Spoken like a true liberal.
If we live forever, we can work forever.
Spoken like a true Democrat.
Hey! This is the first time that I can comment spam and have it not modded off topic!
If Joe Sixpack kills someone and is forgiven, why shouldn't anyone else be? While that is an extreme (and criminal) analogy, it is unfair that the law does not treat everyone equally.
The answer here is simple: because this is the National Library. The government can do whatever it wants because it makes the rules. We serfs must follow its edicts, but we should not expect it to be bound by its own rules.
(1) As a creationist, I think that it is important to challenge students to challenge this pervasive scientific theory. Although my degree was in physics rather than biology, the evidence that I see presented for evolution raises more than reasonable doubt.
(2) As a conservative resident of Cobb County, I want the federal courts to back out of our local business and let our schools teach the way that they see fit.
These people's "ethics" are laughable.
So stealing for individuals is wrong, but stealing from a big, bad company is okay? This is a great example of moral relativism.
Thanks for putting it so well.
I don't know if I'd really worry about that. There is plenty of other loose stuff that people have out on takeoff (books, approved electronics, babies, purses full of who knows what, etc.)
I'd mainly be concerned with interference during landing. A fancy airplane will land itself in zero visability as long as the navigational signals are correct.
You may be right about violating FCC rules. I'm not sure about that one, but I'd like to know.
As for interfering with other peoples' phones, I don't see any reason why that would happen. A room full of people can all use their cell phones at the same time.
When you get your IFR, don't use the cell phone. I wouldn't take the risk. Also, it's illegal under IFR.
Good grief. If they were going to blow up a plane with a phone, then they'd leave it on anyway. If someone else were going to blow up a plane with the phone of someone on board, then there are probably plenty of other ways to do it.
I'm not worried about a phone causing navigational system confusion, but a phone jammer would be a bigger worry than terrorists using cell phones because of a new law.
As a private pilot, I always leave my cell phone on when I fly VFR. (So far I haven't flown into any mountains due to navigational system confusion.)
The only way that I can get my phone to work is to descend very low in a rural area. If I'm up more than about 2000' AGL, then the phone doesn't work. I figure that it gets confused because it probably sees a dozen towers with strong signals.
Commercial aircraft would probably have to install special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly.
Absolutely. All it takes is one sucess and Pandora's box is opened.
The watermarking technique would be good for distributors to identify theaters where the problems occur.
Information, by its very nature, is copyable. DRM schemes may stop a casual user from copying information, but it is theoretically impossible to make an invincible DRM system like this due to the very nature of information.
That having been said, Google is smart enough to know this. They have to put what they can in place in order to convince publishers to agree to their system.
No kidding. What a jerk.
Home heating I would believe; cheaper electricity from nuclear sources would solve the same problem. I know that plastics use oil, but I'd have a tough time believing that a huge percentage of oil goes into plastics.
And why should the government limit allowed household power consumption when a cheap, safe and plentiful source of energy - like nuclear energy - is available? Let technology take us forward, not backward.
(1) Waste can be disposed of easily and safely without pumping pollution directly into the athmosphere. The safety comes from modern designs that can't "melt down."
(2) See my followup for your critism on the use of oil.
This is a quick follow-up and is not intended to be included in my original question.
Some may object to my linking dependence on foreign oil with nuclear power since most oil is used for automobile fuel. I find the link in the belief that as electricity becomes more plentiful, cleaner and cheaper - all effects of nuclear power - then the market will drive the production of electric cars as an alternative to internal combustion.
Because of this, I believe that pro-nuclear is also pro-environment.
Thank you for taking our questions, Mr. Cobb.
Your party's issue statement on nuclear power calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new, safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?
Thank you.
Not to mention vendors "retiring" old software and hardware so that it's no longer supported. Eventually something is going to break - you have to plan for failure.
During a production phase isn't the time that you want to have to put in an unplanned upgrade because something broke which can't be repaired or replaced.
When (not if) the source code is leaked, then how long will it be before MSFT claims that office code was integrated into OpenOffice. How much in royalties will they demand?
Good point. I'm a pilot who's sick of FAA over-regulation. I'm not saying that there is no need of some regulation, but you know something's wrong when it takes 11 years to get approval for something that the government does routinely.
If people want to do aerobatics over sparsely populated areas in class E or G airspace, let 'em take their own risk.