A group of ppl. trying to justify their moral/religious convictions as laws, will always create problems, be they democrtats/republicans or any-one for that matter.
but that still doesn't answer my question.
Why the need to put the private key in the kernel/os/application/what-ever in the first place ?
I mean doesn't it defeat the very purpose of asymetric key encryption. what good is it, if i have to start distributing my private key . I thought thats what public keys are for
Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private
keys in the binary
Can someone explain what's he talking about here ?
AFAIK, You sign someting with your private key and ppl. can use your public key to verify the integrety of the message.
Also if you want encryption, then u encrypt with the receivers public key so that only he can decrypt it with his private key
No where in this process is the private key required to be disclosed.
So what am i missing here ? or is he talking of some totally different keys ?
You beat me to it
I am fully behind GPL, but the credibility of the study is a major concern when they don't know that IBM's Database is called DB2, while Sybase is an altogether different company.
I am very much tempted to draw parallels btwn the ongoing SCO v/s IBM case and ben johnson v/s carl lewis case.
SCO is a big time looser so was johnson.
IBM is a very successful company with a long history , so is carl lewis (9 oly. gold medals is no joke).
But sadly now with all the aligations against lewis comming true, i am no longer sure what's going on.
If indeed the code contributed by IBM to GNU/Linux is a IP of SCO , then may be they are right ?
The issue whether IP are unethical or destroy innovations etc etc is totally a different one.
What we have here at hand is one company alleging another company violated their IP, which is illegal under the current LAW. Almost like me selling your town-house, you wouldn't like that would ya ?
So keeping all emotions asides what needs to be done is to verify the legitimacy of their claim and pass a ruling accordingly.
And the great american law also doesn't prohibit IBM from suing SCO with a bundle of their own lawsuit
Oh please..
Although most of my coding is in Java, I would be the last person to use a Java GUI tool. JFC/Swing are hopeless slow. AWT is not bad but slow yet compared to vim or even emacs.
Borland JB is a big mess of stuff that i don't need. I have coded in Java for more than 4 years now, and I don't need most of the features that JB offers.
All I need is
syntax highlighting:- VIM can highlight over 200 types of files
customisable/plug-in support:- Customisable beyond belif, can write plug-ins in ruby/perl/python
fast load time , response time:- Can't beat vim there
reg-ex support:- This is where vim beats them all, Can't imagine editing without , ,
Quanta Plus is probaly the only WYSWYG editor i have used and liked.
I use vim for all my work, be it writing c/java code, shell scripts, html/xml , emails . basically everything that requires using keyboard for extended amount of time.
Over the years i have tried various IDEs and WYSWYG editors and gave up on them after some time to fall back to my trusted VIM.
Most of them are too bloated and takes ages just to start up. Plus you need a special directory structure and so on so forth.
Quanta plus is very fast, the pre-view actually works , and very intutive piece of s/w.
But why did mozilla team pickup the name firebird ? I am preety sure they knew about the firebird database.
So why firebird ? I mean why create a controversy even if it's legal.
For 's sake, how difficult is it to come up with a name . Why not just call it mozilla-lite ?
Well, the Windows acrobat reader is the biggest blot i have ever seen.
Plus the update agent which hogs my bandwidth. Seriously why would i want to check for acrobat reader updates each and every day ?
My advice is to use ghostview
And then you do know that the BSD license explicitly allows this kind of work.
If you are using a product licensed under BSD type license then you CAN develop based on top of it and release your product as a closed source/proprietory application.
If you have any issues with that then you can take them to the ppl. who release their products under BSD* licenses.
Any body in M$ position would exploit the situation.
Here you go, you "too lazy to read the article" newbie it randomizes stack, code, heap and shared libraries
PaX randomizes the place a program is loaded into memory. Buffer overflow attacks depend on the exact location of memory locations. Attacks are much harder when that location varies every time a program is executed. Thus making it much harder for attackers to locate the exact locations they need for a succesful attack. Again, PaX is the first to implement this kind of protection. No other UNIX system uses this kind of protection against buffer overflows, except OpenBSD. But their implementation is more restricted. It will randomize only one aspect of the memory (which technical people call the stack) where PaX randomizes four aspects (stack, heap, libraries and the main executable) and their implementation uses 10 bits against 24 bits for PaX it does strict mprotect() checking
it adds proper checking to how memory is being used, to prevent badly written programs from accidentally opening up certain kinds of security holes it also protects the kernel.
Third, PaX tries to do its best to keep code and data separate. Many buffer overflow attacks try to write some data and then try to execute it, as if it were code. PaX tries to prevent this.
Fourth, PaX enforces the same kind of protection to the core of the system, the Linux kernel itself. Again, this is unique to PaX, there is no other UNIX system which offers the same kind of protection of its kernel Trusted Debian also uses the stack protector patch for GCC developed by Hiroaki Etoh at IBM, which adds overflow checks to C/C++ code.
The second product used by Trusted Debian to solve the buffer overflow problem is called the stack protector, formerly known as propolice. It is a modified GCC compiler written by Hiroaki Etoh at IBM and it adds a kind of ``booby-traps'' inside programs which are triggered when a buffer overflow occurs. The program is then terminated before the overflow can do any damage. It also features FreeS/WAN and RSBAC, an extensive access control framework.
Trusted Debian adds more than just these buffer overflow protection technology. Version v1.0 also ships with RSBAC, an extensive access control framework which will play an important role in future releases. And FreeS/WAN, which is able to encrypt all TCP/IP communication between two machines and can therefore be used for setting up VPNs or securing wireless LAN communication, among other things.
but the linux kit, albeit more expensive than you r solution, it will allow you to customize your PS2 to your needs.
plus you can store files locally and avoid streaming delays.
Slashdot Mirror
Well not really,
This time I won't be looking over my back or glancing thru my window
I am gonna celebrate this landmark victory by downloading move movies from kazaa..
Organ transplants are best left to the professionals
A group of ppl. trying to justify their moral/religious convictions as laws, will always create problems, be they democrtats/republicans or any-one for that matter.
but that still doesn't answer my question.
Why the need to put the private key in the kernel/os/application/what-ever in the first place ?
I mean doesn't it defeat the very purpose of asymetric key encryption. what good is it, if i have to start distributing my private key . I thought thats what public keys are for
Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private keys in the binary
Can someone explain what's he talking about here ?
AFAIK, You sign someting with your private key and ppl. can use your public key to verify the integrety of the message.
Also if you want encryption, then u encrypt with the receivers public key so that only he can decrypt it with his private key
No where in this process is the private key required to be disclosed.
So what am i missing here ? or is he talking of some totally different keys ?
You beat me to it
I am fully behind GPL, but the credibility of the study is a major concern when they don't know that IBM's Database is called DB2, while Sybase is an altogether different company.
SCO is a big time looser so was johnson.
IBM is a very successful company with a long history , so is carl lewis (9 oly. gold medals is no joke).
But sadly now with all the aligations against lewis comming true, i am no longer sure what's going on.
If indeed the code contributed by IBM to GNU/Linux is a IP of SCO , then may be they are right ?
The issue whether IP are unethical or destroy innovations etc etc is totally a different one.
What we have here at hand is one company alleging another company violated their IP, which is illegal under the current LAW. Almost like me selling your town-house, you wouldn't like that would ya ?
So keeping all emotions asides what needs to be done is to verify the legitimacy of their claim and pass a ruling accordingly.
And the great american law also doesn't prohibit IBM from suing SCO with a bundle of their own lawsuit
a large conference on spam hosted by the FTC(which will be attended by many spammers)
Can we bomb them, Oh please can we bomb them ?
Although most of my coding is in Java, I would be the last person to use a Java GUI tool. JFC/Swing are hopeless slow. AWT is not bad but slow yet compared to vim or even emacs.
Borland JB is a big mess of stuff that i don't need. I have coded in Java for more than 4 years now, and I don't need most of the features that JB offers.
All I need is
Rest I can manage on my own, thank you very much.
I use vim for all my work, be it writing c/java code, shell scripts, html/xml , emails . basically everything that requires using keyboard for extended amount of time.
Over the years i have tried various IDEs and WYSWYG editors and gave up on them after some time to fall back to my trusted VIM.
Most of them are too bloated and takes ages just to start up. Plus you need a special directory structure and so on so forth.
Quanta plus is very fast, the pre-view actually works , and very intutive piece of s/w.
How about "Bird on Fire" ?
And just how many are running Firebird browser ?
But why did mozilla team pickup the name firebird ? I am preety sure they knew about the firebird database.
So why firebird ? I mean why create a controversy even if it's legal.
For 's sake, how difficult is it to come up with a name . Why not just call it mozilla-lite ?
Well, the Windows acrobat reader is the biggest blot i have ever seen.
Plus the update agent which hogs my bandwidth. Seriously why would i want to check for acrobat reader updates each and every day ?
My advice is to use ghostview
And then you do know that the BSD license explicitly allows this kind of work. If you are using a product licensed under BSD type license then you CAN develop based on top of it and release your product as a closed source/proprietory application.
If you have any issues with that then you can take them to the ppl. who release their products under BSD* licenses.
Any body in M$ position would exploit the situation.
Here you go, you "too lazy to read the article" newbie
it randomizes stack, code, heap and shared libraries
PaX randomizes the place a program is loaded into memory. Buffer overflow attacks depend on the exact location of memory locations. Attacks are much harder when that location varies every time a program is executed. Thus making it much harder for attackers to locate the exact locations they need for a succesful attack. Again, PaX is the first to implement this kind of protection. No other UNIX system uses this kind of protection against buffer overflows, except OpenBSD. But their implementation is more restricted. It will randomize only one aspect of the memory (which technical people call the stack) where PaX randomizes four aspects (stack, heap, libraries and the main executable) and their implementation uses 10 bits against 24 bits for PaX
it does strict mprotect() checking
it adds proper checking to how memory is being used, to prevent badly written programs from accidentally opening up certain kinds of security holes
it also protects the kernel.
Third, PaX tries to do its best to keep code and data separate. Many buffer overflow attacks try to write some data and then try to execute it, as if it were code. PaX tries to prevent this. Fourth, PaX enforces the same kind of protection to the core of the system, the Linux kernel itself. Again, this is unique to PaX, there is no other UNIX system which offers the same kind of protection of its kernel
Trusted Debian also uses the stack protector patch for GCC developed by Hiroaki Etoh at IBM, which adds overflow checks to C/C++ code.
The second product used by Trusted Debian to solve the buffer overflow problem is called the stack protector, formerly known as propolice. It is a modified GCC compiler written by Hiroaki Etoh at IBM and it adds a kind of ``booby-traps'' inside programs which are triggered when a buffer overflow occurs. The program is then terminated before the overflow can do any damage.
It also features FreeS/WAN and RSBAC, an extensive access control framework. Trusted Debian adds more than just these buffer overflow protection technology. Version v1.0 also ships with RSBAC, an extensive access control framework which will play an important role in future releases. And FreeS/WAN, which is able to encrypt all TCP/IP communication between two machines and can therefore be used for setting up VPNs or securing wireless LAN communication, among other things.
Actually , IF they build a microwave that can be controlled via bluetooth..
how ironic !
plus it gave me added edge even when working on HP/UX and Solaris boxes at work
But a question to all unix system administrators out there
Do you see the need of GUI based admin tools as available in windows for unix boxes ? When i say unix boxes i mean servers not desktops.
because even if i am a linux desktop user, i hardly feel the need for a GUI admin tool for configuring my system
I can easily do most of the config using a xterm + bash + vi.
So how many of you find it easy to configure a system using GUI than CLI ?
Well It depends on what the meaning of word "privacy" is..
Well,
I don't suggest something that's not possible.
Check this out TV Out on PS2+ Linux
but the linux kit, albeit more expensive than you r solution, it will allow you to customize your PS2 to your needs.
plus you can store files locally and avoid streaming delays.
Well, I play tetris you fool, and all it requires is a good hand-eye co-ordination.