BS. I start MAYBE a dozen or so programs a day on my computer. So how significant is my difference? I would have saved what on Linux, a fraction of a half of a second?
Perhaps if you're running a server AND using some stone-age CGI executable that's called millions of times the differences may start to pile up... but probably not. Most such things on Windows are created as services that are always running, don't need process creation to do their jobs, and use threads that are faster than Linux versions.
Ahh... And I was wondering when the clueless would start to chime in.
Your workstation != Real world servers under high load
For that matter, if they really wanted to honour someone who's responsible for the Internet as we know it today, then Tim Berners-Lee would also have deserved one.
WWW != Internet
You do realize that Sir Tim built WWW on top of the bedrock that Cerf and others created?
But of course, Tim's a European, and we can't give awards to those pesky foreigners, now can we?
Well, considering it's the US Medal of Freedom, I'd say the list of foreigners that have one is pretty small. I know two popes have received one. It's probably as common as an US citizen being knighted in England.
Keep trying, you've almost got that "anything US does is bad" knee-jerk down pat.
Yeah, I started thinking about how I would go about it after I posted. I was thinking along the lines of a "noisy" image. Sort of like a vid capture. You could artificially increase the noise and most likely still remain below the threshold of detection.
And really, I wasn't so much talking about being able to recover the information. I was going at simply detecting that information is there. And I do agree selectively targeting the noise in a file (be it image or video - those would most likely have the most) would be the best way.
I have a utility on a floppy disk that allows you to reset the admin password on any Windows box
Oh no! You have access to my... office application...
So you have access to a workstation, whee! Considering all documents/important stuff are stored on a network drive protected by my network account. Not all that concerned. Yeah maybe you can get access to some of the tools I use, but again since they are tied into the same network account (do you see a theme here?), they would do you no good.
Really, unless you have physical access to the servers (which don't have floppies anyhow) or have really incompetent IT staff you shouldn't be as concerned with a workstation breach. Be concerned, sure, but they are still steps removed from getting the "meat".
No it's not. A statistical analysis of the hue frequency of the bmp, jpg, tiff, etc... would show a high likelihood of whether a message was embedded in an image. I had a training class earlier in the year, and we spent a couple hours on just this detection technique. Some of the stego tools require a different type of analysis alogotihtm to detect them, but it all boils down to the fact that a message embedded into a non-random collection of information can be detected.
Now, you actually have to be looking for it, but they can be detected. It's still a fairly secure way to pass messages in a medium where images are moving at a high volume such as a news group. It would be next to impossible to analyze every image for embedded info, let alone trying to decipher that image.
The message may be as unbreakable as modorn crypto is, but since stego isn't doing the crypto work anyway... All stego does is embed a message. If you want it to be encrypted, you'd have to do that before hand.
I suppose you could encrypt the data, with a suitably powerful key, then store the encrypted data at Google and keep the keys yourself.
But then, what qould be the point? The whole idea is to have them organize your data so it's easily searchable.
Not sure about the legality
It should be legal (if encrypted). HIPAA is about protecting data and patient privacy. If you use something like AES with a 256 bit key, I would think that's damn well protected. I believe the minimum level required for encryption is 3DES.
They are neither assisting or hindering that country's attack on another country. By selling weapons and ammunition to them they are simply increasing sales, which may help them win the war, but they are not helping.
Wha?
This is a database not munitions... You do know the difference, right? Man, I feel stupider for having read your post. Thanks.
They're 99p in the UK. That's more than $2 Australian. They're unlikely to be cheaper here, and I did say over $2.
You did read the article...right? If you did you must have missed this part:
The iTunes Australia store is expected to provide largely the same offerings as its US and European stores, delivering access to almost one million songs at between AU$0.99 and AU$1.69 per song.
That law says that you can't shut someone down from doing something unless you have evidence that it's illegal.
Well, considering you can't get a warrent unless there's enough prior evidence pointing to the likelihood of a crime being committed, I'm thinking you're right. You did see the part about warrents, right? And the warrent will list explicitly what can and can't be seized during a search. You have to tell the signing judge what it is you're looking for. A judge will not sign a "blanket warrent".
There's a fundamental difference between confiscating someone's crack and confiscating their computer. Mere possession of crack is illegal; if you stop a guy with crack, you know he's doing something illegal with it, and can take it.
Um, no. If both are being used to commit a crime there is no difference. And your crack analogy may be flawed. That's if you're talking about some guy being nabbed at random because he's acting in a suspicious manner. If, instead, you're talking about a warrent served to collect bags of crack at someone's home, then your analogy isn't flawed - simply wrong. If I have a delivery truck I use to make a living but I use it to run down pedestrians in the evening (hey I gotta unwind), it won't matter that my means of income has been removed. It was what I was using to commit a crime. It will be seized and scrutinized for evidence. The same would hold true if I committed a crime with my computer. It doesn't matter what else I use it for. The fact that I used it for criminal behavior means it gets nabbed for evidence.
If the FBI really wanted to look for evidence, they'd bring a hacker with them on the raid and do a find | grep p3n15 on his boxes.
It's obvious you know nothing about forensic examination of computer systems. You may end up using that technique to recover evidence, but only on a mirror created from the original. And only after you've secured the system. On-site investigation is a last resort and only should be used if there is no other way to get the information. If you were rely on "an investigator did a find | grep p3n15" on the premisis without securing the system, making memory dumps (if possible), mirroring the drives (and mounting them ro - well, all your computer evidence would be most likley be challenged successfully by a competent defense and tossed out. For collecting evidence of a computer crime that would be recklessly irresponsible. It's called chain-of-custody.
I guess I don't understand your comment. I was talking about how easy it was to get a Cingular phone unlocked so it works on all networks (I have a RAZR so it will connect to any GSM network). I called them up, got a code, and now can use local GSM in Europe with a pre-paid SIM.
for real reporting see CNN, Bloomberg, or international news if you can get it.
Ok, Bloomberg as mostly unbiased I can understand... but... but.. CNN?
I hate FOX because they're biased too much to the right. I hate CNN because they are biased toward the left (although not as radically biased as FOX).
I'd rather get my news from wire services. Usually AP... sometimes Rueters (although they seem to be getting a little... shrill over the last few years)
Isn't it funny that your free market has produced monopolies that screw the customer
Well, I don't about that. I just called up Cingular for the Subsidy Code (to turn off the carrier lock) and I had it in my email the next day. Didn't cost me a cent. Of course, I purchased the phone from Amazon without a plan (it wasn't subsidised by Cingular).
I'd say it was poking fun at people who have a smug, self-righteous air about them. You know the one's who get all prickly and can't laugh at themselves. The humor impaired.
Clicking the "up" arrow on your browser could be considered a "directory traversal attack".
I have a forward and back arrow. How did you get an "up" arrow?
Now if you mean accessing an FTP site using a browser, well I think the fact that you're given ".." or an up-arrow as an option, I don't think it'd be a directory traversal.
I'd like to see a Japanese team knock the shinola out of the World Series Champion.
While it'd be cool, don't think it'll happen. We spend boatloads to lure their best players to our teams. And some of them are nothing short of spectacular.
Slashdot Mirror
BS. I start MAYBE a dozen or so programs a day on my computer. So how significant is my difference? I would have saved what on Linux, a fraction of a half of a second? Perhaps if you're running a server AND using some stone-age CGI executable that's called millions of times the differences may start to pile up... but probably not. Most such things on Windows are created as services that are always running, don't need process creation to do their jobs, and use threads that are faster than Linux versions. Ahh... And I was wondering when the clueless would start to chime in. Your workstation != Real world servers under high load
My hat is off to you, sir. You have captured the essence of the quintessential ./ post.
Brilliant.
Yeah, because Wikipedia is a carefully fact-checked journal that only the most thoroughly factual data appears in. *eye roll*
Then verify them for yourself. He did name names and publications. Look them up.
However... I do agree with you re: Wikipedia accuracy.
For that matter, if they really wanted to honour someone who's responsible for the Internet as we know it today, then Tim Berners-Lee would also have deserved one.
WWW != Internet
You do realize that Sir Tim built WWW on top of the bedrock that Cerf and others created?
But of course, Tim's a European, and we can't give awards to those pesky foreigners, now can we?
Well, considering it's the US Medal of Freedom, I'd say the list of foreigners that have one is pretty small. I know two popes have received one. It's probably as common as an US citizen being knighted in England.
Keep trying, you've almost got that "anything US does is bad" knee-jerk down pat.
Yeah, I started thinking about how I would go about it after I posted. I was thinking along the lines of a "noisy" image. Sort of like a vid capture. You could artificially increase the noise and most likely still remain below the threshold of detection. And really, I wasn't so much talking about being able to recover the information. I was going at simply detecting that information is there. And I do agree selectively targeting the noise in a file (be it image or video - those would most likely have the most) would be the best way.
I have a utility on a floppy disk that allows you to reset the admin password on any Windows box
Oh no! You have access to my... office application...
So you have access to a workstation, whee! Considering all documents/important stuff are stored on a network drive protected by my network account. Not all that concerned. Yeah maybe you can get access to some of the tools I use, but again since they are tied into the same network account (do you see a theme here?), they would do you no good.
Really, unless you have physical access to the servers (which don't have floppies anyhow) or have really incompetent IT staff you shouldn't be as concerned with a workstation breach. Be concerned, sure, but they are still steps removed from getting the "meat".
Secure stegangraphy is truly undetectable.
No it's not. A statistical analysis of the hue frequency of the bmp, jpg, tiff, etc... would show a high likelihood of whether a message was embedded in an image. I had a training class earlier in the year, and we spent a couple hours on just this detection technique. Some of the stego tools require a different type of analysis alogotihtm to detect them, but it all boils down to the fact that a message embedded into a non-random collection of information can be detected.
Now, you actually have to be looking for it, but they can be detected. It's still a fairly secure way to pass messages in a medium where images are moving at a high volume such as a news group. It would be next to impossible to analyze every image for embedded info, let alone trying to decipher that image.
The message may be as unbreakable as modorn crypto is, but since stego isn't doing the crypto work anyway... All stego does is embed a message. If you want it to be encrypted, you'd have to do that before hand.
And always walk without rhythm!
Which goes to show a country's people can be absolute ass-hats, and still the country ends up doing the right thing.
Your Google skills are weak. Try doing a search for News: Underwear and KVM. I wonder how many hits you'd get? Reactionary moron.
So you don't see any problems with countries conducting gross violation of human rights as long as they don't recieve your tax dollars?
What the fuck does one have to do with the other?
I suppose you could encrypt the data, with a suitably powerful key, then store the encrypted data at Google and keep the keys yourself.
But then, what qould be the point? The whole idea is to have them organize your data so it's easily searchable.
Not sure about the legality
It should be legal (if encrypted). HIPAA is about protecting data and patient privacy. If you use something like AES with a 256 bit key, I would think that's damn well protected. I believe the minimum level required for encryption is 3DES.
i would pay 5$ CAN for new releases that had a very fast seed and no DRM. no problem. unfortunately, no one wants to make this possible. sad really.
No... what's sad is seeing your numerous rationalizations to justify illegal behavior. But hey, whatever lets you sleep at night.
They are neither assisting or hindering that country's attack on another country. By selling weapons and ammunition to them they are simply increasing sales, which may help them win the war, but they are not helping.
Wha?
This is a database not munitions... You do know the difference, right? Man, I feel stupider for having read your post. Thanks.
They're 99p in the UK. That's more than $2 Australian. They're unlikely to be cheaper here, and I did say over $2.
You did read the article...right? If you did you must have missed this part:
The iTunes Australia store is expected to provide largely the same offerings as its US and European stores, delivering access to almost one million songs at between AU$0.99 and AU$1.69 per song.
That law says that you can't shut someone down from doing something unless you have evidence that it's illegal.
Well, considering you can't get a warrent unless there's enough prior evidence pointing to the likelihood of a crime being committed, I'm thinking you're right. You did see the part about warrents, right? And the warrent will list explicitly what can and can't be seized during a search. You have to tell the signing judge what it is you're looking for. A judge will not sign a "blanket warrent".
There's a fundamental difference between confiscating someone's crack and confiscating their computer. Mere possession of crack is illegal; if you stop a guy with crack, you know he's doing something illegal with it, and can take it.
Um, no. If both are being used to commit a crime there is no difference. And your crack analogy may be flawed. That's if you're talking about some guy being nabbed at random because he's acting in a suspicious manner. If, instead, you're talking about a warrent served to collect bags of crack at someone's home, then your analogy isn't flawed - simply wrong. If I have a delivery truck I use to make a living but I use it to run down pedestrians in the evening (hey I gotta unwind), it won't matter that my means of income has been removed. It was what I was using to commit a crime. It will be seized and scrutinized for evidence. The same would hold true if I committed a crime with my computer. It doesn't matter what else I use it for. The fact that I used it for criminal behavior means it gets nabbed for evidence.
If the FBI really wanted to look for evidence, they'd bring a hacker with them on the raid and do a find | grep p3n15 on his boxes.
It's obvious you know nothing about forensic examination of computer systems. You may end up using that technique to recover evidence, but only on a mirror created from the original. And only after you've secured the system. On-site investigation is a last resort and only should be used if there is no other way to get the information. If you were rely on "an investigator did a find | grep p3n15" on the premisis without securing the system, making memory dumps (if possible), mirroring the drives (and mounting them ro - well, all your computer evidence would be most likley be challenged successfully by a competent defense and tossed out. For collecting evidence of a computer crime that would be recklessly irresponsible. It's called chain-of-custody.
nuclear reactor != nuclear weapons (which is what the poster said they asked about)
I guess I don't understand your comment. I was talking about how easy it was to get a Cingular phone unlocked so it works on all networks (I have a RAZR so it will connect to any GSM network). I called them up, got a code, and now can use local GSM in Europe with a pre-paid SIM.
What does CDMA have to with this?
for real reporting see CNN, Bloomberg, or international news if you can get it.
Ok, Bloomberg as mostly unbiased I can understand... but... but.. CNN?
I hate FOX because they're biased too much to the right. I hate CNN because they are biased toward the left (although not as radically biased as FOX).
I'd rather get my news from wire services. Usually AP... sometimes Rueters (although they seem to be getting a little... shrill over the last few years)
Isn't it funny that your free market has produced monopolies that screw the customer
Well, I don't about that. I just called up Cingular for the Subsidy Code (to turn off the carrier lock) and I had it in my email the next day. Didn't cost me a cent. Of course, I purchased the phone from Amazon without a plan (it wasn't subsidised by Cingular).
It seems a little harsh to get arrested for only infecting 32 machines.....
Ha!
Judging from the replies, there's only 10 types of people who understood the post.
Those who got the joke and those who didn't.*
*-Shamelessly ripped off a ThinkGeek T-Shirt...
I'd say it was poking fun at people who have a smug, self-righteous air about them. You know the one's who get all prickly and can't laugh at themselves. The humor impaired.
Like yourself, obviously.
Clicking the "up" arrow on your browser could be considered a "directory traversal attack".
I have a forward and back arrow. How did you get an "up" arrow?
Now if you mean accessing an FTP site using a browser, well I think the fact that you're given ".." or an up-arrow as an option, I don't think it'd be a directory traversal.
I'd like to see a Japanese team knock the shinola out of the World Series Champion.
While it'd be cool, don't think it'll happen. We spend boatloads to lure their best players to our teams. And some of them are nothing short of spectacular.
But hey, don't let the facts spoil the party.
Cool. I won't. Let me know when you get some. Or a clue.