There is actually a 3-part Cryptography course (the 1st part of which is merely entitled, "Network Security") that I intend to take the 2nd two parts of pretty soon here.
Since timing will not allow me to take the entire sequence, I'm covering the material of the first course on my own.
To that end, a few resources:
[the following presumes a background in network engineering, the protocols, etc.; it also presumes some number theory but most of that is covered as needed]
1. For starters: Charles & Shari Pfleeger's Security in Computing, 2nd Edition -- this is a nice, intro text for high level (a) security, (b) encryption, (c) OS security, (d) DB security
2. Then move onto more specific texts, i.e. Silberschatz's Operating Systems Concepts, 6th Edition -- this provides a much more detailed look into OS security -- mechanisms/policies/implementations etc.
3. Then there are a couple wortwhile Cryptography only texts: (a) Schneier's Applied Cryptography, (b) Menezes' Handbook of Applied Cryptography
After re-reading it a bit closer (what I might have done before posting), I realized that's what he meant. But still the whole post had a pie-in-the-sky feel to it.
open source lives would be ideal, since no one would exploit others
Are you kidding me?
You are saying that (open source) --> non-exploitation of some human beings by other human beings
The contrapositive of this statement is that:
if (human beings are exploited) --> there is no open source
Get your head out of your 4th point of contact!
Negative elements of human nature have existed for as long as people have -- Eve wasn't exposed to the apple but for minutes before she took a bite!
Anybody who thinks they have nothing to hide: think again. Think about how the media pieces together mere shreds of circumstantial evidence and people -- the vast majority of people -- glean from that *circumstantial data* the guilt or innocence of another human being whom they know not at all (and about whose case these people know only bare tidbits). Think random tidbits of your life couldn't be strung together to produce a much different context than the one that is actually at play? Think again. Or at least read some Philip Dick fer cryin' out loud. Here is a link to another article on the ongoing surveillance creep.
we'll be tempted to archive everything about ourselves, including pictures and videos.
which nobody will ever read for fear of dying out of sheer boredom.........
Trying to figure out why this is being presented as such new information; after all, it is because magnetic disk prices have so deeply, quickly and consistently plummeted that magnetic tapes on PCs are a thing of the past (as their prices have dropped less dramatically and of course there's that sequential access thing).
The Encyclopedia Britannica on 4% of one's HDD -- whatawaste!
As I understand Moore's law is about data density; it didn't directly speak to necessary cost implications of a consistently increasing # of transistors per IC. (This is to say I don't love this analogy)
Definitely disagree with this prediction: Finally, and most important, your memory will improve.
My memory is getting steadily and by design worse for anything that I can look up; why absorb space & expend cycles on retaining data that is easily retrievable when one could more usefully be loading larger executables into that memory space so as to grasp concepts (which themselves require understanding of underlying components, at least temporarily, of course).
Dude, that's a pretty broad brush you're flourishing there.
Francis Fukuyama, defined first as a Zionist?
Charles Schultz, defined first as a Zionist?
William Bennett, defined first as a Zionist?
These folks, while sharing a desire to get rid of OBL, to annihilate the threat Hussein's regime presented, to crush Hezbollah, are a relatively diverse bunch as those things go. They certainly are not the two-dimensional caricatures you paint them to be.
I agree w/everything they said in their letter (notably absent from which was *any* mention of privacy, the Patriot Act, TIA, etc.).
I.e., what does *any of this* have to do w/the new RFC?
Apparently SRI is the group who got paid $60k to have this workshop on creating eDNA and the idea was widely (and it sounds like pretty communally) denounced and essentially rejected as technically unworkable (problem-laden) not to mention problematic w.r.t. privacy issues.
Also, apparently there was a huge flame war over how to present the group's findings. The individual initially charged with this ended up being relieved (gratefully, I'm sure) of these duties. Gee, ya think it was because the people gathered together felt *the most* strongly about the total lack of privacy aspect of this? I am inclined to think this was most definitely the case.
Anyway, this all is a problem; so what, it won't be eDNA - but only because they couldn't (at this time) get the job done!
I also find it ironic that the name of this program was pitched as "eDNA" - the reason this made me smile but very wearily is that I keep lobbying against TIA and its assorted ramifications ------ and one of the arguments I use is that as soon as (a) our DNA can be cheaply decoded (it currently can be decoded by Craig Venter) && (b) the information decoded actually means something (i.e. there is still a ton of speculative work into which diseases each of the proteins correlates to and to what degree etc.) you gotta believe that your little double helix's meaning is going to be hard coded along with every snarky e-mail you ever sent, every time you laid yourself out on the line in an e-mail, every purchase you made, when you made it, what it was, what your medical - ENTIRE medical - history is etc. etc. etc.
To a previous poster: don't worry, son; I also am not sleeping. . .
kids - I could not care less about Verizon sharing my information with their affiliates in order to sell me cheaper products.
After all, this amounts to essentially an annoyance as distinct from an invasion of privacy. The latter is a significantly stronger, higher and deeper concern on my list.
IOW, this is what they call small potatoes.
Where I am concerned is with the elephant in the room - the unfolding "Total Information Awareness" system that leaks information beyond corporate affiliates and to the Federal Government.
And, all kinds of information: medical, fiscal, e-mail content etc. etc. etc.
This is where our privacy and anti-information sharing energies should go, IMHO.
Re:my story, or how I didn't get sued on my birthd
on
Helping Your Ex-Employer?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Slashdot Mirror
There is actually a 3-part Cryptography course (the 1st part of which is merely entitled, "Network Security") that I intend to take the 2nd two parts of pretty soon here.
Since timing will not allow me to take the entire sequence, I'm covering the material of the first course on my own.
To that end, a few resources:
[the following presumes a background in network engineering, the protocols, etc.; it also presumes some number theory but most of that is covered as needed]
1. For starters: Charles & Shari Pfleeger's Security in Computing, 2nd Edition -- this is a nice, intro text for high level (a) security, (b) encryption, (c) OS security, (d) DB security
2. Then move onto more specific texts, i.e. Silberschatz's Operating Systems Concepts, 6th Edition -- this provides a much more detailed look into OS security -- mechanisms/policies/implementations etc.
3. Then there are a couple wortwhile Cryptography only texts: (a) Schneier's Applied Cryptography, (b) Menezes' Handbook of Applied Cryptography
4. Then there is a good course website for the course I referred to, the 1st in the series of three that also has downloadable handouts as well as some coding projects that you could do independently, providing an enviro
5. Finally, I'd suggest a subscription to the Counterpane Crytpogram newsletter -- found at this link. Also, checking out this site periodically or perusing it somewhat in-depth will give you far more visibility into day-to-day threats.
Thanks
After re-reading it a bit closer (what I might have done before posting), I realized that's what he meant. But still the whole post had a pie-in-the-sky feel to it.
Open-source lives?!
open source lives would be ideal, since no one would exploit others
Are you kidding me?
You are saying that (open source) --> non-exploitation of some human beings by other human beings
The contrapositive of this statement is that:
if (human beings are exploited) --> there is no open source
Get your head out of your 4th point of contact!
Negative elements of human nature have existed for as long as people have -- Eve wasn't exposed to the apple but for minutes before she took a bite!
Anybody who thinks they have nothing to hide: think again. Think about how the media pieces together mere shreds of circumstantial evidence and people -- the vast majority of people -- glean from that *circumstantial data* the guilt or innocence of another human being whom they know not at all (and about whose case these people know only bare tidbits). Think random tidbits of your life couldn't be strung together to produce a much different context than the one that is actually at play? Think again. Or at least read some Philip Dick fer cryin' out loud.
Here is a link to another article on the ongoing surveillance creep.
we'll be tempted to archive everything about ourselves, including pictures and videos.
which nobody will ever read for fear of dying out of sheer boredom.........
Trying to figure out why this is being presented as such new information; after all, it is because magnetic disk prices have so deeply, quickly and consistently plummeted that magnetic tapes on PCs are a thing of the past (as their prices have dropped less dramatically and of course there's that sequential access thing).
The Encyclopedia Britannica on 4% of one's HDD -- whatawaste!
As I understand Moore's law is about data density; it didn't directly speak to necessary cost implications of a consistently increasing # of transistors per IC. (This is to say I don't love this analogy)
Definitely disagree with this prediction:
Finally, and most important, your memory will improve.
My memory is getting steadily and by design worse for anything that I can look up; why absorb space & expend cycles on retaining data that is easily retrievable when one could more usefully be loading larger executables into that memory space so as to grasp concepts (which themselves require understanding of underlying components, at least temporarily, of course).
Yeah... You and Alec Baldwin... All talk
Dude, that's a pretty broad brush you're flourishing there.
Francis Fukuyama, defined first as a Zionist?
Charles Schultz, defined first as a Zionist?
William Bennett, defined first as a Zionist?
These folks, while sharing a desire to get rid of OBL, to annihilate the threat Hussein's regime presented, to crush Hezbollah, are a relatively diverse bunch as those things go. They certainly are not the two-dimensional caricatures you paint them to be.
I agree w/everything they said in their letter (notably absent from which was *any* mention of privacy, the Patriot Act, TIA, etc.).
I.e., what does *any of this* have to do w/the new RFC?
This is taking for - ever to load. . .
is there a mirror site this file can be copied to in order to expedite the viewing process?
TIA
Meant to add in my last post that Whitfield Diffie was also in attendance at this workshop.
Also, also, also, in case you are one of the three people left who haven't seen this, here's the TIA systems breakdown [darpa.mil site]
Apparently SRI is the group who got paid $60k to have this workshop on creating eDNA and the idea was widely (and it sounds like pretty communally) denounced and essentially rejected as technically unworkable (problem-laden) not to mention problematic w.r.t. privacy issues.
Also, apparently there was a huge flame war over how to present the group's findings. The individual initially charged with this ended up being relieved (gratefully, I'm sure) of these duties. Gee, ya think it was because the people gathered together felt *the most* strongly about the total lack of privacy aspect of this? I am inclined to think this was most definitely the case.
Anyway, this all is a problem; so what, it won't be eDNA - but only because they couldn't (at this time) get the job done!
I also find it ironic that the name of this program was pitched as "eDNA" - the reason this made me smile but very wearily is that I keep lobbying against TIA and its assorted ramifications ------ and one of the arguments I use is that as soon as (a) our DNA can be cheaply decoded (it currently can be decoded by Craig Venter) && (b) the information decoded actually means something (i.e. there is still a ton of speculative work into which diseases each of the proteins correlates to and to what degree etc.) you gotta believe that your little double helix's meaning is going to be hard coded along with every snarky e-mail you ever sent, every time you laid yourself out on the line in an e-mail, every purchase you made, when you made it, what it was, what your medical - ENTIRE medical - history is etc. etc. etc.
To a previous poster: don't worry, son; I also am not sleeping. . .
kids - I could not care less about Verizon sharing my information with their affiliates in order to sell me cheaper products.
After all, this amounts to essentially an annoyance as distinct from an invasion of privacy. The latter is a significantly stronger, higher and deeper concern on my list.
IOW, this is what they call small potatoes.
Where I am concerned is with the elephant in the room - the unfolding "Total Information Awareness" system that leaks information beyond corporate affiliates and to the Federal Government.
And, all kinds of information: medical, fiscal, e-mail content etc. etc. etc.
This is where our privacy and anti-information sharing energies should go, IMHO.
don't blink next time, buddy
don't blink.