i hear microsoft uses a similar system....except its more like "Go to work, go home, or kill yourself....but if we catch you using linux...we will make the choice for you
yes...there are alot of warnings, and some non-fatel erros...however, some of these are in X some of these are in KDE....but the reasons for them are in the code.. the warnings you get are because some of the code is portable, ie its designed to compile on ppc, mips32/64 and x86, the waranings you are getting are largley a result of the code having to be hacked up a little so it will compile/run correclty on other archetectures (so you cant always do things the way the compiler wants) and because coders in these projects use idioesm...for example, I know the struct i am pointing at will terminate with 0, so when i do an equality test i dont make an int cast...this generates one of those warnings you see...and its just because i used an itiom that works, but the compiler warns about.
Well they won this battle, its time for the thousands of mindless appeals aiganst them now.
You know...apple embraced the p2p sharing thing, and they are making alot of money off of it, the artists are going to make money off of concerts not cd sales, so if the governing bodies are so worried about their existance...one would think they would simply embrace this as a new distributing channel and make money off it like apple did. Guess logic isnt their strong suit.
What i find funny is how the executives talk about this as being on the same *moral* level as walking into the store and stealing the cd....please...this is comming from the people who when *their* morality was questioned for the content they advocated, they said they were just pushing the limits of scoiety...now when someone else is using morality that isnt in their interest...its *immoral* please.
in order to isolate that session in memory (without affecting other users), you need some of the very concepts we are talking about. Also, the goal is to make it more stable for end users, so we want to only kill the session if we cant fix the bug
thats what the goal is, but apache is also trying to keep these threads locked down as well, ie-someone trys to do a bufferoverrun, because of this, we cant simply 'return' they may have overrun the return address, so kill the tread imediatly and flush the stack and dont give them a chance to get to that pointer.
yes fixing the bug is a proper solution, however, the idea behind this is that you can never catch 100 % of the bugs, that is the one thing you can gaurnetee with any pice of software, because of this, have systems to handle the bugs and then fix them, that way, you still can (and should) fix the bug, but you havent encurred alot of downtime in the proccess
Re:Boycott memory chip makers !
on
DRAM Price Fixing
·
· Score: 0, Funny
And we can train a hamster to rember all the bits and addresses of the ide controler and the ata drivers
DOWN WITH RAM! WE HAVE SWAP AND TRAINABLE ANIMALS THAT CAN FIT IN THE CASE!
hehe:)
wasnt an expensive and excessive ram stick the entire of point of dram?
The only time I've ever seen a heat sink on ram was when I cracked open ibm incrapastaion and found the dram
Someone please explain to me how its neccary to have ram going that fast? That suff has got a full queue at all times because the proccsor cant keep up!
n databases, you have your actions and when a sequence of events start, they are committed at the end of the event cycle. When you change things, there is a sequence of events that lead to a "stable" state. When the stable state has arrived, you commit.
This is actualy exaclty what iptables does...there is even a commit command at the end of every rulset after all exceptional circumstances have been handled
That was just a gimmick for that commerical...what they were actually selling is BSD boxes running ports that can update themselves, and rebuilt the kernel acording to pre-defined specs, and reboot when necceary to implement the changes, but designed not to reboot whenever possible (so they build the kerenel to be very modular and only update the modules as needed until something in the base needs to be updated, then rebuild the kerenl and reboot. And useing some tweaked out bash scripting to respawn services that died.
This isnt really ROTC since if its a system wide error, restarting the service just causes it to die agian, they are selling more less very well set up BSD boxes. (i sell similar solutions to people) However, this is not ROC because they still need to be administered, the goal though was for someone with minimal knowledge of linux to be able to handle the day-to-day operations of the server.
Since these
So you had a DOS command line and an AppleDOS command line. Was that really a simpler than pointing and clicking in XP and OSX today? I mean, you can actually have your *mother* operate a computer today.
This is true, however, keep in mind that none of the DOS operating systems had a kernel. nor were any of them truely mutlitasking until windows 95 for the windows world(shudders). And the debut of Unix 20 years ago.
Also keep in mind all the new technologies such as netwroking, (thats a whole post of changes on its own) hardware and bluetooth, firewire, usb, a hudge number of new technologies that have evolved to meet the ever expanding demands we place on systems.
Some of the popular platforms from 20 years ago such as the PC XT are now used in calculators today, The very definition of a computer has changed in 20 years, so the operating systems are orders of magnatidude more complex...20 years ago the pc world was still in its infancy. Since then, everything outside the very definition of the pc has changed...and notebook and handheld technologies are pushing that.
That being said, its not really fair to compare operating systems from 20 years ago to operating systems of today....its just a different world, and the very definition of an operating system is no longer the same
I've been striving to work this kind of stability into my client's software for years! To a certian extent, alot of its there, the problem with the pc world is you have to do an update every 3 days just to prevent someone for rooting your box with all the remote exploits floating aroung out there.
I usually use large sets of negitive data to isolate the problem...but there are just some things that users can cause, that in an itergrated world like the pc world, will just take things down.
Thats not to say that you cant keep a box up for several years. I have a client that has outright refused to update their kerenel and not reboot a red-hat box I set up 5 years ago. The kerenel is sheltered enough from the real world that as long as it does what we want...its fine. And services are updated almost daily via scripting, and most of the kernel is modulized so parts of the kernel can be updated to keep with the services.
So i can keep an operating system up for a very long time...my concern has now turned to keeping services up....there are just somethings that will take down a service no matter what (ie dosing the socket until it explodes) I do, i cant seem to find a way around without restarting the service to correcet the problem...this is problamatic because there is an indefinate number of other users that we dont want to affect....telecom has been doing this for years so i would be interested in hearing any coding tricks you may have up your sleve:)
Your quite right....most large systems are maintained by shell scripts and the crontab
However, this is inheriently limited to finding the errors, some errors (ie/var/run has incorrect permissions) cant be solved by restarting the service, this concept is about identifing the problem and then taking correct measures.
What you described is a primitive version of this, it will handle most of the *dumb* errors, not persistant errors that could be outside of the programs control. ROC is more/less an evolution of what you described
ROC I dont think will every yeild servers that can heal themselves...rather, yeild servers that will be able to take corrective measures for a wide array problems...there really is no way to make a completely redudnat system, well there may be, but as you said, we are no were near there yet.
ROC may someday evelove into that, however, for the moment, its really a constantly expanding range of exceptional situations that a system can handel by design. Using structures such as exceptions and the like.
hmmmm....Recovery Oreinted Computing......This just screams linux.
Recovery Oreinted Computing is nothing new, most devlopers (well *nix devlopers) have been heading down this route for years, particularly with more hardcore OO languages (is java...and in many respects c++) come to the surface with exception structures, it becomes easier to isloate and identify the exception that occured and take appropiate action to keep the server going.
However, this method of coding is still growing...there are no real solid / accepting methods of isolating and identifying problems...however, in the next few years you will probably see this trend move to the next level as algorithims for identification, and localization are devloped and widely adopted.
Of course if your running on a windows platform this is kinda pointless...rebooting at least once every 30 days really eliminates any chance of long term running and the need for large scale localization and identification
if you break down on the streets of NYC, your going to have to deal with all the angery motorists behind you...so i dont think you will be doing much emailing:)
Children have more to do these days on a staurday mornng....like go look at porn on the internet...download illegal moveis off irc, ddos amazon.com...or the favoriate american passtime...crack cocaine!
I hope you're not in charge of security anywhere important. Ethernet has a physical layer, just like 802.11 - hell, the reason 802.11 is so nifty is it's modelled after wired ethernet. Most ethernet cable is UTP (unshielded), and there is a nontrivial amount of leakage. Shielded is better, but how much? If someone really wants your precious data, you have to assume the channel is not secure. Anytime you have an electrical signal changing values, you have EMI generated. That EMI will be deterministic with the type and pattern of the signal, and you can reconstruct data from it. That's how things like Van Eck devices work
Do a google search on EMI...EMI is charachteristic but is random enough due to the dynamics of EM feilds to pevent data extrapolation.
There was reseach done at serveral univrsity physics departments that yeilded these results. The conculsion of about 4 physicsts [ google the topic or search it at a few major univristy sites, I never looked at the title of the paper, I stubled across it when i was cleaning out a physics department database ], was that it was not possible to extrapolate data from the characteristic EM field from the wire. If it was the case that i could grap data off an EM feild, then I would be able to set up an antenna outside and sniff all the bits running on any computer system bus. Even if it was possible, the amperage & voltage on ethernet is so low transmition range would be under a meter.
What are you talking about? Sure, you can see my header block back to the VPN IP. Everything else is uncrackable gobblygook. What does this have to do with "war drives"? Wardriving is about finding unsecured networks and exploiting that to get an internet connection. You'd have to be pretty stupid to move your own sensitive data over a carrier you picked up from nowhere. Honeypot, anyone? So what could you do? An SSH tunnel sure sounds like a ticket.
The concern here isnt your data, the concern here is someone can use tcp headers to pose as you on a network, then do something horrible, and if its ever traced back it stops at your ip. As long as you can sniff tcp this is always a risk, wich is why most networks are switched. The fundamenal problem is tcp can have security problems when its being brodcasted over a hub. And thats what a wi-fi zone is.
this is actually a solution with great promise...i'm currently working on a possible way to implement it with a locked down dhcp server for a client.
The problem i have is with wi-fi...its like having one big hub...so peope can sniff the tcp packet header, get the flags off your wi-fi card that go over tcp (ie MAC Address) and spoof themselves as you...and the radius server often thinks the machine is already authenticated, because they really already have authenticated.
I havent found a solution to this yet....if anyone has any ideas feel free to post:)
Wires are only marginally more secure than wireless - you can sniff ethernet cables with a directional antenna, too...
Mot quite...can ethernet be sniffed? yes, if you are on the same segment...someone installs a switch and your screwed...if i dont want you to be able to sniff a particular box, i just blug it into a switch at the same connectivity level as my peers or above it. In fact, in a fully switched ethernet network, sniffing becomes impossible..passive modes dsont work because your not seeing other peoples traffice being re-brodcast. Wi-fi on tghe other hand transmits the same tcp data out to the entire world.
Can you sniff ethernet with an anetnna? no. There is no frequency carrier on the signals, without a carrier...there is no way for the signal to be carried to the antenna.
Even if there was a carrier...the actual cable is insulated, the channels are insulated and the wire itself is insulated, it is phsyically impossible wires to be sniffed unless you are on the same ethernet segment. Otherwise, you only see the traffic that you send to that ip. And that ip's responses
End to end encryption only works on the actual data packets, the headers are still there, and wi-fi is transmitting over the air, to anyone who can recive the packets, its like being on one hudge hub. So you can sniff anyone on the wi-fi segment, and even spoof them. This is the entire idea behind "war drives"
Tcp is not secure over wi-fi, its not always secure over ethernet, however, with enough money and switches, you can secure it to the point were you cant sniff or spoof (tcp being a 3 way handshake)
PPPoE is a protocol that allowes to adsl modems to connect..then strip the ppp stuff from the frame and route the ethernet packet..this requires physical connectivity, and thus cant be used over wi-fi.
If the guy isnt running linux hes a dead man...windows would crash after an hour...and then he would be a dead man
i was planning to wait until the producer of that movie to walk buy a phone booth before i made the phone call to demand those 2 hours of my life back....now i just have to sniff his.net passport.. and given the fact that it is made by microsoft...finding his passport would be easier than dailing the number.
well not quite...you see those transmiters have an average transmittion range of 50 meters....so its more like creating a wireless grid over the streets of NYC...so if your sitting in traffic for example...you can be talking on GAIM.
As it stands now though, you can walk down 31st street and see people with laptops sitting on the bus stops doing one thing or another....so people would be willing to sit down and work with a laptop on a major city street. However, the options are not limited to this.
I amagine verison would end up selling a service to subscribers...authentate people to the network, and then you have wireless access as you drive the streets of NYC with access to the internet...it would be kinda cool if wi-fi wasnt as secure as the stream of piss going from me into the toilet.
In its current capacity....wi-fi is very insecure...its ok for inside a corperate building... and for a home network...but out on the streets? Currently there is nothign to secure wi-fi connections, i have an access point in my house with 2 laptops on it....when i was setting up the last one...in order to debug a problem i sat there and sniffed the traffic...the traffic over wi-fi goes over the air with no security protocols on it at all....now ethernet isnt much better (with the exception of wrappers like PPPoE to help disgues info) but its also not brodcasting to everyone within 100 meters.
The problem isnt the traffic being sniffed...i can fix that with a simple ssh tunnel...my problem is with the machine authentication...its basicly a clear text (well not quite...but from a security stand point it basiclly is) protocol...i can drive thru downtown boston and spoof myself onto any wireless network I encounter...a simple shell script chooses a victim and pretends to be them..there really is nothing to it.
Now for small restricted locations, were the general public dosnt have access too..this really isnt THAT much of a problem...however, if you have people subscribing to this, in downtown new york, out int he open...unless they adapt their own wi-fi protocol....they are basically putting hundreds of thousands of free victim for a hacker with a "war drive".
the tcp porton of the protocol can realistcally stay the same...but we need to find a better way to authenticate boxes onto the network at the physical layer. Right now anyone with prisim II drivers can wonder onto any wi-fi network they encouter.
Wi-fi is definatly cooll...i run it at home because its nice...but for a production network, I just dont think wi-fi is at that point yet.
opps....ah well....everyone can just ignore that post:)
i just did a search on emerge....if you turn on the option to merege unstable builds in your make.global you can merge the source and compile it.
Besides....the entire point of ports is to compile the software...you shouldnt be using ebuilds unless you your building something like mozilla or open office:p
Who thought of this? lets design it for everything except x86...because everyon who is watching movies on spar and mips archs!
Seriously...it will eventually be ported to x86....and it will be nice not to have to ethier fire up vmware...or go hunting for the mplayer plugin....i do have quicktime plugin working...but I had to hack it up a fiar bit to stop it from seg-ving....So it will be nice when they have something that works by defualt!
Ah well.....most porn is in mpeg...so most linux users are doing all right:)
Slashdot Mirror
i hear microsoft uses a similar system....except its more like "Go to work, go home, or kill yourself....but if we catch you using linux...we will make the choice for you
Does it use 8bit addressing and have green screens and is propietary too?
Ebay, distrbutes everything from pickels..to parts of discovery....and now subways.....only in america.
Selling for 5000? seems like a small for a subway....surprising, usally radio shack sells over priced hardware...
Maybe their subways are like their tandys.....so cheap you can make money of a cheap price
yes...there are alot of warnings, and some non-fatel erros...however, some of these are in X some of these are in KDE....but the reasons for them are in the code.. the warnings you get are because some of the code is portable, ie its designed to compile on ppc, mips32/64 and x86, the waranings you are getting are largley a result of the code having to be hacked up a little so it will compile/run correclty on other archetectures (so you cant always do things the way the compiler wants) and because coders in these projects use idioesm...for example, I know the struct i am pointing at will terminate with 0, so when i do an equality test i dont make an int cast...this generates one of those warnings you see...and its just because i used an itiom that works, but the compiler warns about.
Well they won this battle, its time for the thousands of mindless appeals aiganst them now.
You know...apple embraced the p2p sharing thing, and they are making alot of money off of it, the artists are going to make money off of concerts not cd sales, so if the governing bodies are so worried about their existance...one would think they would simply embrace this as a new distributing channel and make money off it like apple did. Guess logic isnt their strong suit.
What i find funny is how the executives talk about this as being on the same *moral* level as walking into the store and stealing the cd....please...this is comming from the people who when *their* morality was questioned for the content they advocated, they said they were just pushing the limits of scoiety...now when someone else is using morality that isnt in their interest...its *immoral* please.
Let the retarded appeals begin
in order to isolate that session in memory (without affecting other users), you need some of the very concepts we are talking about. Also, the goal is to make it more stable for end users, so we want to only kill the session if we cant fix the bug
thats what the goal is, but apache is also trying to keep these threads locked down as well, ie-someone trys to do a bufferoverrun, because of this, we cant simply 'return' they may have overrun the return address, so kill the tread imediatly and flush the stack and dont give them a chance to get to that pointer.
yes fixing the bug is a proper solution, however, the idea behind this is that you can never catch 100 % of the bugs, that is the one thing you can gaurnetee with any pice of software, because of this, have systems to handle the bugs and then fix them, that way, you still can (and should) fix the bug, but you havent encurred alot of downtime in the proccess
And we can train a hamster to rember all the bits and addresses of the ide controler and the ata drivers
:)
DOWN WITH RAM! WE HAVE SWAP AND TRAINABLE ANIMALS THAT CAN FIT IN THE CASE! hehe
wasnt an expensive and excessive ram stick the entire of point of dram?
The only time I've ever seen a heat sink on ram was when I cracked open ibm incrapastaion and found the dram
Someone please explain to me how its neccary to have ram going that fast? That suff has got a full queue at all times because the proccsor cant keep up!
n databases, you have your actions and when a sequence of events start, they are committed at the end of the event cycle. When you change things, there is a sequence of events that lead to a "stable" state. When the stable state has arrived, you commit.
This is actualy exaclty what iptables does...there is even a commit command at the end of every rulset after all exceptional circumstances have been handled
That was just a gimmick for that commerical...what they were actually selling is BSD boxes running ports that can update themselves, and rebuilt the kernel acording to pre-defined specs, and reboot when necceary to implement the changes, but designed not to reboot whenever possible (so they build the kerenel to be very modular and only update the modules as needed until something in the base needs to be updated, then rebuild the kerenl and reboot. And useing some tweaked out bash scripting to respawn services that died.
This isnt really ROTC since if its a system wide error, restarting the service just causes it to die agian, they are selling more less very well set up BSD boxes. (i sell similar solutions to people) However, this is not ROC because they still need to be administered, the goal though was for someone with minimal knowledge of linux to be able to handle the day-to-day operations of the server. Since these
So you had a DOS command line and an AppleDOS command line. Was that really a simpler than pointing and clicking in XP and OSX today? I mean, you can actually have your *mother* operate a computer today.
This is true, however, keep in mind that none of the DOS operating systems had a kernel. nor were any of them truely mutlitasking until windows 95 for the windows world(shudders). And the debut of Unix 20 years ago.
Also keep in mind all the new technologies such as netwroking, (thats a whole post of changes on its own) hardware and bluetooth, firewire, usb, a hudge number of new technologies that have evolved to meet the ever expanding demands we place on systems.
Some of the popular platforms from 20 years ago such as the PC XT are now used in calculators today, The very definition of a computer has changed in 20 years, so the operating systems are orders of magnatidude more complex...20 years ago the pc world was still in its infancy. Since then, everything outside the very definition of the pc has changed...and notebook and handheld technologies are pushing that.
That being said, its not really fair to compare operating systems from 20 years ago to operating systems of today....its just a different world, and the very definition of an operating system is no longer the same
I've been striving to work this kind of stability into my client's software for years! To a certian extent, alot of its there, the problem with the pc world is you have to do an update every 3 days just to prevent someone for rooting your box with all the remote exploits floating aroung out there.
:)
I usually use large sets of negitive data to isolate the problem...but there are just some things that users can cause, that in an itergrated world like the pc world, will just take things down.
Thats not to say that you cant keep a box up for several years. I have a client that has outright refused to update their kerenel and not reboot a red-hat box I set up 5 years ago. The kerenel is sheltered enough from the real world that as long as it does what we want...its fine. And services are updated almost daily via scripting, and most of the kernel is modulized so parts of the kernel can be updated to keep with the services.
So i can keep an operating system up for a very long time...my concern has now turned to keeping services up....there are just somethings that will take down a service no matter what (ie dosing the socket until it explodes) I do, i cant seem to find a way around without restarting the service to correcet the problem...this is problamatic because there is an indefinate number of other users that we dont want to affect....telecom has been doing this for years so i would be interested in hearing any coding tricks you may have up your sleve
Your quite right....most large systems are maintained by shell scripts and the crontab
/var/run has incorrect permissions) cant be solved by restarting the service, this concept is about identifing the problem and then taking correct measures.
However, this is inheriently limited to finding the errors, some errors (ie
What you described is a primitive version of this, it will handle most of the *dumb* errors, not persistant errors that could be outside of the programs control. ROC is more/less an evolution of what you described
Well yes and no.
ROC I dont think will every yeild servers that can heal themselves...rather, yeild servers that will be able to take corrective measures for a wide array problems...there really is no way to make a completely redudnat system, well there may be, but as you said, we are no were near there yet.
ROC may someday evelove into that, however, for the moment, its really a constantly expanding range of exceptional situations that a system can handel by design. Using structures such as exceptions and the like.
hmmmm....Recovery Oreinted Computing......This just screams linux.
Recovery Oreinted Computing is nothing new, most devlopers (well *nix devlopers) have been heading down this route for years, particularly with more hardcore OO languages (is java...and in many respects c++) come to the surface with exception structures, it becomes easier to isloate and identify the exception that occured and take appropiate action to keep the server going.
However, this method of coding is still growing...there are no real solid / accepting methods of isolating and identifying problems...however, in the next few years you will probably see this trend move to the next level as algorithims for identification, and localization are devloped and widely adopted.
Of course if your running on a windows platform this is kinda pointless...rebooting at least once every 30 days really eliminates any chance of long term running and the need for large scale localization and identification
if you break down on the streets of NYC, your going to have to deal with all the angery motorists behind you...so i dont think you will be doing much emailing :)
Children have more to do these days on a staurday mornng....like go look at porn on the internet...download illegal moveis off irc, ddos amazon.com...or the favoriate american passtime...crack cocaine!
Then agian, some kids just sleep in
I hope you're not in charge of security anywhere important. Ethernet has a physical layer, just like 802.11 - hell, the reason 802.11 is so nifty is it's modelled after wired ethernet. Most ethernet cable is UTP (unshielded), and there is a nontrivial amount of leakage. Shielded is better, but how much? If someone really wants your precious data, you have to assume the channel is not secure. Anytime you have an electrical signal changing values, you have EMI generated. That EMI will be deterministic with the type and pattern of the signal, and you can reconstruct data from it. That's how things like Van Eck devices work
Do a google search on EMI...EMI is charachteristic but is random enough due to the dynamics of EM feilds to pevent data extrapolation.
There was reseach done at serveral univrsity physics departments that yeilded these results. The conculsion of about 4 physicsts [ google the topic or search it at a few major univristy sites, I never looked at the title of the paper, I stubled across it when i was cleaning out a physics department database ], was that it was not possible to extrapolate data from the characteristic EM field from the wire. If it was the case that i could grap data off an EM feild, then I would be able to set up an antenna outside and sniff all the bits running on any computer system bus. Even if it was possible, the amperage & voltage on ethernet is so low transmition range would be under a meter.
What are you talking about? Sure, you can see my header block back to the VPN IP. Everything else is uncrackable gobblygook. What does this have to do with "war drives"? Wardriving is about finding unsecured networks and exploiting that to get an internet connection. You'd have to be pretty stupid to move your own sensitive data over a carrier you picked up from nowhere. Honeypot, anyone? So what could you do? An SSH tunnel sure sounds like a ticket.
The concern here isnt your data, the concern here is someone can use tcp headers to pose as you on a network, then do something horrible, and if its ever traced back it stops at your ip. As long as you can sniff tcp this is always a risk, wich is why most networks are switched. The fundamenal problem is tcp can have security problems when its being brodcasted over a hub. And thats what a wi-fi zone is.
this is actually a solution with great promise...i'm currently working on a possible way to implement it with a locked down dhcp server for a client.
:)
The problem i have is with wi-fi...its like having one big hub...so peope can sniff the tcp packet header, get the flags off your wi-fi card that go over tcp (ie MAC Address) and spoof themselves as you...and the radius server often thinks the machine is already authenticated, because they really already have authenticated.
I havent found a solution to this yet....if anyone has any ideas feel free to post
Wires are only marginally more secure than wireless - you can sniff ethernet cables with a directional antenna, too... Mot quite...can ethernet be sniffed? yes, if you are on the same segment...someone installs a switch and your screwed...if i dont want you to be able to sniff a particular box, i just blug it into a switch at the same connectivity level as my peers or above it. In fact, in a fully switched ethernet network, sniffing becomes impossible..passive modes dsont work because your not seeing other peoples traffice being re-brodcast. Wi-fi on tghe other hand transmits the same tcp data out to the entire world.
Can you sniff ethernet with an anetnna? no. There is no frequency carrier on the signals, without a carrier...there is no way for the signal to be carried to the antenna.
Even if there was a carrier...the actual cable is insulated, the channels are insulated and the wire itself is insulated, it is phsyically impossible wires to be sniffed unless you are on the same ethernet segment. Otherwise, you only see the traffic that you send to that ip. And that ip's responses
End to end encryption only works on the actual data packets, the headers are still there, and wi-fi is transmitting over the air, to anyone who can recive the packets, its like being on one hudge hub. So you can sniff anyone on the wi-fi segment, and even spoof them. This is the entire idea behind "war drives"
Tcp is not secure over wi-fi, its not always secure over ethernet, however, with enough money and switches, you can secure it to the point were you cant sniff or spoof (tcp being a 3 way handshake)
PPPoE is a protocol that allowes to adsl modems to connect..then strip the ppp stuff from the frame and route the ethernet packet..this requires physical connectivity, and thus cant be used over wi-fi.
If the guy isnt running linux hes a dead man...windows would crash after an hour...and then he would be a dead man
.net passport.. and given the fact that it is made by microsoft...finding his passport would be easier than dailing the number.
i was planning to wait until the producer of that movie to walk buy a phone booth before i made the phone call to demand those 2 hours of my life back....now i just have to sniff his
well not quite...you see those transmiters have an average transmittion range of 50 meters....so its more like creating a wireless grid over the streets of NYC...so if your sitting in traffic for example...you can be talking on GAIM.
As it stands now though, you can walk down 31st street and see people with laptops sitting on the bus stops doing one thing or another....so people would be willing to sit down and work with a laptop on a major city street. However, the options are not limited to this.
I amagine verison would end up selling a service to subscribers...authentate people to the network, and then you have wireless access as you drive the streets of NYC with access to the internet...it would be kinda cool if wi-fi wasnt as secure as the stream of piss going from me into the toilet.
I really cant say i think wi-fi is ready for this
In its current capacity....wi-fi is very insecure...its ok for inside a corperate building... and for a home network...but out on the streets? Currently there is nothign to secure wi-fi connections, i have an access point in my house with 2 laptops on it....when i was setting up the last one...in order to debug a problem i sat there and sniffed the traffic...the traffic over wi-fi goes over the air with no security protocols on it at all....now ethernet isnt much better (with the exception of wrappers like PPPoE to help disgues info) but its also not brodcasting to everyone within 100 meters.
The problem isnt the traffic being sniffed...i can fix that with a simple ssh tunnel...my problem is with the machine authentication...its basicly a clear text (well not quite...but from a security stand point it basiclly is) protocol...i can drive thru downtown boston and spoof myself onto any wireless network I encounter...a simple shell script chooses a victim and pretends to be them..there really is nothing to it.
Now for small restricted locations, were the general public dosnt have access too..this really isnt THAT much of a problem...however, if you have people subscribing to this, in downtown new york, out int he open...unless they adapt their own wi-fi protocol....they are basically putting hundreds of thousands of free victim for a hacker with a "war drive".
the tcp porton of the protocol can realistcally stay the same...but we need to find a better way to authenticate boxes onto the network at the physical layer. Right now anyone with prisim II drivers can wonder onto any wi-fi network they encouter.
Wi-fi is definatly cooll...i run it at home because its nice...but for a production network, I just dont think wi-fi is at that point yet.
opps....ah well....everyone can just ignore that post :)
:p
i just did a search on emerge....if you turn on the option to merege unstable builds in your make.global you can merge the source and compile it.
Besides....the entire point of ports is to compile the software...you shouldnt be using ebuilds unless you your building something like mozilla or open office
Not on x86?
:)
Who thought of this? lets design it for everything except x86...because everyon who is watching movies on spar and mips archs!
Seriously...it will eventually be ported to x86....and it will be nice not to have to ethier fire up vmware...or go hunting for the mplayer plugin....i do have quicktime plugin working...but I had to hack it up a fiar bit to stop it from seg-ving....So it will be nice when they have something that works by defualt!
Ah well.....most porn is in mpeg...so most linux users are doing all right