Congratulations on being the only poster with a medicoracy of intelligence.
Like I mentioned in another reply, Prision is another society, the criminal has essentially volenteered to go into that society. Clearly the offender expects a certain treatment, or why else would we have repeat offenders? There are many criminals that actually prefer prison to the outside world.
I'd also like to thankyou for confirming my generalisation above that most Slashdot readers are dickheads
Thankyou for confirming what I've known for a long long time:-)
But just to reply to your point;
Once you lose your liberty, you join ANOTHER society, which in this day and age is well documented on the TV, and has been like this for more years you've lived. Let's face it you're either just an idealistic little twerp with little life experiance that needs to get out more into the real world, else you're a bleeding heart liberal that thinks smacking a child by it's own parents when it has been naughty is wrong.
Too many of the types listed above have gotten into positions of responsability and completely fscked society up already.
Men get raped in jail by men bigger than them, and they get out of jail and rape women to "regain" what was lost.
Thats just pure fiction, Rape is all about power. In Prison it's a way to assert you're more powerful than the rapee.
Lets face it, the average American thinks torture in prison is funny
I'm not American, so I'm not bound by your hilarious legal system, much less the morality you (as a country) are trying to force upon the rest of the world, But I digress.
Yes, I think if more criminals were given a real incentive NOT to go to prision in the first place then the world would be a better place - Is this so wrong ?
Re:Thank you - If I had mod points, you == +1
on
Blaster Writer Caught
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
And this is why they're there.
Prison should not be a place of joy for bleeding heart liberals.
Everyone in prison is there to be PUNISHED for their CRIME to SOCIETY, usually by DUE PROCESS, and convicted by their PEERS.
Of course if you're wrongly convicted thats a different matter.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE BEING IN PRISON YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME (and get caught).
Really they should take criminals out of the genepool altogether, then at least you'd get smart criminals that don't get caught:-)
The Great Worm of 15 years ago! This infected some 6000 different hosts, on an internet that was very much smaller than it is today, so percentage wise it is perhaps a bigger infection
Perhaps when windows (NT) is as old then it might be as robust as *nix in general. Remember *nix developers have had a long time to fix most of those nasty overflows:)
For all you kiddies that want to read about it, you can drool over its functions here
Depends if you're using the English langage or the lazy version that they use in the USA, laughingly called "American English" - like it's better or something - This coming from the nation that inflicted AOL on the world, oh and billg too.
What do you expect from a country that illegally liberates one country to free them from oppression then turns around and oppresses it's own citizens with an unconstitutional law (read illegal)
I suppose no worse than the country where I live, whos prime minister (who is not elected by the public, but by his own party) who allows a budget that allows spending millions on aid, and billions more in 'defence' and 'anti-terrorist' spending yet refuses to pay what firemen are worth. Doctors, Nurses, Teachers etc don't get a fair whack either but they're not striking atm.
Do not ignore the India factor. 38% of all IT jobs are now outsourced for minimal wage in India according to the garnet group
And boy just about now, people are beginning to wonder why the hell they outsourced. Slowly *very* slowly the penny is dropping with management that cheap != good.
Make no mistake, those that have been biding their time over the past 18-24 months are starting to see market improvements, and are in place to maximize this.
I've seen people that have been made redundant 12 months ago get re-employed by their ex-employers, and other people rewriting huge portions of overseas-outsourced work.
BTW for you Americans out there, the rest of the world uses the NATO/Seaspeak Alphabet.
Alpha (also spelled Alfa)
Bravo,
Charlie,
Delta,
Echo,
Foxtrot,
Golf,
Hotel,
India,
Juliet,
Kilo,
Lima,
Mike,
November,
Oscar,
Papa,
Quebec,
Romeo,
Sierra,
Tango,
Uniform,
Victor,
Whiskey,
X-ray,
Yankee,
Zulu,
It took me a while to wonder WTF yank films insist on saying "Baker" instead of "Bravo" I suppose it's because you can't spell COLOUR, FLAVOUR or any number of other words correctly.
STOP BASTARDISING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DAMNIT! :-)
Network Working Group S. Bellovin Request for Comments: 3514 AT&T Labs Research Category: Informational 1 April 2003
The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Firewalls, packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. We define a security flag in the IPv4 header as a means of distinguishing the two cases.
1. Introduction
Firewalls CBR03 , packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. The problem is that making such determinations is hard. To solve this problem, we define a security flag, known as the "evil" bit, in the IPv4 RFC791 header. Benign packets have this bit set to 0; those that are used for an attack will have the bit set to 1.
1.1. Terminology
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.
2. Syntax
The high-order bit of the IP fragment offset field is the only unused bit in the IP header. Accordingly, the selection of the bit position is not left to IANA.
The bit field is laid out as follows:
0 +-+ |E| +-+
Currently-assigned values are defined as follows:
0x0 If the bit is set to 0, the packet has no evil intent. Hosts, network elements, etc., SHOULD assume that the packet is harmless, and SHOULD NOT take any defensive measures. (We note
that this part of the spec is already implemented by many common desktop operating systems.)
0x1 If the bit is set to 1, the packet has evil intent. Secure systems SHOULD try to defend themselves against such packets. Insecure systems MAY chose to crash, be penetrated, etc.
3. Setting the Evil Bit
There are a number of ways in which the evil bit may be set. Attack applications may use a suitable API to request that it be set. Systems that do not have other mechanisms MUST provide such an API; attack programs MUST use it.
Multi-level insecure operating systems may have special levels for attack programs; the evil bit MUST be set by default on packets emanating from programs running at such levels. However, the system MAY provide an API to allow it to be cleared for non-malicious activity by users who normally engage in attack behavior.
Fragments that by themselves are dangerous MUST have the evil bit set. If a packet with the evil bit set is fragmented by an intermediate router and the fragments themselves are not dangerous, the evil bit MUST be cleared in the fragments, and MUST be turned back on in the reassembled packet.
Intermediate systems are sometimes used to launder attack connections. Packets to such systems that are intended to be relayed to a target SHOULD have the evil bit set.
Some applications hand-craft their own packets. If these packets are part of an attack, the application MUST set the evil bit by itself.
In networks protected by firewalls, it is axiomatic that all attackers are on the outside of the firewall. Therefore, hosts inside the firewall MUST NOT set the evil bit on any packets.
Because NAT RFC3022 boxes modify packets, they SHOULD set the evil bit on such packets. "Transparent" http and email proxies SHOULD set the evil bit on their reply packets to the innocent client host.
Some hosts scan other hosts in a fashion that can alert intrusion detection systems. If the scanning is part of a benign research project, the evil bit MUST NOT be set
Dupe post record. 4 on the front page! gg Taco!
on
IPv4 Headers Investigated
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Network Working Group S. Bellovin Request for Comments: 3514 AT&T Labs Research Category: Informational 1 April 2003
The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Firewalls, packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. We define a security flag in the IPv4 header as a means of distinguishing the two cases.
1. Introduction
Firewalls CBR03 , packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. The problem is that making such determinations is hard. To solve this problem, we define a security flag, known as the "evil" bit, in the IPv4 RFC791 header. Benign packets have this bit set to 0; those that are used for an attack will have the bit set to 1.
1.1. Terminology
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.
2. Syntax
The high-order bit of the IP fragment offset field is the only unused bit in the IP header. Accordingly, the selection of the bit position is not left to IANA.
The bit field is laid out as follows:
0 +-+ |E| +-+
Currently-assigned values are defined as follows:
0x0 If the bit is set to 0, the packet has no evil intent. Hosts, network elements, etc., SHOULD assume that the packet is harmless, and SHOULD NOT take any defensive measures. (We note
that this part of the spec is already implemented by many common desktop operating systems.)
0x1 If the bit is set to 1, the packet has evil intent. Secure systems SHOULD try to defend themselves against such packets. Insecure systems MAY chose to crash, be penetrated, etc.
3. Setting the Evil Bit
There are a number of ways in which the evil bit may be set. Attack applications may use a suitable API to request that it be set. Systems that do not have other mechanisms MUST provide such an API; attack programs MUST use it.
Multi-level insecure operating systems may have special levels for attack programs; the evil bit MUST be set by default on packets emanating from programs running at such levels. However, the system MAY provide an API to allow it to be cleared for non-malicious activity by users who normally engage in attack behavior.
Fragments that by themselves are dangerous MUST have the evil bit set. If a packet with the evil bit set is fragmented by an intermediate router and the fragments themselves are not dangerous, the evil bit MUST be cleared in the fragments, and MUST be turned back on in the reassembled packet.
Intermediate systems are sometimes used to launder attack connections. Packets to such systems that are intended to be relayed to a target SHOULD have the evil bit set.
Some applications hand-craft their own packets. If these packets are part of an attack, the application MUST set the evil bit by itself.
In networks protected by firewalls, it is axiomatic that all attackers are on the outside of the firewall. Therefore, hosts inside the firewall MUST NOT set the evil bit on any packets.
Because NAT RFC3022 boxes modify packets, they SHOULD set the evil bit on such packets. "Transparent" http and email proxies SHOULD set the evil bit on their reply packets to the innocent client host.
Some hosts scan other hosts in a fashion that can alert intrusion detection systems. If the scanning is part of a benign research project, the evil bit MUST NOT be set
Slashdot Mirror
bwhahahahaha :-)
PS - I bet the jackass who posted the above message considers himself a moral christian, they all do.
No, I don't associate myself with hypocrites and scumbags.
Yay! Someone who understands! Thank you /. !
Congratulations on being the only poster with a medicoracy of intelligence.
Like I mentioned in another reply, Prision is another society, the criminal has essentially volenteered to go into that society. Clearly the offender expects a certain treatment, or why else would we have repeat offenders? There are many criminals that actually prefer prison to the outside world.
I'd also like to thankyou for confirming my generalisation above that most Slashdot readers are dickheads
:-)
Thankyou for confirming what I've known for a long long time
But just to reply to your point;
Once you lose your liberty, you join ANOTHER society, which in this day and age is well documented on the TV, and has been like this for more years you've lived. Let's face it you're either just an idealistic little twerp with little life experiance that needs to get out more into the real world, else you're a bleeding heart liberal that thinks smacking a child by it's own parents when it has been naughty is wrong.
Too many of the types listed above have gotten into positions of responsability and completely fscked society up already.
Sure, criminals etc shouldn't associate with other criminals at all. They should be in solitary. - That'll learn 'em :-)
Men get raped in jail by men bigger than them, and they get out of jail and rape women to "regain" what was lost.
Thats just pure fiction, Rape is all about power. In Prison it's a way to assert you're more powerful than the rapee.
Lets face it, the average American thinks torture in prison is funny
I'm not American, so I'm not bound by your hilarious legal system, much less the morality you (as a country) are trying to force upon the rest of the world, But I digress.
Yes, I think if more criminals were given a real incentive NOT to go to prision in the first place then the world would be a better place - Is this so wrong ?
And this is why they're there.
:-)
Prison should not be a place of joy for bleeding heart liberals.
Everyone in prison is there to be PUNISHED for their CRIME to SOCIETY, usually by DUE PROCESS, and convicted by their PEERS.
Of course if you're wrongly convicted thats a different matter.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE BEING IN PRISON YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME (and get caught).
Really they should take criminals out of the genepool altogether, then at least you'd get smart criminals that don't get caught
Not all *nix is open source (sun, sco, aix)
:)
And lets not forget about:
The Great Worm of 15 years ago! This infected some 6000 different hosts, on an internet that was very much smaller than it is today, so percentage wise it is perhaps a bigger infection
Perhaps when windows (NT) is as old then it might be as robust as *nix in general. Remember *nix developers have had a long time to fix most of those nasty overflows
For all you kiddies that want to read about it, you can drool over its functions here
Thats not a real poll!
Where is the Cowboyneil option ?
Depends if you're using the English langage or the lazy version that they use in the USA, laughingly called "American English" - like it's better or something - This coming from the nation that inflicted AOL on the world, oh and billg too.
<T3>They'll be back</T3>
What you say ?
Somebody set up us the bomb ?
It's You!!
For Great Justice !!!
Congrats on the Novell takeover!
I don't understand these companies.
Why use something GPL'd when you can use *BSD that has little or no encumbarance like this?
Or am I missing something here?
(Note: I'm a Debian bigot - not a *BSD one)
I think SCO has the IP Rights to Deities too :(.
... Well I think they probably *THINK* they do.
Appears to be back. Apparently the content managment system they run there decided to back off for a bit :-)
:) (and rising)
Not suprising with a load avg of 78.29 / 58.63 / 42.64
Not bad really, knowing what a slashdotting is like. lots of mysql threads too.
I host hexus's webservers :-)
- now I'm starting to get worried
www.tetracite.com
What do you expect from a country that illegally liberates one country to free them from oppression then turns around and oppresses it's own citizens with an unconstitutional law (read illegal)
I suppose no worse than the country where I live, whos prime minister (who is not elected by the public, but by his own party) who allows a budget that allows spending millions on aid, and billions more in 'defence' and 'anti-terrorist' spending yet refuses to pay what firemen are worth. Doctors, Nurses, Teachers etc don't get a fair whack either but they're not striking atm.
Stupid politicians. Stupid voters.
Argh!
Stop
This
Madness
Now!
!!!!11
And boy just about now, people are beginning to wonder why the hell they outsourced. Slowly *very* slowly the penny is dropping with management that cheap != good.
Make no mistake, those that have been biding their time over the past 18-24 months are starting to see market improvements, and are in place to maximize this.
I've seen people that have been made redundant 12 months ago get re-employed by their ex-employers, and other people rewriting huge portions of overseas-outsourced work.
or Charlie Foxtrot Nine
BTW for you Americans out there, the rest of the world uses the NATO/Seaspeak Alphabet.
It took me a while to wonder WTF yank films insist on saying "Baker" instead of "Bravo"
I suppose it's because you can't spell COLOUR,
FLAVOUR or any number of other words correctly.
STOP BASTARDISING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DAMNIT!
:-)
Network Working Group S. Bellovin
.
Request for Comments: 3514 AT&T Labs Research
Category: Informational 1 April 2003
The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Firewalls, packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. We define a security flag in the IPv4 header as a means of distinguishing the two cases.
1. Introduction
Firewalls CBR03 , packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. The problem is that making such determinations is hard. To solve this problem, we define a security flag, known as the "evil" bit, in the IPv4 RFC791 header. Benign packets have this bit set to 0; those that are used for an attack will have the bit set to 1.
1.1. Terminology
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119
2. Syntax
The high-order bit of the IP fragment offset field is the only unused bit in the IP header. Accordingly, the selection of the bit position is not left to IANA.
The bit field is laid out as follows:
0
+-+
|E|
+-+
Currently-assigned values are defined as follows:
0x0 If the bit is set to 0, the packet has no evil intent. Hosts, network elements, etc., SHOULD assume that the packet is harmless, and SHOULD NOT take any defensive measures. (We note
that this part of the spec is already implemented by many common desktop operating systems.)
0x1 If the bit is set to 1, the packet has evil intent. Secure systems SHOULD try to defend themselves against such packets. Insecure systems MAY chose to crash, be penetrated, etc.
3. Setting the Evil Bit
There are a number of ways in which the evil bit may be set. Attack applications may use a suitable API to request that it be set. Systems that do not have other mechanisms MUST provide such an API; attack programs MUST use it.
Multi-level insecure operating systems may have special levels for attack programs; the evil bit MUST be set by default on packets emanating from programs running at such levels. However, the system MAY provide an API to allow it to be cleared for non-malicious activity by users who normally engage in attack behavior.
Fragments that by themselves are dangerous MUST have the evil bit set. If a packet with the evil bit set is fragmented by an intermediate router and the fragments themselves are not dangerous, the evil bit MUST be cleared in the fragments, and MUST be turned back on in the reassembled packet.
Intermediate systems are sometimes used to launder attack connections. Packets to such systems that are intended to be relayed to a target SHOULD have the evil bit set.
Some applications hand-craft their own packets. If these packets are part of an attack, the application MUST set the evil bit by itself.
In networks protected by firewalls, it is axiomatic that all attackers are on the outside of the firewall. Therefore, hosts inside the firewall MUST NOT set the evil bit on any packets.
Because NAT RFC3022 boxes modify packets, they SHOULD set the evil bit on such packets. "Transparent" http and email proxies SHOULD set the evil bit on their reply packets to the innocent client host.
Some hosts scan other hosts in a fashion that can alert intrusion detection systems. If the scanning is part of a benign research project, the evil bit MUST NOT be set
Network Working Group S. Bellovin
.
Request for Comments: 3514 AT&T Labs Research
Category: Informational 1 April 2003
The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Firewalls, packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. We define a security flag in the IPv4 header as a means of distinguishing the two cases.
1. Introduction
Firewalls CBR03 , packet filters, intrusion detection systems, and the like often have difficulty distinguishing between packets that have malicious intent and those that are merely unusual. The problem is that making such determinations is hard. To solve this problem, we define a security flag, known as the "evil" bit, in the IPv4 RFC791 header. Benign packets have this bit set to 0; those that are used for an attack will have the bit set to 1.
1.1. Terminology
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119
2. Syntax
The high-order bit of the IP fragment offset field is the only unused bit in the IP header. Accordingly, the selection of the bit position is not left to IANA.
The bit field is laid out as follows:
0
+-+
|E|
+-+
Currently-assigned values are defined as follows:
0x0 If the bit is set to 0, the packet has no evil intent. Hosts, network elements, etc., SHOULD assume that the packet is harmless, and SHOULD NOT take any defensive measures. (We note
that this part of the spec is already implemented by many common desktop operating systems.)
0x1 If the bit is set to 1, the packet has evil intent. Secure systems SHOULD try to defend themselves against such packets. Insecure systems MAY chose to crash, be penetrated, etc.
3. Setting the Evil Bit
There are a number of ways in which the evil bit may be set. Attack applications may use a suitable API to request that it be set. Systems that do not have other mechanisms MUST provide such an API; attack programs MUST use it.
Multi-level insecure operating systems may have special levels for attack programs; the evil bit MUST be set by default on packets emanating from programs running at such levels. However, the system MAY provide an API to allow it to be cleared for non-malicious activity by users who normally engage in attack behavior.
Fragments that by themselves are dangerous MUST have the evil bit set. If a packet with the evil bit set is fragmented by an intermediate router and the fragments themselves are not dangerous, the evil bit MUST be cleared in the fragments, and MUST be turned back on in the reassembled packet.
Intermediate systems are sometimes used to launder attack connections. Packets to such systems that are intended to be relayed to a target SHOULD have the evil bit set.
Some applications hand-craft their own packets. If these packets are part of an attack, the application MUST set the evil bit by itself.
In networks protected by firewalls, it is axiomatic that all attackers are on the outside of the firewall. Therefore, hosts inside the firewall MUST NOT set the evil bit on any packets.
Because NAT RFC3022 boxes modify packets, they SHOULD set the evil bit on such packets. "Transparent" http and email proxies SHOULD set the evil bit on their reply packets to the innocent client host.
Some hosts scan other hosts in a fashion that can alert intrusion detection systems. If the scanning is part of a benign research project, the evil bit MUST NOT be set