Anyhoo, encrypting public access points is stupid. It's impossible to make sure someone isn't snarfing your traffic(rogue access points) so any confidential information needs to be encrypted at each end with something like SSL w/ 1024bit RSA.
The point about encryption between the start and end points should apply to any public network as one rogue router is all it takes. Nevertheless, there's no reason why public access points cannot be encrypted — use something like EAP-TLS WPA but without the authentication. The client obtains a public key from the access point, constructs an AES session key and sends it to the access point with whatever public key cryptosystem it uses.
Bart. What the hell is this? Lisa. It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to
Generation Xers. Bart. We need another BSD war to thin out their ranks a little.
I understand why someone would want NTFS read support under Linux. I use it. But write support? It seems like a logical nightmare: how do you write to NTFS and keep consistent ownership/permissions? You'd have to map all the users under Linux into the NT user database, and that goes beyond filesystem support. And matching between the two security models would be even more of a problem.
Reproductive organs in its mouth
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I guess that precludes chilli and bony fish — just cold rice pudding and hot grits from now on!
Slashdot Mirror
Do either of you two like movies about gladiators?
My favourite: the Phantom Goatse Wallpaper Install. It gets the message "I really, really hate you" across like nothing else on this Earth.
The GIMPS clients do use the FPU (read the FAQ). Something to do with intensive use of FFTs.
Won't QVC be up in arms over this "live advertising" idea?
Encrypting a filesystem prevents arbitrary operating system from accessing it!
I mean — what the fuck?! — isn't that the whole idea?
Now there's a great tag for some Slashdot stories...
Ah, it's the old "tunnelling over a PPP connection on a Ouija board" trick.
Like I've said to others, "If you've not seen Goatse, consider yourself lucky. If you have, consider yourself educated."
OK, so that's Philips and Sony off the list. Who's next?
I understand why someone would want NTFS read support under Linux. I use it. But write support? It seems like a logical nightmare: how do you write to NTFS and keep consistent ownership/permissions? You'd have to map all the users under Linux into the NT user database, and that goes beyond filesystem support. And matching between the two security models would be even more of a problem.
I guess that precludes chilli and bony fish — just cold rice pudding and hot grits from now on!