Guys, our worst fears are coming true. I always heard that if women could make babies without us and figured out a way to open jars, we were not long for this earth. Well, check out this and this. Doh!
"Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22) "I pity da fool." (Mr. T, "Rocky III")
I note that the majority of rhetoric against ID is ad hominem attacks; i.e., "ID is stupid, and stupid religious zealots are the only ones who believe in it." There is very, very little effort given to proving points on a logical basis, which is what I would assume "scientific" people would try to do. The debate is very emotional and non-factual.
This leads me to believe that the people attacking ID have been blinded to the truth, just as it says in I Corinthians 4:4: "...whose minds the god of this age (i.e., Satan) has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light...should shine on them."
So, I am not angry at this wayward judge, or the ranting "scientists", or the wise fools that post on Slashdot. Rather, I pity da fools because they have been blinded.
Fortunately, I can read to the end of the Book, and I know that some day: "...at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11)
AMEN!
Peace out and MERRY CHRISTMAS (not some politically correct euphemism) to all!
Funny how all these judgments come from a second-hand article instead of the source. His DefCon talk was entitled "Old Skewl Hacking: IR" or something like that--he knows it's not new technology and mentioned how a lot of it is being replaced by RF. His point was: don't forget about IR just because it's old. It could still be a security threat and point of entry into a system. He did a very convincing demo complete with lots of screen shots and pictures. I believe he was legit.
On another note, I have read that most exploits have a characteristic curve which shows them spiking early, then gradually reducing as people deploy countermeasures. However, after a few years, the curve starts rising again as people FORGET about the vulnerability! In this case, I think he's just making this point again.
I saw the talk at DefCon. He was at the Paris Hilton (heh). Not a bad hotel. Guess what--I was staying at the Excalibur in Vegas, and its TV system had the *exact* same splash screen as he showed in his demo, so I suspect his methods would have worked there and a great many other places as well.
Are they talking about NGTCB as a replacement for all current Windows systems, or as an optional replacement if you desire the added security features?
The article states: "But the other part...called the 'Nexus mode'... is entirely optional for the user, is the 'trusted computing' model..."
It sounds like the difference between a mandatory access control system and a discretionary access control system. How is this different from what MAC extensions like TrustedBSD are to FreeBSD?
A few reasons why the Common Criteria will not last nearly as long as the TCSEC/Orange Book:
Too confusing/difficult to use. I attended a week-long course on how to write Protection Profiles. I have now written a couple and still feel like I don't know what I'm doing. I'm not an idiot--I have 13 years in the INFOSEC field and teach courses on INFOSEC. The problem is in the interpretation of the requirements. There is so much room for extension/customization/modification, that the whole thing is sort of worthless.
Who is using it? I work with people in the federal government (NIST/NSA) who don't know anything about the CC or PPs or STs, and they authored the @#!&$ thing. My military clients know nothing about it either. It hasn't caught on in five years or however long it's been out.
No good tools. I used an automated (Java-based) PP/ST generation tool, and it was a total kludge. AFAIK, there is no good tool available for mapping Threats, Assumptions, and Policies to Objectives, which in turn map to Functional and Assurance Requirements. And once you do the mapping, there's no good tool to update future revisions of your PP/ST.
Coming up with better and better encryption schemes is moot at best.
As Bruce Schneier says super-encryption technologies are like a single, indestructible fence post anchoring a much weaker defense curtain. The defense is indestructible only so long as the enemy runs directly into the fence post. However, it's much easier to circumvent the fence post and cut through the fence. Social engineering, poor policies, key theft and other routes make it much easier possible for hackers to get around conventional forms of strong encryption. And quantum computing is no different.
"Quantum cryptography has the potential for making the strongest link, in a series of very weak links, even stronger," Schneier says.
According to Webster's: "minority:...the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole."
Yet, the US News & World Report ranking of colleges shows statistics in which "minorities" comprise more than 50% of the student population.
It seems to me, a group is not a "minority" if it constitutes 98-99% of the population at an institution (especially in the case of the historically black colleges).
I also enjoyed the page listing the schools with 100% acceptance rates. Woohoo! Just sign and enter!
Not to mention, I once met one of the original software designers of Faceit at an ISSA meeting, and he said it could easily be defeated by wearing glasses and a hat. It uses the center of the nose and forehead as the starting point for determining facial geometry. Obscure these from view, and it can't even begin to make a match.
Brian Bergeron gives a fairly decent treatment of the whole
data loss issue in his bookDark
Ages II: When the Digital Data Die. Although,
this could be a lot of hysteria over nothing. As I recall in
Asimov's Foundation's
Edge, Trevize comes across some ancient computers, and they
just fire up and start working beautifully right away after
centuries of disuse. Heheh, if only this were the case. The hard
drive on the HP I got last Christmas already crapped out.
I vaguely recall about RND returning between 0.0 to 1.0. I was
thinking though, that if you seeded it with 1 [RND(1)], you would
get from 0.0 to 1.0, and if you seeded with a larger value, you
would get a whole number up to that value. I must be gettingthat
confused with other BASIC's.
PrintShop - indispensable for making dumb banners and cards
64 KB of memory - who could ever use that much?
Dual 5.25 floppies - yes, we were rich
Logo/Turtle - a fun programming language
My first program (can't recall if this is correct
Applesoft BASIC syntax):
10 REM A PROGRAM TO PRINT RANDOM LINES OF STARS
20 X = RND (1000)
30 Y = RND (80)
40 FOR A = 1 TO X
50 FOR B = 1 to Y
60 S$ = S$ + "*"
70 NEXT B
80 PRINT S$
90 PRINT
100 NEXT A
Note no GOTO's and even copious commenting! I was a
natural at age 8!!!:-)
(I see an unitialized variable in there though, oh well)...
What happened was the original "turtle shell" looking thing by Raytheon was too bulky and was not a big hit with the troops. So, some Silicon Valley eggheads (Pacific Consultants, et al.) took over the project and redesigned the system in six months using totally COTS products. The result was a somewhat workable design (it is still undergoing major revisions).
The group now developing Land Warrior and the future Scorpion suit appears to be the Wolfpack which includes Exponent (prime contractor), the Wexford Group, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hamilton Sundstrand, Charles River Analytics, and Wyle Laboratories.
Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry 8830 = 4.73 oz.
Sectera Edge = 12 oz.
And that's before you add on a CAC sled.
Of course Obama would go with the one that has a third the weight of the other one.
Just holding that Sectera Edge brick, I start getting carpal tunnel syndrome.
Guys, our worst fears are coming true. I always heard that if women could make babies without us and figured out a way to open jars, we were not long for this earth. Well, check out this and this. Doh!
"Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22)
"I pity da fool." (Mr. T, "Rocky III")
I note that the majority of rhetoric against ID is ad hominem attacks; i.e., "ID is stupid, and stupid religious zealots are the only ones who believe in it." There is very, very little effort given to proving points on a logical basis, which is what I would assume "scientific" people would try to do. The debate is very emotional and non-factual.
This leads me to believe that the people attacking ID have been blinded to the truth, just as it says in I Corinthians 4:4: "...whose minds the god of this age (i.e., Satan) has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light...should shine on them."
So, I am not angry at this wayward judge, or the ranting "scientists", or the wise fools that post on Slashdot. Rather, I pity da fools because they have been blinded.
Fortunately, I can read to the end of the Book, and I know that some day:
"...at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-11)
AMEN!
Peace out and MERRY CHRISTMAS (not some politically correct euphemism) to all!
Funny how all these judgments come from a second-hand article instead of the source. His DefCon talk was entitled "Old Skewl Hacking: IR" or something like that--he knows it's not new technology and mentioned how a lot of it is being replaced by RF. His point was: don't forget about IR just because it's old. It could still be a security threat and point of entry into a system. He did a very convincing demo complete with lots of screen shots and pictures. I believe he was legit. On another note, I have read that most exploits have a characteristic curve which shows them spiking early, then gradually reducing as people deploy countermeasures. However, after a few years, the curve starts rising again as people FORGET about the vulnerability! In this case, I think he's just making this point again.
I saw the talk at DefCon. He was at the Paris Hilton (heh). Not a bad hotel. Guess what--I was staying at the Excalibur in Vegas, and its TV system had the *exact* same splash screen as he showed in his demo, so I suspect his methods would have worked there and a great many other places as well.
Lassen Sie mich den zu patentieren ersten sein:
En español:
Déjeme ser el primer a patentar:
[Sorry, had to replace "junk characters"...]
void bubbleSort paren int arr bracket bracket , int arr_size paren curly brace ; ;
int i, j, temp;
for paren i = paren arr_size - 1 paren ; i >= 0; i-- paren curly brace
for paren j = 1; j if paren arr bracket j-1 bracket > arr bracket j bracket paren curly brace
temp = arr bracket j-1 bracket
arr bracket j-1 bracket = arr bracket j bracket
arr bracket j bracket = temp;
curly brace
curly brace
curly brace
curly brace
The article states: "But the other part...called the 'Nexus mode' ... is entirely optional for the user, is the 'trusted computing' model..."
It sounds like the difference between a mandatory access control system and a discretionary access control system. How is this different from what MAC extensions like TrustedBSD are to FreeBSD?
Uh-huh, and . . .
The Internet will make newspapers obsolete. -- Andy Grove, former Intel Chairman, 1995
USA Today circulation in 2003: 2.3 million (about double that of 1995)
As Bruce Schneier says super-encryption technologies are like a single, indestructible fence post anchoring a much weaker defense curtain. The defense is indestructible only so long as the enemy runs directly into the fence post. However, it's much easier to circumvent the fence post and cut through the fence. Social engineering, poor policies, key theft and other routes make it much easier possible for hackers to get around conventional forms of strong encryption. And quantum computing is no different.
"Quantum cryptography has the potential for making the strongest link, in a series of very weak links, even stronger," Schneier says.
This harkens back to another /. article
about getting paid for finding bugs.
Seems to me, someone who wants to earn some big bucks could figure out a way to write a virus, pin it on someone else, then collect the bucks.
Yet, the US News & World Report ranking of colleges shows statistics in which "minorities" comprise more than 50% of the student population.
It seems to me, a group is not a "minority" if it constitutes 98-99% of the population at an institution (especially in the case of the historically black colleges).
I also enjoyed the page listing the schools with 100% acceptance rates. Woohoo! Just sign and enter!
Not to mention, I once met one of the original software designers of Faceit at an ISSA meeting, and he said it could easily be defeated by wearing glasses and a hat. It uses the center of the nose and forehead as the starting point for determining facial geometry. Obscure these from view, and it can't even begin to make a match.
When they tested out the system at Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa, and it didn't pick up Ray Lewis.
Dang, it's going to be hard to convince my boss to let me go next year. This year, I was slated to go, but it got nixed because of budget crunch.
Didn't anything good happen?
Brian Bergeron gives a fairly decent treatment of the whole data loss issue in his book Dark Ages II: When the Digital Data Die . Although,
this could be a lot of hysteria over nothing. As I recall in
Asimov's Foundation's
Edge, Trevize comes across some ancient computers, and they
just fire up and start working beautifully right away after
centuries of disuse. Heheh, if only this were the case. The hard
drive on the HP I got last Christmas already crapped out.
This thing was obviously designed by a single dude.
Now, maybe I can get a discount on their Ultimate hacking class at the Black Hat Briefings. Heheh..
Beautiful. Thanks!
I vaguely recall about RND returning between 0.0 to 1.0. I was thinking though, that if you seeded it with 1 [RND(1)], you would get from 0.0 to 1.0, and if you seeded with a larger value, you would get a whole number up to that value. I must be gettingthat confused with other BASIC's.
J
Some other memories of my Apple ][+
What happened was the original "turtle shell" looking thing by Raytheon was too bulky and was not a big hit with the troops. So, some Silicon Valley eggheads (Pacific Consultants, et al.) took over the project and redesigned the system in six months using totally COTS products. The result was a somewhat workable design (it is still undergoing major revisions).
The group now developing Land Warrior and the future Scorpion suit appears to be the Wolfpack which includes Exponent (prime contractor), the Wexford Group, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hamilton Sundstrand, Charles River Analytics, and Wyle Laboratories.
Cheers, JeremyLand Warrior is still alive and well. According to this article, General Dynamics took a $500 million contract away from Raytheon to produce it.