Re:So what - we are all NAT'ed anyway?
on
Hardening Linux
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Why are you talking about anything? You just said "NAT router." That's the worst 'oxymoron' I've ever seen.
This article and the people commenting in it, myself excluded, are possibly the most retarded and unqualified people to comment on a Linux / general computing story ever.
I'm not an anthropologist, biologist, neurologist, or anything-ologist, for that matter, but isn't this very similar to how the human brain works? Why do we recognize images as being "Japanese porn" or not? Surely that's because we've seen that sort of thing before (well, most of us have), and we've stored these images inside of our memory. We can recognize them "semantically" because these images exist in our database, and our brain provides some sort of algorithm for detecting similarities in pictures.
If I am not mistaken, that is what this project is doing. Could they have stumbled upon a possible solution to a difficult AI proble m without even realizing it?
Fake celeb slips will of course come first, but why stop there? That cute girl at the coffee shop? Snap her with the camera phone, erase all those pesky clothes, and let this algorithm do its thing.
Of course, I could also see this used for more nefarious (even "sick") purposes... Ex-GF cheated and you don't have any nude pics to release to the web? You do now. And if you "repaired" a fully-clothed original of someone underage, would it still count as child porn?
You could also just.. draw these images. It's almost exactly the same thing, except the computer-assisted method takes less effort (and talent).
It's all too easy to draw conclusions for the entire universe based on observations of your local area. People do it not just when thinking of extra terrestrials but even when thinking of other people and cultures on our own planet. There's a tendency to think that the way we do things is just the way that things should be done. But there are many ways life can develop, many ways life can be supported, and many, many planets that are much too far away for us to observe or for them to observe us. It's foolish to think that we are alone simply because we have not observed any other intelligent life in the few hundred years we've been looking.
It's hilarious how you use our own solar system as evidence for anything, and then go on to say how flawed it is to extrapolate based upon things that merely exist in one corner of an average galaxy in the middle of nowhere in the universe. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but the Earth and Mars are a simple size of two. Certainly, there probably are many, many planets habitable to life, even as we know it, and, certainly, it probably is a very arrogant thing to imagine life must be anything like us. But it is all together absurd to say one and then the other, referencing directly opposing conditions.
That old argument? Who do you think you are? You're a better thinker than Carl Sagan, Enrico Fermi, and Frank Drake? You're allowed to voice your (layman's) opinion on the subject, but, jesus christ, it would've taken all of four minutes of research to find out that your thought is entirely unoriginal and answered in various ways by geology and biology.
It's probably good advice that, when you think you've had an original thought, you should smack yourself and call yourself an idiot for being one, because you never will have such a thing.
Simply, it could be that life HAS come into existence multiple times on Earth. Perhaps geological evidence of early life was wiped out by the seas of lava which once comprised the young Earth. Or maybe it's just that the conditions on Earth have changed to make life substantially more difficult to arise. I just don't understand why you think you've all of a sudden come upon the greatest argument known to man for whatever it is you're trying to argue, just because it sounds good to you at the time. If you really thought about it, you'd come to realize how dumb that is, and you'd probably do research to find better answers. Then, maybe, just maybe, after many, many years of research, you'll be able to have an original thought, and be able to wear a badge that says "scientist." But you're not going to get there by being presumptuous and pretentious.
I was watching the Daily Show the other day when they interviewed the astrophysicist hosting Nova, and the guy had an infectious enthusiasm (to lift Jon Stewart's language directly hehe).
Prove it. This is the internet. I don't have to travel anywhere to visit Best Buy, and you don't have to make much of an effort to substantiate your claim.
These "routers" (which, sometimes, aren't routers at all, and, which, very rarely, are ever used for that purpose if they do have routing functionality) don't provide "DSL+NAT+HUB." Very few of them have built-in DSL modems, and almost none of them use hubs, so far as I know. Switching is nearly ubiquitous now.
Also, I think you mean 'IPv4,' but I'm not really sure. IPV4 looks weird.
Technically, it's still IDE. The cabling is different. The drive electronics are still integrated, and the underlying technology is still nearly identical, so far as I know.
It's dictionary, but that's not even a big issue, really. You can use dictionary words if the password is sufficiently long (ideally including permeations of said words [and ideally multiple instances of said permeations {of a different word each}]. The real problem is that passwords are mostly obsolete. That's just an eight character password, which is absolutely nothing. If I got ahold of your hash database, I could crack it pretty quickly even on my few and relatively home computers.
Most websites actually use unsalted MD5 to store passwords, of which 9 chars a-zA-Z0-9 could be cracked by BlueGene/L in roughly 3 hours, were it properly suited to such a task. You'd have to be using something like brcypt with proper salting to be safe, unless you used 20 character passwords regularly, which isn't really a big deal as people make it out to be. If I can remember the first 100 digits of pi without even trying, why, exactly, will it be a problem for me to remember my 15-20 digit password? I don't think I'm particularly special, either. My memory is actually relatively crap.
Nevertheless, as computer complexity increases, the hash complexity has to increase or else the password complexity does. Bcrypt attempts to accomodate the former, making the letter somewhat unnecessary, but it is inevitable that eventually a secure password will consist of some 50 characters a-zA-Z0-9. It's probably time we just give up the dated concept all together. I don't see why we can't use RSA cards or something similar. Much more secure and probably more efficient.
why is this on slashdot (outside of someone's journal)? some of us have been doing this every day for years. I mean it's not like the old alta vista/hot bot "WS_FTP.LOG" or whatever is anything new.
telnet is a protocol laid upon TCP (and, more commonly, a program translating that protocol to standard output). it would be impossible for me to use it for every "IP session," since there are other IP protocols that make use of sessions (some of which I do use).
okay. I haven't read nearly enough about physics yet, and school doesn't start until late august, so I'm just going to have to be as humble as I can, but I'm just wondering, if anyone can tell me: is there any reason why quantum entanglement can't be explained by higher dimensional space (essentially, isn't a wormhole actually a fold through four dimensions [not necessarily spatial], allowing FTL in a non-technical sense? which is something I've been wondering about lately*)? would this or would this not gel with some of the string theory variants, if it were possible? and if it's not possible, what's the reason? some sort of intricate mathematical difficulty?
* if m-theory talks about gravitons being able to traverse branes (in 11 dimensions, I think?), then why couldn't gravity be a higher dimensional form of light, since light exhibits similar properties (although I do know that Einstein thought this and later had to change his mind since the EM force and G force are quite different!) -- it could potentially even be that FTL is possible outside of the three spatial dimensions we're confined for, if relativity allows for that?
uhh.. you used the wrong dividend (you incorrectly converted the 2.592 * 10^6 * 2^30 bytes to bits), but you got the right quotient. how did you manage that?
oh, please. don't call him on being stupid, but call him for being wrong (if he is). it could very well be that black people aren't as intelligent, and there is nothing wrong with that. the fact that I may even believe that (I don't) doesn't make me racist, either. racism means I believe a race (or races) is inferior to another race, and, unless I think that the race is any less useful because of their lower intelligence, then I would hardly call any such position "racist." hell, even if I took it one step further and really thought black people were the scourge of the earth, then that's not necessarily a bad thing.
it's not something I would do! but what's wrong with being racist, exactly? as long as you don't go around killing people - so what? and if you do go around killing people because you don't like their race, it's no different from killing anyone else for any other reason. all reasons for killing people are pretty stupid, when you think about it. I'm tired of this politically correct anti-racist bullshit. if someone actually reasons through to an opinion that one race is inferior or superior in different ways than another, then what exactly is wrong with that? if someone takes that to an extreme -- thinking we should eliminate the other race(s), then I can see why you might call that stupid, but, so long as they don't do it, what business is it of yours?
I'm not saying you can't discuss it or wish they would change their minds. I just don't see why you have to be so presumptuous and pretentious about it. I honestly don't even know how you can claim that no one is racist, going by what seems to be your (and most others') definition of the word. isn't it a fact that the races _ARE_ different? and isn't it a proven fact that races DO HAVE DIFFERENT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES? doesn't that mean that anyone who is "racist" (to a lesser degree than what most people consider racism, but still pretty much fits your itchy-trigger-finger, liberal-agenda firing off of the word) in your mind is actually scientifically correct? I only really care about what's true. that may be hard for you to accept or understand (me thinking that, or the truth itself), but that's the way things are.
if our strongest emotions can be reduced to the simplest of chemical reactions, then does that make us any less interesting? I don't think so. I think it enhances the concept of what humans really are. It's amazing. So if the truth is that some races have differing abilities, does that make them any less useful or interesting, or does it make the other races any more useful or interesting? Not necessarily. But if you want to talk about each race in terms of those differences, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even if you want to extend this to something like breeding outside of your own "race." If you don't want to, that seems perfectly fine to me, and makes some sort of sense (we probably are all of the same species -- I guess that's pretty well accepted -- but we may wish to pass on different kinds of genetic traits to our children, and isn't it true that the various species of butterfly, for instance (and I may be wrong), recognize their mates by aesthetic properties such as color?
It isn't a bad thing, necessarily. While I think that chiding people (let alone wanting to harm them) for intermarrying is dumb, you definitely have the right to choose with whom you wish to partner, and you definitely have the right to discuss that idea freely. I'm fearful that our free speech is being eroded by all of these politically correct puppets trying to legislate "hate speech" laws and that sort of thing. And racism in the west largely comprises white people not treating black people with the kind of carefulness that you would ideally exhibit in the presence of an all-knowing god. I'm sorry, but it's true, and it's fucking ridiculous. I can make fun of whomever the fuck I want, and in whatever capacity I want, and I can damn well get away with it. Thank the founding fathers. Stop shitting on their gr
I'm not really up on politics or anything, but, really, does the russian mob actually exist (well, insofar as the image that's conjured up in my mind when I hear the word "mob")? and all of this corporate espionage crap?
I am up on computer security and "hacking," though, and I'm willing to bet that, if it's true that there are groups of 'blackhats' working for the russian mafia or whatever, most of them are script kiddies as well, just to a lesser degree than people like the guy in the article. honest, talented hackers and crackers (usually reformed crackers) don't bother with that stuff, generally. they become whitehats, or just don't waste their time. I should know, because that's sort of what I did, and, although I guess that doesn't really prove anything, it seems to be what several others I've known have done also.
but hey.. maybe I'm being naive. maybe some of those kids went on to work for the russians or something equally insane. I just find it kind of ridiculous and hard to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you talking about anything? You just said "NAT router." That's the worst 'oxymoron' I've ever seen.
This article and the people commenting in it, myself excluded, are possibly the most retarded and unqualified people to comment on a Linux / general computing story ever.
I'm not an anthropologist, biologist, neurologist, or anything-ologist, for that matter, but isn't this very similar to how the human brain works? Why do we recognize images as being "Japanese porn" or not? Surely that's because we've seen that sort of thing before (well, most of us have), and we've stored these images inside of our memory. We can recognize them "semantically" because these images exist in our database, and our brain provides some sort of algorithm for detecting similarities in pictures.
If I am not mistaken, that is what this project is doing. Could they have stumbled upon a possible solution to a difficult AI proble m without even realizing it?
That old argument? Who do you think you are? You're a better thinker than Carl Sagan, Enrico Fermi, and Frank Drake? You're allowed to voice your (layman's) opinion on the subject, but, jesus christ, it would've taken all of four minutes of research to find out that your thought is entirely unoriginal and answered in various ways by geology and biology.
It's probably good advice that, when you think you've had an original thought, you should smack yourself and call yourself an idiot for being one, because you never will have such a thing.
Simply, it could be that life HAS come into existence multiple times on Earth. Perhaps geological evidence of early life was wiped out by the seas of lava which once comprised the young Earth. Or maybe it's just that the conditions on Earth have changed to make life substantially more difficult to arise. I just don't understand why you think you've all of a sudden come upon the greatest argument known to man for whatever it is you're trying to argue, just because it sounds good to you at the time. If you really thought about it, you'd come to realize how dumb that is, and you'd probably do research to find better answers. Then, maybe, just maybe, after many, many years of research, you'll be able to have an original thought, and be able to wear a badge that says "scientist." But you're not going to get there by being presumptuous and pretentious.
Evidently, you enjoy acting like an attention seeking piece of shit, though. Who gives a fuck whether you're a woman?
Prove it. This is the internet. I don't have to travel anywhere to visit Best Buy, and you don't have to make much of an effort to substantiate your claim.
actually, it's orbiting a red giant.
These "routers" (which, sometimes, aren't routers at all, and, which, very rarely, are ever used for that purpose if they do have routing functionality) don't provide "DSL+NAT+HUB." Very few of them have built-in DSL modems, and almost none of them use hubs, so far as I know. Switching is nearly ubiquitous now. Also, I think you mean 'IPv4,' but I'm not really sure. IPV4 looks weird.
me. gagging is hawt.
And an 0x2e.
lol.
Technically, it's still IDE. The cabling is different. The drive electronics are still integrated, and the underlying technology is still nearly identical, so far as I know.
how's the weather in wales?
It's dictionary, but that's not even a big issue, really. You can use dictionary words if the password is sufficiently long (ideally including permeations of said words [and ideally multiple instances of said permeations {of a different word each}]. The real problem is that passwords are mostly obsolete. That's just an eight character password, which is absolutely nothing. If I got ahold of your hash database, I could crack it pretty quickly even on my few and relatively home computers.
Most websites actually use unsalted MD5 to store passwords, of which 9 chars a-zA-Z0-9 could be cracked by BlueGene/L in roughly 3 hours, were it properly suited to such a task. You'd have to be using something like brcypt with proper salting to be safe, unless you used 20 character passwords regularly, which isn't really a big deal as people make it out to be. If I can remember the first 100 digits of pi without even trying, why, exactly, will it be a problem for me to remember my 15-20 digit password? I don't think I'm particularly special, either. My memory is actually relatively crap.
Nevertheless, as computer complexity increases, the hash complexity has to increase or else the password complexity does. Bcrypt attempts to accomodate the former, making the letter somewhat unnecessary, but it is inevitable that eventually a secure password will consist of some 50 characters a-zA-Z0-9. It's probably time we just give up the dated concept all together. I don't see why we can't use RSA cards or something similar. Much more secure and probably more efficient.
why is this on slashdot (outside of someone's journal)? some of us have been doing this every day for years. I mean it's not like the old alta vista/hot bot "WS_FTP.LOG" or whatever is anything new.
You mean https.
telnet is a protocol laid upon TCP (and, more commonly, a program translating that protocol to standard output). it would be impossible for me to use it for every "IP session," since there are other IP protocols that make use of sessions (some of which I do use).
okay. I haven't read nearly enough about physics yet, and school doesn't start until late august, so I'm just going to have to be as humble as I can, but I'm just wondering, if anyone can tell me: is there any reason why quantum entanglement can't be explained by higher dimensional space (essentially, isn't a wormhole actually a fold through four dimensions [not necessarily spatial], allowing FTL in a non-technical sense? which is something I've been wondering about lately*)? would this or would this not gel with some of the string theory variants, if it were possible? and if it's not possible, what's the reason? some sort of intricate mathematical difficulty?
* if m-theory talks about gravitons being able to traverse branes (in 11 dimensions, I think?), then why couldn't gravity be a higher dimensional form of light, since light exhibits similar properties (although I do know that Einstein thought this and later had to change his mind since the EM force and G force are quite different!) -- it could potentially even be that FTL is possible outside of the three spatial dimensions we're confined for, if relativity allows for that?
I hope someone can answer. thanks.
uhh.. you used the wrong dividend (you incorrectly converted the 2.592 * 10^6 * 2^30 bytes to bits), but you got the right quotient. how did you manage that?
oh, please. don't call him on being stupid, but call him for being wrong (if he is). it could very well be that black people aren't as intelligent, and there is nothing wrong with that. the fact that I may even believe that (I don't) doesn't make me racist, either. racism means I believe a race (or races) is inferior to another race, and, unless I think that the race is any less useful because of their lower intelligence, then I would hardly call any such position "racist." hell, even if I took it one step further and really thought black people were the scourge of the earth, then that's not necessarily a bad thing.
it's not something I would do! but what's wrong with being racist, exactly? as long as you don't go around killing people - so what? and if you do go around killing people because you don't like their race, it's no different from killing anyone else for any other reason. all reasons for killing people are pretty stupid, when you think about it. I'm tired of this politically correct anti-racist bullshit. if someone actually reasons through to an opinion that one race is inferior or superior in different ways than another, then what exactly is wrong with that? if someone takes that to an extreme -- thinking we should eliminate the other race(s), then I can see why you might call that stupid, but, so long as they don't do it, what business is it of yours?
I'm not saying you can't discuss it or wish they would change their minds. I just don't see why you have to be so presumptuous and pretentious about it. I honestly don't even know how you can claim that no one is racist, going by what seems to be your (and most others') definition of the word. isn't it a fact that the races _ARE_ different? and isn't it a proven fact that races DO HAVE DIFFERENT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES? doesn't that mean that anyone who is "racist" (to a lesser degree than what most people consider racism, but still pretty much fits your itchy-trigger-finger, liberal-agenda firing off of the word) in your mind is actually scientifically correct? I only really care about what's true. that may be hard for you to accept or understand (me thinking that, or the truth itself), but that's the way things are.
if our strongest emotions can be reduced to the simplest of chemical reactions, then does that make us any less interesting? I don't think so. I think it enhances the concept of what humans really are. It's amazing. So if the truth is that some races have differing abilities, does that make them any less useful or interesting, or does it make the other races any more useful or interesting? Not necessarily. But if you want to talk about each race in terms of those differences, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even if you want to extend this to something like breeding outside of your own "race." If you don't want to, that seems perfectly fine to me, and makes some sort of sense (we probably are all of the same species -- I guess that's pretty well accepted -- but we may wish to pass on different kinds of genetic traits to our children, and isn't it true that the various species of butterfly, for instance (and I may be wrong), recognize their mates by aesthetic properties such as color?
It isn't a bad thing, necessarily. While I think that chiding people (let alone wanting to harm them) for intermarrying is dumb, you definitely have the right to choose with whom you wish to partner, and you definitely have the right to discuss that idea freely. I'm fearful that our free speech is being eroded by all of these politically correct puppets trying to legislate "hate speech" laws and that sort of thing. And racism in the west largely comprises white people not treating black people with the kind of carefulness that you would ideally exhibit in the presence of an all-knowing god. I'm sorry, but it's true, and it's fucking ridiculous. I can make fun of whomever the fuck I want, and in whatever capacity I want, and I can damn well get away with it. Thank the founding fathers. Stop shitting on their gr
I'm not really up on politics or anything, but, really, does the russian mob actually exist (well, insofar as the image that's conjured up in my mind when I hear the word "mob")? and all of this corporate espionage crap?
I am up on computer security and "hacking," though, and I'm willing to bet that, if it's true that there are groups of 'blackhats' working for the russian mafia or whatever, most of them are script kiddies as well, just to a lesser degree than people like the guy in the article. honest, talented hackers and crackers (usually reformed crackers) don't bother with that stuff, generally. they become whitehats, or just don't waste their time. I should know, because that's sort of what I did, and, although I guess that doesn't really prove anything, it seems to be what several others I've known have done also.
but hey.. maybe I'm being naive. maybe some of those kids went on to work for the russians or something equally insane. I just find it kind of ridiculous and hard to believe.