Versions of openswan-1 are (apparently) not vulnerable to this attack.
Versions of openswan-2 are (apparently) vulnerable to a Denial Of Service attack in two known cases.
One involves a crafted packet using 3DES with an invalid key length. One other is still unknown to us because no more information was provided. These two cases cannot be used to obtain elevated priviledges, since it is not possible to use these bugs to execute arbitrary code. These attacks are caught within our "assertion fail" verification code.
Today we have released openswan-2.4.2. This release fixes the 3DES related Denial Of Service attack.
We STRONGLY encourage CERT-FI and/or NISCC to give us access to the test kit if they are concerned about the second vulnerability and the impact of this advisory on the wide install base of Openswan-2 if those systems are left vulnerable to a DOS attack.
Sony's behaviour with the PS2 when it was released should be enough to convince people not to buy a PS3. However, I do own one (waited till it was under $200 CAD) and will probably buy a PS3 when its similarly cheap.
That said, Sony Music is not Sony Electronics, and the engineers getting paid to develop the PS3 don't deserve to be punished because lawyers (my best guess) wanted this type of "protection" software on the Sony Music CDs.
In a large corporation like this, its not guaranteed either side talks to the other much, or that these decisions make it to the top. All in all, their quick response (although somewhat half-hearted -- they need to reassure shareholders afterall) has reassured me that the management understands that user concerns are most important.
Look at all the other copy protection systems out there that aren't been withdrawn by other producers.
I hate to agree, but I do. The specs on the hardware (aside from the screen) are just disappointing. Assuming you could get Linux running on a PSP, it would be much more capable than this unit.
I'd rather have memory stick or CF or even xD as a memory format, not some new hacked one (again). Also, RAM is an issue... I want a lot more than 64MB of RAM for a portable PC/PDA... its ironically running an OS that should be able to direct-load from the memory card though (using the memory card as code RAM essentially), so we'll see what that buys us.
In the long run, I'm still waiting for my ultimate handheld... although 802.11 and bluetooth go a long way toward making this one good enough.
It would be nice if the DVD spec could be simply upgraded to DVD2 with support for high definition codecs on the disc. Players could state "compatible with DVD and DVD2" and DivX/etc. content would be available to regular users from the production companies. The major problem is then "I bought this DVD2 disc and it won't play in my Sony DVD player!"
That's what the BD9 format is about (HP's proposition)... storing high definition content on current format DVDs using newer codecs.
HD content for TV is a no-brainer. You store higher quality copies of what you film and you give the viewer what you filmed.
Its not a big deal, except for the processing stages.
Do I want to watch TV that looks better? Yes. Can I read the player's names on their uniforms in a high-speed hockey game now? Not unless its zoomed in. Can I in HD? Yes, easily.
The difference between 480i and 720p or 1080i is dramatic. Its not just a little better, its immensely better. You have to really see true HD content on a real HD tv to understand.
I agree, I quite enjoy the odd 10-20 hour game, however, I rent them, never purchase.
I rented Resident Evil 4 (PS2) last weekend and put about 5-10 hours into it and made it to the end of chapter 2. That cost me $5. I'll probably drop another $5 renting it for a weekend a couple more times and have spent $15/20 playing a $60 game.
Morrowind? I bought it. I bought every expansion. I'm still playing it... hundreds of hours later.
FFX? Not a perfect game, but lots of hours of entertainment and replayability... bought it.
Short games are fine, but they're not going to sell as well when the rental market is as good as it is.
If you get a chance, try out Death by Degrees and God of War... both have beautiful environments of their own types, as well as excellent gameplay dynamics (imho).
600 dpi at what calibration for grayscale (ignoring colour options)?
I have a 1200 dpi laser printer, I can see the dot scale on images because its black and white, not grayscale.
Your scanner, even at 1200 or higher DPI won't be able to determine the exact difference in shade between point A and point B, it just does its best based on how well calibrated the bulb and sensors (and semi-reflective white material on the lid) is.
Accuracy is pretty low on consumer scanners; good enough for most undiscerning people, but just go scan the same photo with 3 different scanners and compare the images (in TIFF or TGA format preferably, no lossy compression). They'll be different, from the same source material. That means at least one of the images is 'wrong'... if not all of them.
Had I the time to do the research while sitting here at work, I'd love to.
Maybe I'll bother on Wikipedia soon, or maybe you should try Google Research instead. That said, intelligent design is a very recent version of creationism that does not require that the Christian God is the 'intelligence' in question, since that part of the equation would be very difficult to prove (as per your complaint).
I'd like to digress here too -- much of the complaint by those who wish to have these other ideas pointed out in said science classrooms is simply that much of evolutionary theory (in terms of 'origin of the species', or what creationists often call 'macro-evolution') has numerous problems and holes (no I'm not going to enumerate here, this is Slashdot) despite its various predictions. The complaint leads to 'why are uneducated teachers refering to evolution as a factual account of the origin of life on earth when so many people disagree?' Again, cf. the poll by (CNN?) showing that a vast majority of americans believe a 'god' created the planet and humanity as it is now.
Its only theft of service if I'm not paying for the service. Its also a matter of definition once it goes to court. You can say anything you like in your EULA or your AUP but it may never hold up.
My ISP for example prohibits the use of VPNs or telecommuting on home cable access. I requested specifically to be allowed to do so and I had my account flagged with permission -- it was explained to me that this was just a way to push business users up to the business cost structure, whereas I simply need to access my work network via IPSec when I am home, but I'm usually not.
Now what traffic is going over that VPN? Good question. And what are the endpoints? Well, they don't know where I work, so good question again.
We're not even talking about a basic ISP here, we're talking about the backbone provider -- good luck with enforcement there.
Copyright does not allow you to specify what other works your work will be used with, only reproduced.
I cannot specify that my paintings can't be displayed beside someone else's. That's the purrogative of the purchasor. I also don't paint.
Copyright allows them to say that the curriculum can't be used at all, period, no strings attached, or that it can, no strings attached. Feel free to cite examples that would prove otherwise.
True HDR would require screens that were as bright as the sun, sure, but then we'd all go blind watching sunsets on TV. The effect desired is to make the mind see what it would see in those situations where there is very bright and very dark areas in the same space.
If you're on a bright beach, it looks bright, but not nearly as bright as when you first look out your hotel room at it. A good HDR implementation would make the beach brighter when you first look at it, for example.
Burnout 3 Takedown on the PS2 has a similar effect in the icy areas when racing; it makes the road so bright and blurry from the sun's reflection that you can't see the oncoming traffic. Despite only being as bright as my tv, the effect is very realistic.
Because, in the scientific community, ID is not a hot-button issue. No true scientist believes that Intelligent Design is compatible with the scientific method.
Do some more reading before making blanket statements like that.
I commend you for having one of the most intelligent responses thus far to my post. That said, I disagree on one point; what should be in a science classroom.
The study of scientists is as important as the study of science itself. The people and politics and beliefs that resulted in what we now believe to be true is as important as the experiments that brought them about. Think Tesla.
Highscool science classrooms are not Chemistry 321, its highschool science. Its "this is the scientific method, this is the history of science, this is an overview of major scientific achievements and major players".
Given that highschool science teachers aren't on average qualified to judge 'good' science for themselves, curriculi need to be designed with 'overview' and 'generalization' in mind, with an eye toward the future expansion of the student's knowledge.
Why do we teach students in grade 12 that light follows a straight path? Why did we teach them in grade 5 that blackholes definately exist when many scientists strongly disagreed on the interpretation of the results?
"Hard science" vs. "soft science" bares discussion as well; of course, that would piss a lot of people off because the age of our planet and resulting evolution sits firmly in the 'soft science' category.
From all the "how do you think... came to be" responses I've read in this thread, it seems many of those who disagree with me had poor science educations as well, not knowing the difference between belief and proof. That said, you'll spend 90% of your life "believing" 90% of what you know, without proving most of it. Its just not possible to prove to yourself everything you think you know to be true. Live with it. You'll have to trust other people or your instincts for the majority of your life. I'm never going to get out my chem set and prove to myself that the bread on my table contains wheat, for example.
If you actually study some intelligent design theory you'll find that many scientists do believe that human and "ancient" remains are the same age. There are many cataclysms that could cause layer dating problems as well as carbon dating issues. If your counter-theories depend on a soft science like archeology, you're kinda screwed already aren't you?
Just because you're too uninventive to consider experiments that could prove or disprove creationism and/or intelligent design of another form (aliens terraforming a planet for example) doesn't mean it isn't science. If in fact you don't believe the study of intelligent design to be science, you can't possibly believe the study of the evolution of our species or the big bang to be science either.
Your argument is incorrect. Some intelligent design proponents may believe the fallacy you've described, but intelligent design itself does not state it. Intelligent design is a much more complex theory and you've obviously not taken the time to do your research.
The grandparent poster was probably actually thinking of the nVidia ethernet drivers that were reverse engineered a little while back as part of the nForce chipsets.
This is mis-use of Copyright if I've ever seen it.
The ability to use a book for the teaching of a course while using other materials as well is inherently required to teach any well-balanced course besides perhaps the pure maths at the highschool level.
I've never had a course based entirely on one text, nor have I had a teacher stupid enough to think that one author/book/perspective was enough for any subject.
(disclaimer: I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with creationism as science, if you do, you probably don't understand the term "science")
That said, how can you believe a science education is well-balanced when you want to pick and choose on the hot-button issues? Does anyone care that plenty of highschools use the book of Job (see christian/judaic/muslim bible) for language studies (for many reasons), or that we teach kids about pagan rituals in grade-school or that we discuss and teach ancient myths of Egypt, Greece and Rome? Is there something inherently harmful about teaching people truth? Should we honestly censor it?
And yes, I said it, truth. There's nothing untrue about "the greeks believed in Aphrodite" any more or less than "some scientists believe the world was created by intelligent design". Do we, the "slashdot" crowd have that much of a hang-up against christianity? Try thinking about it before making knee-jerk statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony's behaviour with the PS2 when it was released should be enough to convince people not to buy a PS3. However, I do own one (waited till it was under $200 CAD) and will probably buy a PS3 when its similarly cheap.
That said, Sony Music is not Sony Electronics, and the engineers getting paid to develop the PS3 don't deserve to be punished because lawyers (my best guess) wanted this type of "protection" software on the Sony Music CDs.
In a large corporation like this, its not guaranteed either side talks to the other much, or that these decisions make it to the top. All in all, their quick response (although somewhat half-hearted -- they need to reassure shareholders afterall) has reassured me that the management understands that user concerns are most important.
Look at all the other copy protection systems out there that aren't been withdrawn by other producers.
I hate to agree, but I do. The specs on the hardware (aside from the screen) are just disappointing. Assuming you could get Linux running on a PSP, it would be much more capable than this unit.
... I want a lot more than 64MB of RAM for a portable PC/PDA ... its ironically running an OS that should be able to direct-load from the memory card though (using the memory card as code RAM essentially), so we'll see what that buys us.
... although 802.11 and bluetooth go a long way toward making this one good enough.
I'd rather have memory stick or CF or even xD as a memory format, not some new hacked one (again). Also, RAM is an issue
In the long run, I'm still waiting for my ultimate handheld
It would be nice if the DVD spec could be simply upgraded to DVD2 with support for high definition codecs on the disc. Players could state "compatible with DVD and DVD2" and DivX/etc. content would be available to regular users from the production companies. The major problem is then "I bought this DVD2 disc and it won't play in my Sony DVD player!"
... storing high definition content on current format DVDs using newer codecs.
That's what the BD9 format is about (HP's proposition)
HD content for TV is a no-brainer. You store higher quality copies of what you film and you give the viewer what you filmed.
Its not a big deal, except for the processing stages.
Do I want to watch TV that looks better? Yes. Can I read the player's names on their uniforms in a high-speed hockey game now? Not unless its zoomed in. Can I in HD? Yes, easily.
The difference between 480i and 720p or 1080i is dramatic. Its not just a little better, its immensely better. You have to really see true HD content on a real HD tv to understand.
I agree, I quite enjoy the odd 10-20 hour game, however, I rent them, never purchase.
... hundreds of hours later.
... bought it.
I rented Resident Evil 4 (PS2) last weekend and put about 5-10 hours into it and made it to the end of chapter 2. That cost me $5. I'll probably drop another $5 renting it for a weekend a couple more times and have spent $15/20 playing a $60 game.
Morrowind? I bought it. I bought every expansion. I'm still playing it
FFX? Not a perfect game, but lots of hours of entertainment and replayability
Short games are fine, but they're not going to sell as well when the rental market is as good as it is.
Consider General Motors claiming that aftermarket hardware companies aren't allowed to purchase or examine GM products, parts or vehicles at all.
Most of those people buy what techo-junkies at Future Shop tell them to buy, thus more HD TV sales.
If you enjoy plot-oriented platformers, may I also recomment Jak 2 & 3 and Tak as well.
Fun games, deecent graphics (especially Jak).
If you get a chance, try out Death by Degrees and God of War ... both have beautiful environments of their own types, as well as excellent gameplay dynamics (imho).
600 dpi at what calibration for grayscale (ignoring colour options)?
... if not all of them.
I have a 1200 dpi laser printer, I can see the dot scale on images because its black and white, not grayscale.
Your scanner, even at 1200 or higher DPI won't be able to determine the exact difference in shade between point A and point B, it just does its best based on how well calibrated the bulb and sensors (and semi-reflective white material on the lid) is.
Accuracy is pretty low on consumer scanners; good enough for most undiscerning people, but just go scan the same photo with 3 different scanners and compare the images (in TIFF or TGA format preferably, no lossy compression). They'll be different, from the same source material. That means at least one of the images is 'wrong'
Had I the time to do the research while sitting here at work, I'd love to.
Maybe I'll bother on Wikipedia soon, or maybe you should try Google Research instead. That said, intelligent design is a very recent version of creationism that does not require that the Christian God is the 'intelligence' in question, since that part of the equation would be very difficult to prove (as per your complaint).
I'd like to digress here too -- much of the complaint by those who wish to have these other ideas pointed out in said science classrooms is simply that much of evolutionary theory (in terms of 'origin of the species', or what creationists often call 'macro-evolution') has numerous problems and holes (no I'm not going to enumerate here, this is Slashdot) despite its various predictions. The complaint leads to 'why are uneducated teachers refering to evolution as a factual account of the origin of life on earth when so many people disagree?' Again, cf. the poll by (CNN?) showing that a vast majority of americans believe a 'god' created the planet and humanity as it is now.
Its only theft of service if I'm not paying for the service. Its also a matter of definition once it goes to court. You can say anything you like in your EULA or your AUP but it may never hold up.
My ISP for example prohibits the use of VPNs or telecommuting on home cable access. I requested specifically to be allowed to do so and I had my account flagged with permission -- it was explained to me that this was just a way to push business users up to the business cost structure, whereas I simply need to access my work network via IPSec when I am home, but I'm usually not.
Now what traffic is going over that VPN? Good question. And what are the endpoints? Well, they don't know where I work, so good question again.
We're not even talking about a basic ISP here, we're talking about the backbone provider -- good luck with enforcement there.
Copyright does not allow you to specify what other works your work will be used with, only reproduced.
I cannot specify that my paintings can't be displayed beside someone else's. That's the purrogative of the purchasor. I also don't paint.
Copyright allows them to say that the curriculum can't be used at all, period, no strings attached, or that it can, no strings attached. Feel free to cite examples that would prove otherwise.
The mega bass button distorts the sound terribly because those types of stereos can't actually properly produce the frequencies in question.
True HDR would require screens that were as bright as the sun, sure, but then we'd all go blind watching sunsets on TV. The effect desired is to make the mind see what it would see in those situations where there is very bright and very dark areas in the same space.
If you're on a bright beach, it looks bright, but not nearly as bright as when you first look out your hotel room at it. A good HDR implementation would make the beach brighter when you first look at it, for example.
Burnout 3 Takedown on the PS2 has a similar effect in the icy areas when racing; it makes the road so bright and blurry from the sun's reflection that you can't see the oncoming traffic. Despite only being as bright as my tv, the effect is very realistic.
Wouldn't HSV be a better format for in-game textures? It would allow for the moderation of lighting in a more 'correct' way, would it not?
And then we could change VoIP software to use DNS or other packets to obscure their true nature.
The Internet is the Internet. If you don't like it, play a different game.
Do some more reading before making blanket statements like that.
Its patently false.
I commend you for having one of the most intelligent responses thus far to my post. That said, I disagree on one point; what should be in a science classroom.
... came to be" responses I've read in this thread, it seems many of those who disagree with me had poor science educations as well, not knowing the difference between belief and proof. That said, you'll spend 90% of your life "believing" 90% of what you know, without proving most of it. Its just not possible to prove to yourself everything you think you know to be true. Live with it. You'll have to trust other people or your instincts for the majority of your life. I'm never going to get out my chem set and prove to myself that the bread on my table contains wheat, for example.
The study of scientists is as important as the study of science itself. The people and politics and beliefs that resulted in what we now believe to be true is as important as the experiments that brought them about. Think Tesla.
Highscool science classrooms are not Chemistry 321, its highschool science. Its "this is the scientific method, this is the history of science, this is an overview of major scientific achievements and major players".
Given that highschool science teachers aren't on average qualified to judge 'good' science for themselves, curriculi need to be designed with 'overview' and 'generalization' in mind, with an eye toward the future expansion of the student's knowledge.
Why do we teach students in grade 12 that light follows a straight path? Why did we teach them in grade 5 that blackholes definately exist when many scientists strongly disagreed on the interpretation of the results?
"Hard science" vs. "soft science" bares discussion as well; of course, that would piss a lot of people off because the age of our planet and resulting evolution sits firmly in the 'soft science' category.
From all the "how do you think
If you actually study some intelligent design theory you'll find that many scientists do believe that human and "ancient" remains are the same age. There are many cataclysms that could cause layer dating problems as well as carbon dating issues. If your counter-theories depend on a soft science like archeology, you're kinda screwed already aren't you?
Just because you're too uninventive to consider experiments that could prove or disprove creationism and/or intelligent design of another form (aliens terraforming a planet for example) doesn't mean it isn't science. If in fact you don't believe the study of intelligent design to be science, you can't possibly believe the study of the evolution of our species or the big bang to be science either.
Your argument is incorrect. Some intelligent design proponents may believe the fallacy you've described, but intelligent design itself does not state it. Intelligent design is a much more complex theory and you've obviously not taken the time to do your research.
The grandparent poster was probably actually thinking of the nVidia ethernet drivers that were reverse engineered a little while back as part of the nForce chipsets.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
This is mis-use of Copyright if I've ever seen it.
The ability to use a book for the teaching of a course while using other materials as well is inherently required to teach any well-balanced course besides perhaps the pure maths at the highschool level.
I've never had a course based entirely on one text, nor have I had a teacher stupid enough to think that one author/book/perspective was enough for any subject.
(disclaimer: I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with creationism as science, if you do, you probably don't understand the term "science")
That said, how can you believe a science education is well-balanced when you want to pick and choose on the hot-button issues? Does anyone care that plenty of highschools use the book of Job (see christian/judaic/muslim bible) for language studies (for many reasons), or that we teach kids about pagan rituals in grade-school or that we discuss and teach ancient myths of Egypt, Greece and Rome? Is there something inherently harmful about teaching people truth? Should we honestly censor it?
And yes, I said it, truth. There's nothing untrue about "the greeks believed in Aphrodite" any more or less than "some scientists believe the world was created by intelligent design". Do we, the "slashdot" crowd have that much of a hang-up against christianity? Try thinking about it before making knee-jerk statements.