Any web developer worth their salt will at least use IE for testing purposes
If you write to the standards you don't need to test in IE any more than any other browser. If IE can't handle standard code, its somebody else's problem.
How does having backup servers in multiple jurisdictions make him a terrorist? How is one of the most recommended best practice in IT suddenly obstructing justice?
"Legal Piracy: Take advantage of legal system loopholes!" seems to be the marketing strategy.
Well... I love it!:D
Don't be daft.
The piracy is your problem. Mega only holds your encrypted files which even they can't look at.
If you rob a gas station, escape in your get away car, launder the funds through a few transactions and deposit the funds in your Bank, is the bank at fault? Is Ford at fault for selling you the car?
Regardless of how encryption is done, Mega controls the code so it could be corrupted or compromised. If Hollywood wants to inspect someones archive they could just get legal order to have the company change the code and reveal the persons files.... and if Mega doesn't comply then they can't do business in the US. (and also, helicopters)
Ah, no.
Even with public key encryption, you can't program your way around a missing private key. If done right, with a warrant in hand, and a gun to their head, they still could not decrypt your files.
You send your url and key to the server, which decrypts the data for you and then sends the file to you over SSL.
That would be silly. Why do server side decrypton/encryption when you can do that on the client side and truly have ZERO knowledge of file content.
You want to download your file, they send you gibberish that only your client can decrypt because only it has your private key.
Even directory listings and indexes to your files could be maintained on the client, encrypted and uploaded to the service. Then when you want to fetch, add or erase a file, you ask for the encrypted directory, find the name of the particular file and the server sends it.
If they did ti correctly, they could provide the source code for the client side encryption, and let you build your own client from it.
After all, the best encryption is the kind that even if they tell you exactly how it works and show you the code, you STILL can't break it in any reasonable time frame.
Actually what I wrote was a perfect example of Muphry's law and I really meant to say coherent, but auto-correct jumped in and bitchslapped me yet again.
Oracle appearently cant code their way out of a paperbag but Sun wrote Java 6. Not to say that release is secure but at least less flaky and doesnt have the same flaw as 7.
I think it is starting to look suspiciously like there is some unfair dealing going on in the "security researcher" world.
The fix was released last Sunday and two new security flaw turn up today which, according to the summary and TFA "are apparently not related to the previous security issues."
First, that is very short period of time to find these new flaws, and write a proof of concept. Were these flaws in the prior release, or introduced by the Sunday release? Did these guys have them in hand prior to the work on sunday's release and hold them back? Were they using "research" methods that they refused to share? Fuzzers, code inspection? If the researchers didn't find these new flaws until after sunday, why not?
That about sums it up as best I can tell from the article.
Its a different approach to than that used by most of the other drugs in that (if they can be believed) they have found one protein that is critical in many different stages in the virus life cycle.
Yet to be seen is if people can tolerate the drug, and any side effects.
I wonder if this protein is so central to HIV that it can't mutate around it, and how they can eliminate any natural occurring versions (the ones they haven't fiddled with) of this protein so that theirs is the only one available.
Beauty shops might work that way, but barbers (at least since the 60 were over) can just look at you and take it back to what it was, unless you let it go so long they can't even guess.
The point is that MSSE was basically the best AV because it has no financial interest in bugging the user to upgrade to a pro version or to use scare tactics. Now that MSSE is out of the race, we're back to "OK" avs with complicated interfaces and upgrade prompts all over the place.
Users tended to love MSSE because it shut up and did its job, unlike most of the alternatives.
If you read Microsoft's response, they are concentrating on anything that exists in the wild, not absolutely everything in the world. I rune MSSE and also do a weekly scan with another paid virus scanner, and neither has detected anything that the other missed, other than Avira has found several false positives.
Well, if the definition of "impede the safe operation of the airplane" includes forced landings emergency evacuation, fire department response as well as world wide grounding, then I suppose this might be true.
But that definition of safe operation" of the plane" is one that only a Boeing employee would accept.
A little like saying "hey you didn't die, so what the hell are you complaining about".
Just about every modern large commercial aircraft uses outward opening doors.
Airbus A320 does. Watch it on youtube. Don't believe me? Just ask Cpt Sullenberger. (If the rear door had opened inward, probably everyone aft of first class would have drowned because they would not have been able to close it against the water pressure).
The problem isn't even conclusively in the batteries themselves. It may be the chargers used, the thermal cutoff, or simply overloading.
Some reports in the press suggest that the batteries are being recharged way too fast:
An inspection of the All Nippon Airways 787 that made an emergency landing in western Japan found that electrolytes, a flammable battery fluid, had leaked from the plane's main lithium-ion battery. Investigators found burn marks around the damage.... The two incidents resulted in the release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage and smoke, the FAA confirmed. The release of battery fluid is especially concerning, safety experts said.
Once the electrolyte (which includes the lithium) catches fire it is very hard to put out. Boeing, knowing this provided special containment for these batteries, which has kept the fires from doing much besides destroying the battery (so far). However the risks are very real that this will be insufficient.
Large size Lithium batteries (over 8 to 25 grams of lithium) are not even allowed on aircraft as baggage or carry on, due to the propensity to burn when shorted or punctured, but some how Boeing talked the FAA into certifying this plane with these batteries to save a weight. Bad enough that these batteries are prone to catch fire when shorted, but Lithium fires are almost impossible to put out with the fire suppression systems found on planes (page 9). How Boeing talked the FAA into allowing this on the plane (in multiple locations) is beyond me.
I told Facebook to FO when they asked for my number too.
Facebook took my number from a friend's mobile phone's contact list and added it to my profile two weeks later. I never gave it to them. They can die in a fire.
Exactly.
Even those of us who have NO Facebook account at all can still be found on Facebook because so many people sync their phone contacts with Facebook, and unlike Google's address book, Facebook leaks theirs.
That's totally different because you are asking for a service in the distant future, and maybe renting games from them.
But sitting in a barber shop? Ridiculous. What next? Burger King? The soda machine at the end of the hall, The barista babe at the Latte shop? Well, ok, maybe her.
You are sort of feeding the trolls here, because the GPs original premise that FDA or HHS knows nothing about computer security is simply bogus flamebait.
I agree that those two agencies should improve their expertise rather than allowing a bunch of external security freaks stepping in between the Doctors and their tools. The expertise should be in-house, and tailored to the other systems used in hospitals. Handing this task to an outside umbrella agency is like having every mom calling the sheriff to enforce "time out" for her 5 year old.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Your private key need never leave your machine.
You encrypt the file before you upload it. And you decrypt it only after you retrieve it.
They never need to possess your private key for even a second.
Your login key maybe, but that isn't even important. They can't do a thing with it.
Please note that I did say Write to the Standard.
MS handles the standard just as well as any other browser.
Any web developer worth their salt will at least use IE for testing purposes
If you write to the standards you don't need to test in IE any more than any other browser.
If IE can't handle standard code, its somebody else's problem.
Apple Marketers with Moderator Points out in full force this fine Saturday afternoon.
The Apple Mod Army is not to be trifled with. Their attention span is short, but their attack is vicious.
Why would MEGA know your encryption keys?
Why would you give them to anyone?
How does having backup servers in multiple jurisdictions make him a terrorist?
How is one of the most recommended best practice in IT suddenly obstructing justice?
"Legal Piracy: Take advantage of legal system loopholes!" seems to be the marketing strategy.
Well... I love it! :D
Don't be daft.
The piracy is your problem.
Mega only holds your encrypted files which even they can't look at.
If you rob a gas station, escape in your get away car, launder the funds through a few transactions and deposit the funds in your Bank, is the bank at fault?
Is Ford at fault for selling you the car?
Regardless of how encryption is done, Mega controls the code so it could be corrupted or compromised. If Hollywood wants to inspect someones archive they could just get legal order to have the company change the code and reveal the persons files .... and if Mega doesn't comply then they can't do business in the US. (and also, helicopters)
Ah, no.
Even with public key encryption, you can't program your way around a missing private key.
If done right, with a warrant in hand, and a gun to their head, they still could not decrypt your files.
You send your url and key to the server, which decrypts the data for you and then sends the file to you over SSL.
That would be silly. Why do server side decrypton/encryption when you can do that on the client side and truly have ZERO knowledge of file content.
You want to download your file, they send you gibberish that only your client can decrypt because only it has your private key.
Even directory listings and indexes to your files could be maintained on the client, encrypted and uploaded to the service. Then when you want to fetch, add or erase a file, you ask for the encrypted directory, find the name of the particular file and the server sends it.
The server wouldn't have to know anything.
If they did ti correctly, they could provide the source code for the client side encryption, and let you build your own client from it.
After all, the best encryption is the kind that even if they tell you exactly how it works and show you the code, you STILL can't break it in any reasonable time frame.
It's not the very first cloud storage service to do this, but so far as my audit shows, it's the first big one to do it properly.
Take a look at Spideroak and explain why you think they did it wrong.
Nope, you should have clicked the link. Muphry's Law is a deliberate misspelling of Murphy's law. Sort of a self referential joke.
Actually what I wrote was a perfect example of Muphry's law and I really meant to say coherent, but auto-correct jumped in and bitchslapped me yet again.
Why Yes, Yes it was.
One wonders to what extent we should take advice from a guy who can't form a conversant sentence.
Oracle appearently cant code their way out of a paperbag but Sun wrote Java 6. Not to say that release is secure but at least less flaky and doesnt have the same flaw as 7.
I think it is starting to look suspiciously like there is some unfair dealing going on in the "security researcher" world.
The fix was released last Sunday and two new security flaw turn up today which, according to the summary and TFA "are apparently not related to the previous security issues."
First, that is very short period of time to find these new flaws, and write a proof of concept.
Were these flaws in the prior release, or introduced by the Sunday release?
Did these guys have them in hand prior to the work on sunday's release and hold them back?
Were they using "research" methods that they refused to share? Fuzzers, code inspection?
If the researchers didn't find these new flaws until after sunday, why not?
Just sayin....
Ok, that's like the third post about plants craving.
Stop.
It's just old.
That about sums it up as best I can tell from the article.
Its a different approach to than that used by most of the other drugs in that (if they can be believed)
they have found one protein that is critical in many different stages in the virus life cycle.
Yet to be seen is if people can tolerate the drug, and any side effects.
I wonder if this protein is so central to HIV that it can't mutate around it, and how they can eliminate
any natural occurring versions (the ones they haven't fiddled with) of this protein so that theirs is
the only one available.
Beauty shops might work that way, but barbers (at least since the 60 were over) can just look at you and take it back to what it was, unless you let it go so long they can't even guess.
The point is that MSSE was basically the best AV because it has no financial interest in bugging the user to upgrade to a pro version or to use scare tactics. Now that MSSE is out of the race, we're back to "OK" avs with complicated interfaces and upgrade prompts all over the place.
Users tended to love MSSE because it shut up and did its job, unlike most of the alternatives.
If you read Microsoft's response, they are concentrating on anything that exists in the wild, not absolutely everything in the world.
I rune MSSE and also do a weekly scan with another paid virus scanner, and neither has detected anything that the other missed, other than
Avira has found several false positives.
Well, if the definition of "impede the safe operation of the airplane" includes forced landings emergency evacuation, fire department response as well as world wide grounding, then I suppose this might be true.
But that definition of safe operation" of the plane" is one that only a Boeing employee would accept.
A little like saying "hey you didn't die, so what the hell are you complaining about".
You are totally full of crap.
Just about every modern large commercial aircraft uses outward opening doors.
Airbus A320 does. Watch it on youtube. Don't believe me? Just ask Cpt Sullenberger. (If the rear door had opened inward, probably everyone aft of first class would have drowned because they would not have been able to close it against the water pressure).
New Airbus 380 does.
There hasn't been a single report of a cabin door failure in flight on any modern passenger jet.
The problem isn't even conclusively in the batteries themselves. It may be the chargers used, the thermal cutoff, or simply overloading.
Some reports in the press suggest that the batteries are being recharged way too fast:
An inspection of the All Nippon Airways 787 that made an emergency landing in western Japan found that electrolytes, a flammable battery fluid, had leaked from the plane's main lithium-ion battery. Investigators found burn marks around the damage. ... The two incidents resulted in the release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage and smoke, the FAA confirmed. The release of battery fluid is especially concerning, safety experts said.
Once the electrolyte (which includes the lithium) catches fire it is very hard to put out. Boeing, knowing this provided special containment for these batteries, which has kept the fires from doing much besides destroying the battery (so far). However the risks are very real that this will be insufficient.
Large size Lithium batteries (over 8 to 25 grams of lithium) are not even allowed on aircraft as baggage or carry on, due to the propensity to burn when shorted or punctured, but some how Boeing talked the FAA into certifying this plane with these batteries to save a weight. Bad enough that these batteries are prone to catch fire when shorted, but Lithium fires are almost impossible to put out with the fire suppression systems found on planes (page 9). How Boeing talked the FAA into allowing this on the plane (in multiple locations) is beyond me.
I told Facebook to FO when they asked for my number too.
Facebook took my number from a friend's mobile phone's contact list and added it to my profile two weeks later. I never gave it to them. They can die in a fire.
Exactly.
Even those of us who have NO Facebook account at all can still be found on Facebook because so many people sync their phone contacts with Facebook, and unlike Google's address book, Facebook leaks theirs.
GameStop does this.
That's totally different because you are asking for a service in the distant future, and maybe renting games from them.
But sitting in a barber shop? Ridiculous. What next? Burger King? The soda machine at the end of the hall, The barista babe at the Latte shop? Well, ok, maybe her.
You are sort of feeding the trolls here, because the GPs original premise that FDA or HHS knows nothing about computer security is simply bogus flamebait.
I agree that those two agencies should improve their expertise rather than allowing a bunch of external security freaks stepping in between the Doctors and their tools. The expertise should be in-house, and tailored to the other systems used in hospitals. Handing this task to an outside umbrella agency is like having every mom calling the sheriff to enforce "time out" for her 5 year old.