They come in, test security via social engineering like if someone falls for phishing or whatnot
Why bother with testing the social engineering angle at all? Have enough people in the place and somebody is going to fail. It's best to assume that some idiot will click on a link, IE will "helpfully" run it, and everything that user can connect to is potentially compromised.
but if you aren't interested in doing anything that might actually make you less fucked; because that'd cost a whole lot more, upset users, or both, what's the drill for?
That's a very good point. A separate issue is bare metal restore drills for things with complex procedures, but that's a one per person per type of complex system issue instead of a regular drill idea. If in three years time the next version of whatever has a few differences that probably not enough to have to rerun the "drill".
It's even more bleak than this. If you work in some public sector you have to create a Frankenstein machine out of used parts to have a testing machine.
As late as 2000, Apple ][e to log and print velocities in a test rig.
Reach for the tapes or other offline storage in case the other servers are mirrors of damaged garbage (as happened at a web hosting place near me that had a mirror but no backups). Same goes for snapshots - nice most of the time but if the machine has been taken over by someone those snapshots could be gone or changed. IMHO a backup is not a backup unless there is something preventing you from immediately changing it - preferably an air gap of some sort.
A "conservative" by dictionary definition does not advocate radical changes, such as removal of the right to communicate privately with banks, business associates, relatives, lovers etc. Keep that in mind next time one of these authoritarians tell you how conservative they are.
You are still going on about this? Whether they were no good compared with newer missiles is irrelevant because it was a political and not technical failure that resulted in their removal. Your "I never wanted it anyway" argument is childish stuff you should have left behind in the sandpit.
The nuclear-armed Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missile. The US secretly agreed to withdraw these missiles from Italy and Turkey.
I believe I quoted that above and you dismissed the trigger and backdown of the crisis as "belly button lint" you utterly dishonest piece of shit. What exactly is your game here? Are you just trolling to make people angry because you are not being consistant.
Which is why I wrote that many such things have fallen over when in contact with people - who tend to sort things in groups and have differing ideas of who should be in the groups. Conflicts develop of who should have access so it devolves into free for all for most and individual permissions for some. Maybe the military have something that works, but the sort of things that have been inflicted on office environments have not been enough of a success to demonstrate superiority as yet. There's plenty of good ideas, but getting around the petty issues such as "Bob has access to Z and I've been here five years longer, why don't I have access even though I don't need it for my work" becomes difficult when multiple people have control over permissions.
I'm arguing that it was a US failure - different to a USSR victory. However you've had a bet both ways by declaring nuclear armed missiles to be both an overwhelming detterant (which they obviously were not in this case) and "belly button lint". Your lack of honesty in this discussion is disgusting.
It's a textbook example of what happens when somebody rattles a sabre they never intent to use and get seen through - the USSR saw Kennedy rattling his sabre near their border, grabbed him by the balls, and squeezed until he removed those missiles in Turkey, some more in Italy, forgave a dead pilot and swore hands off on Cuba.
You might wonder why the rest of the world disagrees with you
It doesn't, as shown by the wikipedia page on the issue.
Unix/Linuxs permission system is 70-era bit-saving stupid. There is no other way to put it.
Some alternatives sound nice but fail horrificly when the come in contact with people, especially the ones that let any people within a group grant access to others with zero oversight. Within a short period of time with such a "everyone can grant or deny access" scheme you end up with almost everything wide open and occasional calls when the paranoid have locked themselves and everyone else out of something and forgotten the password - and it's typically something business critical (as in people need to get to it so they can do their job) but not actually sensitive with only a few people normally allowed to get to it. So the superuser is locked out - what do you do? Well such things are normally not well thought out in any way at all so you crack in with ease, especially since you have full access to the hardware, which kind of makes the whole idea of having permissions that lock out the superuser look pretty silly doesn't it?
So while user/group/all looks simplistic and kind of sucks in some cases there's nothing else that's really shown itself to be good enough to gain traction apart from where mandated by a vendor.
When a developer meets the limit of what can be expressed with a single-group me-us-everybody, he will often look for the path of least resistance
Saw that - first day at a new site and the developer that had been looking after things rebooted both the primary domain server and secondary domain server at the same time in the middle of a working day, for some trivial fix that didn't need to be done immediately and probably didn't even need a reboot. Of course they were also serving most of the files and all the printing as well. It's a mindset not a skillset. He knew what would happen but there was a fix for something so it had to be done NOW so he could get it out of the way without having to worry about it later. Consequences didn't matter, after all the new guy was there to take all the angry phone calls.
Actually the missiles in Italy and Turkey were belly button lint
Ja? So that's what it takes to turn a failure into a glorious victory for the Fatherland?
I'll just take that for what it is, your best admission that you are wrong
Obviously not. How pathetic.
Next up Crashmarik telling us how 2008 was a good year for the financial sector, 2000 was great for tech and Jim Jones a wonderful example for Christianity.
What's more you can't tell people I threw away a penny,
The missiles in Italy were a penny? The missiles in Turkey were a penny? Hands off Cuba was a penny? A dead pilot was a penny? The barely established expeditionary force of the USSR in Cuba was a dollar?
You make me sick reading to your attempt to brainwash the kiddies. What an utterly nasty little prick you are. You do not deserve the protection of the military folk whose lives you consider just something to throw away and ignore - so much for you ultra-patriot America has never done anything wrong bullshit - it's done something wrong in giving birth to you.
Wet behind the ears? From someone who is either incredibly naive or cynically attempting "re-education" of straying comrades. Who is probably only four or five years older than me? So - how old were you in 1962? Two? Five? Ten? How would you have a fucking clue what was going on as a kid especially with all the lies floating about at the time? My parents thought carrots gave you super eyesight in the dark thanks to wartime misinformation to hide radar, but they worked out later it was a lie - why haven't you twigged about the secret bits of the crisis decades after they were revealed? Why hold on to the propaganda?
I really don't get why you are pushing this bullshit. A dead pilot, calling off the blockade, pulling the missiles out - Kennedy was way out of his depth with insane sabre rattling and no resolve to carry through and the USSR knew he was all wind on the issue. They had him by the balls. He drew a line he never intended to step up to, and the USSR knew that it was perfectly safe for them to go into Cuba and maybe kill a US pilot or two that came to take a look. That happened. Denying reality just to try to brainwash the kiddies is somewhat disgusting.
Besides, most of the energy lost through a window doesn't go through the glass, it goes around the poor sealing.
With single panes it's very noticable even on your skin. You can feel yourself radiating heat to warm the things up when the inner surface of the window is cold enough.
A bit tricky in some areas without going for pumice walls multiple feet thick painted white such as in the Greek islands. The solution where I live is high ceilings and houses on stilts to provide shade plus airflow underneath, plus thin walls and lots of windows so heat doesn't get retained overnight. A shaded verandah prevents the sun hitting much in the way of walls and heating up the house. The floor is cool and the heat is way up near the ceiling somewhere and above it - but of course not cool like AC and AC is very impractical in such a house. That's a house for the tropics/subtropics - it's not for anywhere where a winter is cold enough to have to do much more than put a shirt on.
but also bring better down price of better insulation as well as geothermal HVAC
There's a nice little demonstration of that in Scotland but they have the advantage of a lot of flooded mine tunnels at 12C all year under that city. Commercial solar thermal airconditioning also exists for those areas that get a bit of sunlight but it's for large buildings and doesn't really scale down to house sizes.
Insulation should be obvious in nearly every situation (I want my house to lose a lot of heat at night so it's cool enough to sleep so I'm in a house on "stilts" with thin walls - in winter if it gets "really cold" I close the windows) but a couple of generations of doing things cheap and quick means the obvious was not done.
Seriously, we are making a big mistake in subsidizing it at this point
The right time would have been early on before we let the Chinese take the US developed technology and make a killing with it. Now it's got the critical mass to sell on it's own and the money is going to China for the panels and Germany for the electronics. A series of successive Governments demonising solar as part of getting into bed with the Saudis backfired.
Apart from the physical constraints of course of being able to find an easy supply, and that is getting harder and more expensive all of the time. Do you deny that? Without a shift to other sources (which is already happening with shale and coal gas etc), and as such a diminishing demand, there will be a point where new oil sources do not become available as quickly as they are demanded. We can't just hope that there is deep oil, we have to find it and that is quite difficult the deeper it is, and we don't have a clue how much oil there is or isn't in the arctic either. We've found all the easy stuff. It gets more difficult from now on. Getting oil from a 12km deep well was something that required a vast amount of effort over decades since the initial survey - done way back before the USSR fell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I)
Also if Kruschev had Kennedy by the balls and got such a "great deal for the Russians" why the hell was he ousted and unpersoned over that crisis ?
Now that lie really depends on the reader getting 1962 and 1964 mixed up. What an utterly slimy weasel trick. You should be ashamed of yourself for giving Kennedy credit for something that happened the year after he died and almost exactly two years after the end of the Cuban missile crisis. What's with the lying cheerleading bullshit? Haven't you got anything better to do?
I should have guessed. Your "The removal of the Jupiter 2 missiles was if anything a win for Kennedy" shows that you are one of those people with contempt for the "reality based community" who cares more about propaganda instead of what actually happened - because those missiles were not REPLACED with something better, they WERE REMOVED. So what happened? 1/ Missiles were placed in Turkey and Italy. 2/ In response the USSR placed missiles in Cuba. 3/ Both deployments were withdrawn.
That's reality. Do you dispute that reality? Better get busy rewriting all those sources with your cheerleading then, because reality shows a step backwards instead of keeping that step 1.
Even if you were five, ten or twenty years old in 1962 how does that make you in some way an insider to those secret shameful deals instead of just what you appear to be - a victim and wilful spreader of worn out propaganda that nobody cares about any more. Why are you inflicting such stupid lies on the kiddies now and why are you putting yourself up as a better authority on the issue than the head of Strategic Air Command at the time? I'm really insulted that you think so little of me and anyone else reading that you spray such pointless drivel at this site just so that you can push the counterproductive line of victory in all things.
I suggest you read it yourself or at least the wikipedia article instead of treating me like an idiot and spewing propaganda where even a failure is seen as a glorious victory in my direction. It was a fuckup and described by General Curtis LeMay as such - once again even on wikipedia:
LeMay called the peaceful resolution of the crisis—whereby Kennedy secretly agreed to remove US missiles from Turkey and Italy—"the greatest defeat in our history"
Although you've been insulting my intelligence enough to get me very angry (I was not born yesterday) I can at least get some amusement that a blind cheerleader for apparently anything any US government has ever done is presenting a speech in the 1960s Soviet Politburo as FACT! Even more amusing is that it reinforces my point about not being scared of the nukes and not being dettered from going into Cuba. Once again, despite there being a vast difference in capability it did not lead to one sided diplomacy - the nuclear threat wasn't to be as great a threat than many like to pretend. The USSR did more or less what it wanted, as seen with the Berlin Wall etc etc. However it was an empire stretched very thin with huge overheads controlling it's people by force, so the early 1960s was the high water mark.
I challenge you to provide a list of corrections to the wikipedia article and prove them instead of just treating me and anyone unfortunate enough to read your warmed up propaganda as idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother with testing the social engineering angle at all? Have enough people in the place and somebody is going to fail. It's best to assume that some idiot will click on a link, IE will "helpfully" run it, and everything that user can connect to is potentially compromised.
That's a very good point.
A separate issue is bare metal restore drills for things with complex procedures, but that's a one per person per type of complex system issue instead of a regular drill idea. If in three years time the next version of whatever has a few differences that probably not enough to have to rerun the "drill".
As late as 2000, Apple ][e to log and print velocities in a test rig.
Reach for the tapes or other offline storage in case the other servers are mirrors of damaged garbage (as happened at a web hosting place near me that had a mirror but no backups). Same goes for snapshots - nice most of the time but if the machine has been taken over by someone those snapshots could be gone or changed.
IMHO a backup is not a backup unless there is something preventing you from immediately changing it - preferably an air gap of some sort.
A "conservative" by dictionary definition does not advocate radical changes, such as removal of the right to communicate privately with banks, business associates, relatives, lovers etc.
Keep that in mind next time one of these authoritarians tell you how conservative they are.
Telemeres - for now they look like imposing a pretty hard upper limit.
You are still going on about this? Whether they were no good compared with newer missiles is irrelevant because it was a political and not technical failure that resulted in their removal.
Your "I never wanted it anyway" argument is childish stuff you should have left behind in the sandpit.
I believe I quoted that above and you dismissed the trigger and backdown of the crisis as "belly button lint" you utterly dishonest piece of shit.
What exactly is your game here? Are you just trolling to make people angry because you are not being consistant.
Which is why I wrote that many such things have fallen over when in contact with people - who tend to sort things in groups and have differing ideas of who should be in the groups. Conflicts develop of who should have access so it devolves into free for all for most and individual permissions for some. Maybe the military have something that works, but the sort of things that have been inflicted on office environments have not been enough of a success to demonstrate superiority as yet.
There's plenty of good ideas, but getting around the petty issues such as "Bob has access to Z and I've been here five years longer, why don't I have access even though I don't need it for my work" becomes difficult when multiple people have control over permissions.
However you've had a bet both ways by declaring nuclear armed missiles to be both an overwhelming detterant (which they obviously were not in this case) and "belly button lint". Your lack of honesty in this discussion is disgusting.
It's a textbook example of what happens when somebody rattles a sabre they never intent to use and get seen through - the USSR saw Kennedy rattling his sabre near their border, grabbed him by the balls, and squeezed until he removed those missiles in Turkey, some more in Italy, forgave a dead pilot and swore hands off on Cuba.
It doesn't, as shown by the wikipedia page on the issue.
Some alternatives sound nice but fail horrificly when the come in contact with people, especially the ones that let any people within a group grant access to others with zero oversight. Within a short period of time with such a "everyone can grant or deny access" scheme you end up with almost everything wide open and occasional calls when the paranoid have locked themselves and everyone else out of something and forgotten the password - and it's typically something business critical (as in people need to get to it so they can do their job) but not actually sensitive with only a few people normally allowed to get to it. So the superuser is locked out - what do you do? Well such things are normally not well thought out in any way at all so you crack in with ease, especially since you have full access to the hardware, which kind of makes the whole idea of having permissions that lock out the superuser look pretty silly doesn't it?
So while user/group/all looks simplistic and kind of sucks in some cases there's nothing else that's really shown itself to be good enough to gain traction apart from where mandated by a vendor.
Saw that - first day at a new site and the developer that had been looking after things rebooted both the primary domain server and secondary domain server at the same time in the middle of a working day, for some trivial fix that didn't need to be done immediately and probably didn't even need a reboot. Of course they were also serving most of the files and all the printing as well. It's a mindset not a skillset. He knew what would happen but there was a fix for something so it had to be done NOW so he could get it out of the way without having to worry about it later. Consequences didn't matter, after all the new guy was there to take all the angry phone calls.
Ja? So that's what it takes to turn a failure into a glorious victory for the Fatherland?
Obviously not. How pathetic.
Next up Crashmarik telling us how 2008 was a good year for the financial sector, 2000 was great for tech and Jim Jones a wonderful example for Christianity.
The missiles in Italy were a penny?
The missiles in Turkey were a penny?
Hands off Cuba was a penny?
A dead pilot was a penny?
The barely established expeditionary force of the USSR in Cuba was a dollar?
You make me sick reading to your attempt to brainwash the kiddies. What an utterly nasty little prick you are. You do not deserve the protection of the military folk whose lives you consider just something to throw away and ignore - so much for you ultra-patriot America has never done anything wrong bullshit - it's done something wrong in giving birth to you.
Wet behind the ears? From someone who is either incredibly naive or cynically attempting "re-education" of straying comrades. Who is probably only four or five years older than me? So - how old were you in 1962? Two? Five? Ten? How would you have a fucking clue what was going on as a kid especially with all the lies floating about at the time? My parents thought carrots gave you super eyesight in the dark thanks to wartime misinformation to hide radar, but they worked out later it was a lie - why haven't you twigged about the secret bits of the crisis decades after they were revealed? Why hold on to the propaganda?
I really don't get why you are pushing this bullshit. A dead pilot, calling off the blockade, pulling the missiles out - Kennedy was way out of his depth with insane sabre rattling and no resolve to carry through and the USSR knew he was all wind on the issue. They had him by the balls. He drew a line he never intended to step up to, and the USSR knew that it was perfectly safe for them to go into Cuba and maybe kill a US pilot or two that came to take a look. That happened. Denying reality just to try to brainwash the kiddies is somewhat disgusting.
True, but the US electronic industry was there for the R&D and had the chance to do something if they were not driven off by politics.
With single panes it's very noticable even on your skin. You can feel yourself radiating heat to warm the things up when the inner surface of the window is cold enough.
A bit tricky in some areas without going for pumice walls multiple feet thick painted white such as in the Greek islands. The solution where I live is high ceilings and houses on stilts to provide shade plus airflow underneath, plus thin walls and lots of windows so heat doesn't get retained overnight. A shaded verandah prevents the sun hitting much in the way of walls and heating up the house. The floor is cool and the heat is way up near the ceiling somewhere and above it - but of course not cool like AC and AC is very impractical in such a house. That's a house for the tropics/subtropics - it's not for anywhere where a winter is cold enough to have to do much more than put a shirt on.
There's a nice little demonstration of that in Scotland but they have the advantage of a lot of flooded mine tunnels at 12C all year under that city.
Commercial solar thermal airconditioning also exists for those areas that get a bit of sunlight but it's for large buildings and doesn't really scale down to house sizes.
Insulation should be obvious in nearly every situation (I want my house to lose a lot of heat at night so it's cool enough to sleep so I'm in a house on "stilts" with thin walls - in winter if it gets "really cold" I close the windows) but a couple of generations of doing things cheap and quick means the obvious was not done.
The right time would have been early on before we let the Chinese take the US developed technology and make a killing with it. Now it's got the critical mass to sell on it's own and the money is going to China for the panels and Germany for the electronics. A series of successive Governments demonising solar as part of getting into bed with the Saudis backfired.
Apart from the physical constraints of course of being able to find an easy supply, and that is getting harder and more expensive all of the time. Do you deny that? Without a shift to other sources (which is already happening with shale and coal gas etc), and as such a diminishing demand, there will be a point where new oil sources do not become available as quickly as they are demanded. We can't just hope that there is deep oil, we have to find it and that is quite difficult the deeper it is, and we don't have a clue how much oil there is or isn't in the arctic either.
We've found all the easy stuff. It gets more difficult from now on. Getting oil from a 12km deep well was something that required a vast amount of effort over decades since the initial survey - done way back before the USSR fell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I)
So? Not a democracy was it? It took two more years before someone else could sharpen the knives enough to get rid of him.
Now that lie really depends on the reader getting 1962 and 1964 mixed up. What an utterly slimy weasel trick. You should be ashamed of yourself for giving Kennedy credit for something that happened the year after he died and almost exactly two years after the end of the Cuban missile crisis. What's with the lying cheerleading bullshit? Haven't you got anything better to do?
I should have guessed. Your "The removal of the Jupiter 2 missiles was if anything a win for Kennedy" shows that you are one of those people with contempt for the "reality based community" who cares more about propaganda instead of what actually happened - because those missiles were not REPLACED with something better, they WERE REMOVED.
So what happened?
1/ Missiles were placed in Turkey and Italy.
2/ In response the USSR placed missiles in Cuba.
3/ Both deployments were withdrawn.
That's reality. Do you dispute that reality? Better get busy rewriting all those sources with your cheerleading then, because reality shows a step backwards instead of keeping that step 1.
Even if you were five, ten or twenty years old in 1962 how does that make you in some way an insider to those secret shameful deals instead of just what you appear to be - a victim and wilful spreader of worn out propaganda that nobody cares about any more. Why are you inflicting such stupid lies on the kiddies now and why are you putting yourself up as a better authority on the issue than the head of Strategic Air Command at the time?
I'm really insulted that you think so little of me and anyone else reading that you spray such pointless drivel at this site just so that you can push the counterproductive line of victory in all things.
It's also the last Star Trek movie since the Federation Fleet got replaced by a belt buckle.
Although you've been insulting my intelligence enough to get me very angry (I was not born yesterday) I can at least get some amusement that a blind cheerleader for apparently anything any US government has ever done is presenting a speech in the 1960s Soviet Politburo as FACT! Even more amusing is that it reinforces my point about not being scared of the nukes and not being dettered from going into Cuba. Once again, despite there being a vast difference in capability it did not lead to one sided diplomacy - the nuclear threat wasn't to be as great a threat than many like to pretend. The USSR did more or less what it wanted, as seen with the Berlin Wall etc etc. However it was an empire stretched very thin with huge overheads controlling it's people by force, so the early 1960s was the high water mark.
I challenge you to provide a list of corrections to the wikipedia article and prove them instead of just treating me and anyone unfortunate enough to read your warmed up propaganda as idiots.