I don't see what all of the fuss about this being so insecure is about. All it does is hide an open port except to people who know the knock sequence. It is not a security measure in and of itself. One of the most important aspects of cracking into boxes is finding boxes with vulnerabilities. With port knocking, you obfuscate your ports, thus making it hard to find vulnerabilities (if they exist at all). Someone would have to know that you are are using port knocking, then they would have to invest the effort to find out what port you are hiding (sniffing), then assuming they were interested in that service they could mount an attack. Now assume that someone who has access to your network does sniff and gets your port knocking sequence and they now can open up your port (say ssh or ftp). They still have to authenticate with a valid username and password or find a vulnerability in that service and perhaps deal with firewall rules that you have on that box. Its not like people would use port knocking as their sole method of gaining access to the box, IE have root access to telnet for anyone who knows the knock sequence. People would use this only to hide a service from prying eyes. Its not fool-proof but just another defensive measure.
I agree. People have the tendency to vote along the lines of who is most likely to win citing that they "do not want to throw their vote away." I say, don't throw your vote away by voting for someone other than the candidate that you want in office. It is not about the lesser of two evils, it is about who you think should be in the office in question. There are more than two candidates, look into them.
Wrong, the parent posts a good question because the answer is not only quite potent but quite obvious: they do . And we have made that way ourselves, people. The problem is many of you don't know that.
The reason they get to decide is because of the DMCA, an act passed by our representatives in government. People that we elected. Is this situation a problem? Yes. Who's fault is it? Ours .
The good thing is we can rectify this problem by being more responsible with our voting than we have been in the past. Look at Bush, only in the office in the first place because people felt picking the lesser of 2 evils (Gore would have been a nightmare)was prudent. Yet they had more than 2 choices. It's time to start looking at the ballot carefully folks.
All would-be presidents promise to fix problems. Noone has made it to office on the premise of changing things, just on the premise of fixing broken things. Half the time, what they promise to fix isn't broken and the change stands to make the candidate's current employer benefit greatly. The promise of fixing things is their trick, it makes you think of his intentions as opposed to his motivation. Although determing motivation is hard, there is a way to vote responsibly even not knowing this information.
Next time you go to the ballot, try thinking about things like a natural human being. Think about their negatives. All the advertising is meant to focus your mind on things the are a benefit to them when you see or hear their name (even accusationally slanderous ads, everyone knows who funded those ads--the opposing team). If everyone thought about the problems Bush would cause as opposed to the "good" things he'd do, he would have never been elected. Same thing could be said about Gore too, but if everyone had taken my advice 5 years ago they would have never been elected to candidacy either.
A professor in philosophy is not a philosopher, but a scholar. He who quotes merely knows of the matter, not what it is.
Yeah, but that has the possibility to backfire in that if(when) IBM finally wins, that clears Linux's name and anyone that was holding out in their decision to use Linux might have that extra incentive to buy it.
So, what about fair use? Under fair use, wouldn't it be legal to download a song if you have already purchased that song in another format? Suppose your cd breaks or some other unforseeable calamaty strikes whatever media type you have...couldn't you just go to court and bring proof that you purchased the song previously and thus have license to use it under fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what about fair use? Under fair use, wouldn't it be legal to download a song if you have already purchased that song in another format? Suppose your cd breaks or some other unforseeable calamaty strikes whatever media type you have...couldn't you just go to court and bring proof that you purchased the song previously and thus have license to use it under fair use.