How would you (or Firefox) be able to determine what the capabilities of the attacker are?
I could determine it by the network setup.
The bottom line is that if you do not validate a security certificate, you are potentially vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack.
Potentially.
If you have a physically secured office and the embedded device is on your desk next to your computer, perhaps you are safe. But how could Firefox possibly know that?
I'm not arguing about what Firefox should know or not. I am not the original poster and I was merely pointing out where that limited security works.
If you still think there's a problem in Firefox, could you offer a concrete suggestion that would fix this problem and not introduce security issues for other users?
I differ from the original poster, as I don't see anything wrong with what Firefox does with certificates currently.
You should think of TeX as a slightly high level description language for your document, eg if PDF (say) takes the role of machine languague, then in this analogy TeX would be C and LaTeX would be C++, and LyX would be like Visual Studio. With this analogy...
This is Slashdot, you are supposed to use car analogies that we will pick apart.
I rather have a Mac OS X Server than Linux for many things. I have better things to do that learn how to setup a server.
Honestly -- you will probably have a harder time with OS X server dealing with just it's numerous issues with it's default setups (I have encountered broken apache, cups, PHP, squirrel mail, Bind, openssh and other stuff that I don't recall right now = many of these required grabbing crap like xcode, recompiling stuff with patches etc - I generally don't have to do this with Linux servers).
Never mind actually setting it up.
I would suggest using something like SuSE Linux Enterprise Server for a server if you don't want to be concerned with getting your hands dirty - I find the GUI/TUI (two modes of operation in YasT) is easier than Microsoft's and Apple's alternatives.
Perhaps UK cell carriers are different. If I recall correctly UK has some strange setup where someone *receiving* a call pays for it.
Never heard of this happening in the UK.
I have an iPhone, and I pay about $40US/mo. (Psst, I dont use AT&T).
Great? But still more expensive and there is no mention if there is even a unlimited data plan on that.
If your friends want to use software on a PC with a souncdard, thats fine. They are plenty of ways to get free or cheap inbound number that roll into VoIP, either propreitary crap or real VoIP
I doubt there is any usable which wouldn't lower the quality down to regular phone line quality etc. But I will take the assumption there is.
Your phone lines being crap are irrelevant. Nothing says you have to use a phone line. Use VoIP. If you use 'real' VoIP, you call a number, not a 'computer'. Now, that number may well lead to another VoIP setup, which may well 'ring' on someone's soundcard, but thats entirely up to them.
I have a feeling these VOIP systems don't have a way to automatically determine if a phone number supports VOIP based calls. Rather you would need to rely on your VOIP provider to manually set numbers to connect to a specific VOIP setup.
In any case, if you want to use some PC-only voice-chat that might have back doors and doesnt interoperate with anything else, and that works for you, go ahead.
Skype seems to inter-operate with POTS systems just fine. I don't really get what it needs to inter-operate with beyond that to be honest.
Yes, I understand the theory behind supporting things like SIP, so say for example Microsoft/AOL/Yahoo could magically decide to one day make Windows messenger/AIM/ICQ/Yahoo messenger inter-operable with SIP based systems and allow telephone conferencing between regular SIP systems like say... Skype. But to be honest, I don't see this happening.
The only real reason I can think of that would be beneficial to add SIP support would be to add alternative gateway providers - but this would take Skype's own business and they could easily just set a ToS that declares using alternative SIP-gateway things to POTS is not permitted and block them when they discover them (which is in all honesty what I see Skype doing if they do end up adding support for stuff like SIP).
And yes, I used to run an Asterisk system, which I migrated over to OpenPBX due to a specific feature I needed. And I dont use the luser GUI interface for it either, I actually write my own config files. Perhaps its a nightmare for 'some people'.
Mobiles phones are an issue, to be sure. The cell carriers absolutely do NOT want you to bypass their lucrative profit-per-minute (even if you've bought a bundle of 'minutes' its still profit) and use your unlimited data plan to transmit your phone calls instead, and will use every trick they know to stop it from happening.
Honestly, I have unlimited skype calls on my phone. I pay £12 a month for a plan that is supposed to give me stuff like 100 minutes free for regular calls/per SMS sent, 300 free for the first three minutes of every phone call and so on.
My mobile phone provider also lets me use Yahoo messenger and MSN messenger for free and a few other things not worth mentioning.
I don't have a unlimited data plan though and I don't know of a single mobile phone provider in the UK that even does that. I know that providers like T-mobile silently block VOIP services if they can though.
there is an app called Fring, which, while far from perfect, *does* have a user-configurable SIP client.
Then I would have to pay for data plans, and expensive plans for the iPhone... Oh yes, I am really screwing the phone companies over there.. Wait, what?
That's far more expensive than just £12 a month.
As far as 'calling people on their computers' - I'm just baffling at that comment. Why not call them at a phone #, which they can choose how they want to work?
The phone lines are low quality, most of my friends don't even have headsets for phone usage which is annoying for very long sessions. Be it for gaming or whatever.
(Some may well have an ordinary old phone line, some cell, some VoIP via proprietary protocols ringing into a shitty soundcard on a PC, some standards-based VoIP ringing into a real phone via an ATA, or whatever they want, but all irrelevant to you - all you need to know is the phone #)
And some don't even have their own phone line. It's a shared house phone or such that they aren't allowed to dominate. Considering that most of us aren't even paying for the VoIP connection and with the VoIP you suggested it would most likely we would be since we'd all have a POTS number, that's not really a viable solution either.
"Skype" will never replace the existing phone network. Real VoIP is already starting to.
I didn't say it was, I'm just saying I cannot use 'Real VoIP' if I wanted to and I fail to see the actual benefits in my situation at all. I am also pretty sure there are other people like me.
By the way, have you ever tried setting up Asterix? It's a nightmare.
So far you've given me bad workarounds to use VoIP and no real reason on why I should. Personally I find dialing a username on a buddy list a lot easier than just a phone number by the way.
Interoperability with other systems is a lot better than with any MS product.
Now that is a outright fabrication.
Windows' POSIX subsystem is fully compliant to specifications while OS X's subsystem is not. Cross-platform code that is written to specs for OpenGL works fine on Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP/UX. But can cause lock ups, kernel panics and such on OS X (due to bad opengl implementation/drivers - I don't care what it is, it doesn't make OS X more 'interoperable').
Practically almost every version of OS X has had some random Samba problem doing something terribly broken that Linux and Windows desktops/servers do not have an issue doing.
Can you even give me a example of where OS X is more interoperable than Windows is?
Skype is closed proprietary crap. Real VoIP is about open standards and interoperability. Check out Asterisk, OpenPBX for server software. For client-end stuff, skip the PC soundcard crap and get a real ATA, even a basic Sipura SPA-2000 is better than some crap closed application running off a PC soundcard.
Checked it out. There is no free SIP service on mobile phones like there is with the 3skypephone, there is additional interoperability I can find that I want, I am not impressed with the SIP clients I have tried out -- they can't seem to get around restrictive firewalls and they certainly don't work on dial up connection speeds when it comes to it.
Even more important: Nobody I talk to are even using open protocols like SIP for VOIP for me to even call them on their computers etc.
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5).
But it's also important that Apple also delivers, even if you subtract some for obvious hype and willingness to overlook Apple tend to deliver products that work well.
No not really... Generally the first few revisions of anything they do is terrible, eventually it works it way to being, acceptable by most people (still not acceptable for me).
I don't think Linux is good enough to be fashionable just yet. Yes, it's a good workhorse but a workhorse is no show horse.
Yes, but the n00b surfers are still convinced somehow that they need msoffice for compatability. This even interferes with their potential defection to Macintosh. It's quite bizarre really...
I drank the Kool-Aid and tried using Linux for my small business. I lost a week to driver issues and software incompatibilities after an update. The amount of time I lost was worth more than a loaded iBook.
Sure, I could have stayed with Linux and learned to work around it's warts, spending more and more time to learn how to administer a system, just so I can do my work. Or I could, you know, actually do my work and get paid. I could have paid for support or, you know, just spent a little extra for a system that actually works.
I can see Linux working in offices with dedicated support staff. I can see it working for the enthusiast market. For everyone else, there is Windows and Mac.
Maybe you should of started off by buying hardware preloaded with a business Linux system. Such as one of IBM's or Dell's preloaded with SuSE Linux. Since, that is what you're doing with Windows and Mac to begin with.
or 3) Be me, just buy a random laptop and with my luck, Kubuntu "just works" out of the box with it (I bought a HP Pavillion DV6000 with no idea if it would work or not).
* Apps can be installed by simply dragging them anywhere in the file system
* Apps can be just dragged to the trash when no longer needed
* A bundle type system for application resources
Not only am I against this for many technical and usability reasons.
I have seen what Mac users do with this package management. They go down to a Apple store, plug in their iPod, drag and drop the applications they want to steal on to the iPod and walk off with the iPod containing illegal copies of the software.
I dunno, I always found installing programs with apt-get easier than on my wife's Mac. Why is it easier to find the program, drag it to applications, and then drag that link to the menu than just install it with synaptic?
I don't use Synaptic, I use Adept.
Double clicking a.deb or.rpm file is hard?
Typing the name of the application you want to install is harder than Googling the name, going through the sites, trying to find the correct version of the application that works with your specific version of OS X to download?
Most of the useful applications I used on OS X used the installer.app to install, not click drag to the applications folder
Slashdot Mirror
I could determine it by the network setup.
Potentially.
I'm not arguing about what Firefox should know or not. I am not the original poster and I was merely pointing out where that limited security works.
I differ from the original poster, as I don't see anything wrong with what Firefox does with certificates currently.
If the 'attacker' can only monitor the connections, not intercept and rewrite data, this encryption works fine for those purposes.
Nope, not crashing at all.
I'm running this under Kubuntu Linux hardy on the Asus Eee PC.
This is Slashdot, you are supposed to use car analogies that we will pick apart.
Honestly -- you will probably have a harder time with OS X server dealing with just it's numerous issues with it's default setups (I have encountered broken apache, cups, PHP, squirrel mail, Bind, openssh and other stuff that I don't recall right now = many of these required grabbing crap like xcode, recompiling stuff with patches etc - I generally don't have to do this with Linux servers).
Never mind actually setting it up.
I would suggest using something like SuSE Linux Enterprise Server for a server if you don't want to be concerned with getting your hands dirty - I find the GUI/TUI (two modes of operation in YasT) is easier than Microsoft's and Apple's alternatives.
Never heard of this happening in the UK.
Great? But still more expensive and there is no mention if there is even a unlimited data plan on that.
I doubt there is any usable which wouldn't lower the quality down to regular phone line quality etc. But I will take the assumption there is.
I have a feeling these VOIP systems don't have a way to automatically determine if a phone number supports VOIP based calls. Rather you would need to rely on your VOIP provider to manually set numbers to connect to a specific VOIP setup.
Skype seems to inter-operate with POTS systems just fine. I don't really get what it needs to inter-operate with beyond that to be honest.
Yes, I understand the theory behind supporting things like SIP, so say for example Microsoft/AOL/Yahoo could magically decide to one day make Windows messenger/AIM/ICQ/Yahoo messenger inter-operable with SIP based systems and allow telephone conferencing between regular SIP systems like say... Skype. But to be honest, I don't see this happening.
The only real reason I can think of that would be beneficial to add SIP support would be to add alternative gateway providers - but this would take Skype's own business and they could easily just set a ToS that declares using alternative SIP-gateway things to POTS is not permitted and block them when they discover them (which is in all honesty what I see Skype doing if they do end up adding support for stuff like SIP).
Uhuh.
Where is the alternative to the Three Skypephone? I cannot find it.
I pay £12 a month for a plan on it for just regular calling and so on. Skype calls, MSN messenger, Yahoo messenger are free and unlimited usage.
Honestly, I have unlimited skype calls on my phone. I pay £12 a month for a plan that is supposed to give me stuff like 100 minutes free for regular calls/per SMS sent, 300 free for the first three minutes of every phone call and so on.
My mobile phone provider also lets me use Yahoo messenger and MSN messenger for free and a few other things not worth mentioning.
I don't have a unlimited data plan though and I don't know of a single mobile phone provider in the UK that even does that. I know that providers like T-mobile silently block VOIP services if they can though.
Then I would have to pay for data plans, and expensive plans for the iPhone... Oh yes, I am really screwing the phone companies over there.. Wait, what?
That's far more expensive than just £12 a month.
The phone lines are low quality, most of my friends don't even have headsets for phone usage which is annoying for very long sessions. Be it for gaming or whatever.
And some don't even have their own phone line. It's a shared house phone or such that they aren't allowed to dominate. Considering that most of us aren't even paying for the VoIP connection and with the VoIP you suggested it would most likely we would be since we'd all have a POTS number, that's not really a viable solution either.
I didn't say it was, I'm just saying I cannot use 'Real VoIP' if I wanted to and I fail to see the actual benefits in my situation at all. I am also pretty sure there are other people like me.
By the way, have you ever tried setting up Asterix? It's a nightmare.
So far you've given me bad workarounds to use VoIP and no real reason on why I should. Personally I find dialing a username on a buddy list a lot easier than just a phone number by the way.
Now that is a outright fabrication.
Windows' POSIX subsystem is fully compliant to specifications while OS X's subsystem is not. Cross-platform code that is written to specs for OpenGL works fine on Windows, Linux, Solaris, HP/UX. But can cause lock ups, kernel panics and such on OS X (due to bad opengl implementation/drivers - I don't care what it is, it doesn't make OS X more 'interoperable').
Practically almost every version of OS X has had some random Samba problem doing something terribly broken that Linux and Windows desktops/servers do not have an issue doing.
Can you even give me a example of where OS X is more interoperable than Windows is?
And if that doesn't work, you better bring out the big boys... T-shirts.
Checked it out. There is no free SIP service on mobile phones like there is with the 3skypephone, there is additional interoperability I can find that I want, I am not impressed with the SIP clients I have tried out -- they can't seem to get around restrictive firewalls and they certainly don't work on dial up connection speeds when it comes to it.
Even more important: Nobody I talk to are even using open protocols like SIP for VOIP for me to even call them on their computers etc.
Why do I want this? I don't understand.
FSF is not made up of Linux fanboys.
He did write a workaround/fix. RTFP (post). That's how he managed to get the system working with the Windows DSDT.
Done.
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.5).
No.
No not really... Generally the first few revisions of anything they do is terrible, eventually it works it way to being, acceptable by most people (still not acceptable for me).
Personally, I think it does better than OS X and Windows currently.
Okay? And the problem is?
Maybe you should of started off by buying hardware preloaded with a business Linux system. Such as one of IBM's or Dell's preloaded with SuSE Linux. Since, that is what you're doing with Windows and Mac to begin with.
I have seen Firefox posters in the UK and Poland.
or 3) Be me, just buy a random laptop and with my luck, Kubuntu "just works" out of the box with it (I bought a HP Pavillion DV6000 with no idea if it would work or not).
Not only am I against this for many technical and usability reasons.
I have seen what Mac users do with this package management. They go down to a Apple store, plug in their iPod, drag and drop the applications they want to steal on to the iPod and walk off with the iPod containing illegal copies of the software.
I can't even find those comments, I can just see some comments about adopting a few tiny ideas from OS X.
That depends on your definition of a phone. Under my own definitions - yes, it's also a phone now (only because you have Skype setup on the system).
Linux Standard Base.