You're not even liable for $50 if your credit card number is stolen. That number is the maximum liability if your physical card is stolen (and you report it such). You cannot be held liable for anything if the card remains in your possession. This is regulated in federal law (FCBA) and not subject to bank policies.
So no, it isn't that important for you to protect. That is a problem between the vendor and the bank.
Unless you are just talking about T-Mobile, you are incorrect. Carriers used to call their 5GB plans unlimited but that is no longer true. Phone plans are truly unlimited on Verizon and I believe Sprint and AT&T as well. 5GB Plans for other devices are called 5GB.
The only criteria for what WikiLeaks will and will not release is their politics. Uncovering injustices certainly is not a criteria -- they have released thousands of documents that do no such thing. Should have been freely available in the first place? You could argue that many of the Government documents should have been freely available (while I wouldn't necessarily agree). How do you justify the release of personal, hacked e-mail dumps of people they don't like?
If the pictures aren't taken when the car was clocked, who cares how fast he was going or how long he had to decelerate? They are completely worthless and there is no evidence that his car was the object measured. They show he was on the road at some point. At another time and another section of the road, some object was measured exceeding the speed limit by a different system.
Sounds about right. Encrypted PPTP VPN hasn't worked for years, yet Google keeps including it in new versions and hasn't even bothered assigning the bug.
The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.
The AAPD asked numerous questions concerning the case. I explained that apart from not having a return ticket and possibly not having sufficient funds, the subject appeared to be malafide. I further explained to the AAPD that when the subject looked at me, I felt a bone chilling cold effect. The bottom line is, “He gave me the creeps”.
What I have to wonder though, is did Google lie, and say Google Apps for Government had the FISMA cert, or did they say "Google Apps is FISMA certified", which is true?
Why wonder? It is demonstrated in the attachments. Example:
Google Apps for Government, now with FISMA certification
The representative from the GSA who granted the certification also clearly states in emails that Google Apps for Government is not certified by their department (as you mentioned, it could not be).
Gawker's hash was salted with a random 2-digit string. The salt was known because it is included in the hash (standard behavior -- you need the salt in order to reproduce the hash when the user enters the password). The problem is a salt isn't really a protection against a brute force or dictionary attack on a single one-way hash. A salt is used to prevent you from using the results of your efforts on one hash on another hash. It's a defense against pre-computed rainbow tables (generating every possible hash), as you need a separate rainbow table for each salt value requiring significantly more space.
In short, in Gawker's case, two people with the password 'password' would have 2 different hashes, but if you ran a dictionary attack on each of them it wouldn't take any time at all to figure out that both passwords are the same. While you have to reproduce the effort twice, that effort is trivial. That is why they were able to point out all the users with simple passwords but not decrypt the entire database. You could still, however, simply brute force any single user in the database if you so choose.
Doesn't really invalidate his test, since this is a standard technique for people breaking in unwashed raw denim jeans. Presumably he was testing the safety of that practice and not the safety of simply being grimy and never washing your clothes
I don't know if they still do this, but Yahoo mail used to work this way. It is how Sarah Palin's e-mail account was accessed. They can't e-mail you the new password unless they have a secondary e-mail account on file
Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.
What war did you watch? The US easily won the war against the Iraqi government. If anything should be in quotes it should be 'war' as it was entirely one-sided. The failure was in creating a stable country in the aftermath, but that is hardly the goal of most wars, and certainly not relevant to the notion of the Iranian government launching a war against the US.
I would point out that you are merely quoting the "she said" portion of "he said, she said". There is no more proof that is what actually occurred than what he said
Correct. I originally used the word allegations but it seems to have been lost in editing. He has not been charged with anything, but I quoted some of the allegations.
It is just as much "bullshit" as the claim of "sex by surprise".
This is not true. It is a fact that he was accused of what I described. It is also a fact that he was not accused of "sex by surprise", as no such crime exists. Thus in relation to "the accusations against him," one statement is bullshit and the other is not. Whether the allegations hold up doesn't change what he was accused of.
Slashdot Mirror
No, FireFox on windows requires you to restart your browser, go through UAC, sit through the install process and then the addon update process.
You'll never notice chrome updating other than the little indicator that shows up if you haven't restarted in a long time.
Spamhaus did in fact, not defend themselves. That is how the judgment was rendered in the first place.
You're not even liable for $50 if your credit card number is stolen. That number is the maximum liability if your physical card is stolen (and you report it such). You cannot be held liable for anything if the card remains in your possession. This is regulated in federal law (FCBA) and not subject to bank policies.
So no, it isn't that important for you to protect. That is a problem between the vendor and the bank.
Telling viewers to hit your facebook page or follow your twitter account is product placement? The product here belongs to the news program.
It only just ended 2 or 3 weeks ago (May 12)
Easily defeated... Hold the phone up to the light and follow the grease trail
Unless you are just talking about T-Mobile, you are incorrect. Carriers used to call their 5GB plans unlimited but that is no longer true. Phone plans are truly unlimited on Verizon and I believe Sprint and AT&T as well. 5GB Plans for other devices are called 5GB.
The only criteria for what WikiLeaks will and will not release is their politics. Uncovering injustices certainly is not a criteria -- they have released thousands of documents that do no such thing. Should have been freely available in the first place? You could argue that many of the Government documents should have been freely available (while I wouldn't necessarily agree). How do you justify the release of personal, hacked e-mail dumps of people they don't like?
I'm not an expert, but I do watch The First 48 and the police routinely receive cell tower records of everywhere a suspect has been.
If the pictures aren't taken when the car was clocked, who cares how fast he was going or how long he had to decelerate? They are completely worthless and there is no evidence that his car was the object measured. They show he was on the road at some point. At another time and another section of the road, some object was measured exceeding the speed limit by a different system.
Sounds about right. Encrypted PPTP VPN hasn't worked for years, yet Google keeps including it in new versions and hasn't even bothered assigning the bug.
You should check out their propaganda blog
The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.
Full Testimony: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_melendez.htm
Why wonder? It is demonstrated in the attachments. Example:
The representative from the GSA who granted the certification also clearly states in emails that Google Apps for Government is not certified by their department (as you mentioned, it could not be).
Wasn't that clear and present danger?
100 million devices? That is a quarterly number for Windows PCs.
Gawker's hash was salted with a random 2-digit string. The salt was known because it is included in the hash (standard behavior -- you need the salt in order to reproduce the hash when the user enters the password). The problem is a salt isn't really a protection against a brute force or dictionary attack on a single one-way hash. A salt is used to prevent you from using the results of your efforts on one hash on another hash. It's a defense against pre-computed rainbow tables (generating every possible hash), as you need a separate rainbow table for each salt value requiring significantly more space.
In short, in Gawker's case, two people with the password 'password' would have 2 different hashes, but if you ran a dictionary attack on each of them it wouldn't take any time at all to figure out that both passwords are the same. While you have to reproduce the effort twice, that effort is trivial. That is why they were able to point out all the users with simple passwords but not decrypt the entire database. You could still, however, simply brute force any single user in the database if you so choose.
I don't think the group that buys $300 raw denim jeans really intersects with the "mom's basement" group
Doesn't really invalidate his test, since this is a standard technique for people breaking in unwashed raw denim jeans. Presumably he was testing the safety of that practice and not the safety of simply being grimy and never washing your clothes
Really? I just read an article about a sloppy Mossad operation:
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201101/the-dubai-job-mossad-assassination-hamas
Just because the naming convention uses the phrase "LikeWord95" doesn't mean you need the Word 95 source doe to implement it:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/documentformat.openxml.wordprocessing.autospacelikeword95.aspx
I don't know if they still do this, but Yahoo mail used to work this way. It is how Sarah Palin's e-mail account was accessed. They can't e-mail you the new password unless they have a secondary e-mail account on file
Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.
What war did you watch? The US easily won the war against the Iraqi government. If anything should be in quotes it should be 'war' as it was entirely one-sided. The failure was in creating a stable country in the aftermath, but that is hardly the goal of most wars, and certainly not relevant to the notion of the Iranian government launching a war against the US.
Twitter supports private messaging too
I would point out that you are merely quoting the "she said" portion of "he said, she said". There is no more proof that is what actually occurred than what he said
Correct. I originally used the word allegations but it seems to have been lost in editing. He has not been charged with anything, but I quoted some of the allegations.
It is just as much "bullshit" as the claim of "sex by surprise".
This is not true. It is a fact that he was accused of what I described. It is also a fact that he was not accused of "sex by surprise", as no such crime exists. Thus in relation to "the accusations against him," one statement is bullshit and the other is not. Whether the allegations hold up doesn't change what he was accused of.