This is a case of the service being denied, but it is not an attack.
New Orleans suffered a load of damage after huricane Katrina this year and New York was damaged after 9/11. One was due to insufficient planning and contingency the other was an attack.
They key to the law is intent to harm. The difference between setting the fire alarm off on a crowded subway because you see smoke billowing from under the escalator and shouting "Fire!" so you can laugh at people running out.
I guess if/. posted a link to a site they did not like saying it had a really juciy article on it as a way of bringing it down it would be a DDoS Attack but otherwise not really.
It is a bit like you trying to break into his house to test his burglar alarm. If he wants you to then no problem, if you are trying without his knowledge the boys in blue may want a word. There probably does not need to be a written document in something that is informal as two friends trying to learn from each other.
a) He causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
b) The access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and?
c) He knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
So a script kiddie certainly does fall under it becuase they would have the intent to gain access that they know is unauthorised. As does the so called White Hat who is acting without permission.
So not moving to a later version that is more secure is not STUPID, but a vendor not patching software when they have given plenty of notice of its withdrawl is. Riiiight.
Of course the fact that it most of the ISVs that have developed the applications that require admin access not Microsoft is something that we wont talk about here.
Yeah, most people call that a pen test, as long as you have permission there is no crime involved. How does this sort of activity have any impact on the current laws against computer misuse?
There will always be people who will try to break into systems, but if the software is hardened to a certain extent then maybe the scr1pt k1dd13s will be kept out
You can harden Windows to a stage where it is very difficult to break into; equally, you can deploy UNIX, VMS and AIX in a fashion that is very open. The fact that someone uses something with insufficient knowledge to do so properly can not be blamed entirely on the manufacturer. If they knowingly and negligently allowed it to be released with unfixed flaws then yes it would be wrong, if they made errors in production that they then fixed you can not blame them for that.
Take a real world example of a car that is produced with a faulty seatbelt and airbag combo. If the manufacturer was selling knowing that it was unsafe then it is wrong. If they sold it, realized the problem and then recalled all the effected models to fix them, without charge there is not problem. You could not them blame them for someone driving the car into a cement wall and not surviving. Why then do we think it is Microsoft's fault when some idiot puts an un-patched NT 4 box on the internet and it is compromised in short order?
Let's face it, everyone, literally everyone, who is in the security biz today, from 'net security to virus analysis has some kind of record. Either a public one or (if he's good) at least one that didn't get public. But everyone has scratched and sniffed at a server or two.
I do not see how you get from "scratching and sniffing" to a record. I, along with most reputable security folks, spend a large amount of my personal income on equipping my lab so I can try things out without doing it on other people's servers and networks. The idea that to gain experience you have to break the law is absurd, it is a bit like saying to be a chef you have to have tried poisoning people!
The fact is that it is against the law to tamper with, or to attempt to tamper with computer equipment that does not belong to you. The end result of posts like this is a simple law becomes confused with faux moral claims like "I was experimenting" or even worse "I was testing it to try and help the owner". Ask Dan Cuthbert (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4317008 .stm) if it's ok to hack boxes without permission.
But why would they do it any cheaper, $5 is about the market rate for a movie rental, it compares well with the cost of a theatre ticket. What makes you think that by the time they have paid for the additional equipement and networking they would charge you any cheaper?
The cost of the actual media is pretty small compared to the rest of costs involved in the movie rental business.
But why not just load up on DVDs on a monthly rental?
The cost to the store is nothing more than they already have for the discs, some of which they make back from selling ex-rental disks.
The cost to the consumer is nothing more as they mostly have a DVD player.
Compared that to the cost of hardware to store the range of movies they have now, the cost of a link to the central video distribution service of sufficient bandwidth to get movies down in a sensible time, especially in areas where broadband is not freely available, such as your mother's. Then add the ongoing maintenance of all that and the need to train blockbuster staff in how to use the system.
How do you get them on there? By using a PC I am guessing, so why would you go out to a store to upload a film to your iPod when you can download them. That is my point.
In order to playback the video at home you would either need a custom dock or a computer with the relevant knowledge to use it correctly.
In the first instance why not make the dock with an Ethernet port and video service browser so you could download content directly to it and play it back. In the later instance why not just download to the PC and play it back as others have suggested?
Either way the only reason to walk to the store is if you do not have a fast enough connection, something that is becoming more and more unlikely for dwellings close to a store such as a VideoiPod enabled Blockbuster.
I think the difference is the CDs have crap you do not want included by the manufacturer, like a rootkit bought to you by Sony! If you want the product, you have to have the crap, no matter where you buy it. This is the case of one store trying the same thing, when you could walk to another store to get it.
I don't get it, what is wrong with a store saying "Sure I will sell you this thing you really want, but at the price I want to charge. I will even include some crap you don't really want, but you still have to pay the price I want to charge"
Seems that if you don't want to pay the price you go elsewhere or you don't buy the product.
It was, but if you run as local admin it does not cause a problem. Until you see running local admin as a problem requiring local admin rights at run time is not a problem.
But Vista's redirector will allow poor programming, such as writing to Program Files at run time, to continue but will intercept the IO and place it in a user directory. Hence you will not need to be admin. At least that's the theory.
To me, the main selling points will be the ability to run a game without having to be local admin and to be able to run IE without it having all the rights that my logon has. Maybe that's just me
In theory you could, but you would need to store as much random data as the combination of all of your phone calls. It by definition would threfore have to have a finite life.
True but I was not sure if there were similar effects elsewhere. Does anyone know of any studies done anywhere else on the effects of sulpher dioxide on forests
I don't think we were saying that withholding grain would turn the developing countries into prosperous countries overnight. The problem is that continually dumping our excess grain, out of date pharmaceuticals and other rubbish on them is certainly not improving the situation.
Imagine you are a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa, you try to grow a little grain on the poor soil you have, hoping that you are not hit by a bad drought and you have something to harvest so you can sell it on to secondary industries. The money you get from the grain will be used to clothe and feed your family etc. Now imagine that the day you trek into market to trade there is a big shipment of western grain being given away. What do you think that does to your price and the prospects of fending for your family?
Yes, there are huge problems with the way that despotism and graft have infected many of the African states post the withdrawal of their previous colonial rulers. Yes, European nations must shoulder some the blame for this. Yes, some of the blame also sits at the USA and the USSR using African counties as pawns in the cold war. However, don't let's think that dumping unwanted products on them is anyway to assuage the guilt from this or is any form of absolution. It is morally wrong for the developed world to act like this, no matter what the spin doctors tell you is the reason for it.
If you are saying that we should be doing something to help then I wholeheartedly agree with you on that front. What that something is I am not so sure about, having seen the way we cower to the likes of Robert Mugabe, the total abomination of our dealing with Rwanda and the ongoing problem in Ethiopia and Eritrea I do not think that there is an appetite amongst world leaders to really solve this "blot on the worlds conscience."
Here is an alternative for you. RTFA before posting. The point is clearly made that it can be produced from a variety of crops including grasses that require no fertilizers.
Even if it need oil based fertilizers using ethanol as the main fuel for vehicles would free up some of the finite oil resource to make it, and those nice man made fabrics you wear.
The energy mainly comes from the sun. When plants take in the solar energy they convert it into sugars by a process called photosynthesis. These sugars then react with yeasts to form alcohol, which is then distilled to give pure ethanol.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a case of the service being denied, but it is not an attack.
/. posted a link to a site they did not like saying it had a really juciy article on it as a way of bringing it down it would be a DDoS Attack but otherwise not really.
New Orleans suffered a load of damage after huricane Katrina this year and New York was damaged after 9/11. One was due to insufficient planning and contingency the other was an attack.
They key to the law is intent to harm. The difference between setting the fire alarm off on a crowded subway because you see smoke billowing from under the escalator and shouting "Fire!" so you can laugh at people running out.
I guess if
It is a bit like you trying to break into his house to test his burglar alarm. If he wants you to then no problem, if you are trying without his knowledge the boys in blue may want a word. There probably does not need to be a written document in something that is informal as two friends trying to learn from each other.
Unauthorised Access to computer material:
A person is guilt of an offense if-
So a script kiddie certainly does fall under it becuase they would have the intent to gain access that they know is unauthorised. As does the so called White Hat who is acting without permission.
So not moving to a later version that is more secure is not STUPID, but a vendor not patching software when they have given plenty of notice of its withdrawl is. Riiiight.
Of course the fact that it most of the ISVs that have developed the applications that require admin access not Microsoft is something that we wont talk about here.
Yeah, most people call that a pen test, as long as you have permission there is no crime involved. How does this sort of activity have any impact on the current laws against computer misuse?
There will always be people who will try to break into systems, but if the software is hardened to a certain extent then maybe the scr1pt k1dd13s will be kept out
You can harden Windows to a stage where it is very difficult to break into; equally, you can deploy UNIX, VMS and AIX in a fashion that is very open. The fact that someone uses something with insufficient knowledge to do so properly can not be blamed entirely on the manufacturer. If they knowingly and negligently allowed it to be released with unfixed flaws then yes it would be wrong, if they made errors in production that they then fixed you can not blame them for that.
Take a real world example of a car that is produced with a faulty seatbelt and airbag combo. If the manufacturer was selling knowing that it was unsafe then it is wrong. If they sold it, realized the problem and then recalled all the effected models to fix them, without charge there is not problem. You could not them blame them for someone driving the car into a cement wall and not surviving. Why then do we think it is Microsoft's fault when some idiot puts an un-patched NT 4 box on the internet and it is compromised in short order?
Becuase it is your right to try hacking into other peoples boxes?
Let's face it, everyone, literally everyone, who is in the security biz today, from 'net security to virus analysis has some kind of record. Either a public one or (if he's good) at least one that didn't get public. But everyone has scratched and sniffed at a server or two.
8 .stm) if it's ok to hack boxes without permission.
I do not see how you get from "scratching and sniffing" to a record. I, along with most reputable security folks, spend a large amount of my personal income on equipping my lab so I can try things out without doing it on other people's servers and networks. The idea that to gain experience you have to break the law is absurd, it is a bit like saying to be a chef you have to have tried poisoning people!
The fact is that it is against the law to tamper with, or to attempt to tamper with computer equipment that does not belong to you. The end result of posts like this is a simple law becomes confused with faux moral claims like "I was experimenting" or even worse "I was testing it to try and help the owner". Ask Dan Cuthbert (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/431700
But why would they do it any cheaper, $5 is about the market rate for a movie rental, it compares well with the cost of a theatre ticket. What makes you think that by the time they have paid for the additional equipement and networking they would charge you any cheaper?
The cost of the actual media is pretty small compared to the rest of costs involved in the movie rental business.
But why not just load up on DVDs on a monthly rental?
The cost to the store is nothing more than they already have for the discs, some of which they make back from selling ex-rental disks.
The cost to the consumer is nothing more as they mostly have a DVD player.
Compared that to the cost of hardware to store the range of movies they have now, the cost of a link to the central video distribution service of sufficient bandwidth to get movies down in a sensible time, especially in areas where broadband is not freely available, such as your mother's. Then add the ongoing maintenance of all that and the need to train blockbuster staff in how to use the system.
It's a hammer looking for a nail.
How do you get them on there? By using a PC I am guessing, so why would you go out to a store to upload a film to your iPod when you can download them. That is my point.
In order to playback the video at home you would either need a custom dock or a computer with the relevant knowledge to use it correctly.
In the first instance why not make the dock with an Ethernet port and video service browser so you could download content directly to it and play it back. In the later instance why not just download to the PC and play it back as others have suggested?
Either way the only reason to walk to the store is if you do not have a fast enough connection, something that is becoming more and more unlikely for dwellings close to a store such as a VideoiPod enabled Blockbuster.
I think the difference is the CDs have crap you do not want included by the manufacturer, like a rootkit bought to you by Sony! If you want the product, you have to have the crap, no matter where you buy it. This is the case of one store trying the same thing, when you could walk to another store to get it.
Yep and I would decide if I wanted those things and either buy them or I would turn on my heels and go shop elsewhere.
Are you expecting stores to anticipate how weak willed and dimwitted the thickest of us are and treat us all in this manner?
I don't get it, what is wrong with a store saying "Sure I will sell you this thing you really want, but at the price I want to charge. I will even include some crap you don't really want, but you still have to pay the price I want to charge"
Seems that if you don't want to pay the price you go elsewhere or you don't buy the product.
It was, but if you run as local admin it does not cause a problem. Until you see running local admin as a problem requiring local admin rights at run time is not a problem.
But Vista's redirector will allow poor programming, such as writing to Program Files at run time, to continue but will intercept the IO and place it in a user directory. Hence you will not need to be admin. At least that's the theory.
To me, the main selling points will be the ability to run a game without having to be local admin and to be able to run IE without it having all the rights that my logon has. Maybe that's just me
Oh and Halo 2 on a PC.
True but then you have to recreate your random data and exchange it again. So the life of your device is finite.
In theory you could, but you would need to store as much random data as the combination of all of your phone calls. It by definition would threfore have to have a finite life.
True but I was not sure if there were similar effects elsewhere. Does anyone know of any studies done anywhere else on the effects of sulpher dioxide on forests
I don't think we were saying that withholding grain would turn the developing countries into prosperous countries overnight. The problem is that continually dumping our excess grain, out of date pharmaceuticals and other rubbish on them is certainly not improving the situation.
Imagine you are a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa, you try to grow a little grain on the poor soil you have, hoping that you are not hit by a bad drought and you have something to harvest so you can sell it on to secondary industries. The money you get from the grain will be used to clothe and feed your family etc. Now imagine that the day you trek into market to trade there is a big shipment of western grain being given away. What do you think that does to your price and the prospects of fending for your family?
Yes, there are huge problems with the way that despotism and graft have infected many of the African states post the withdrawal of their previous colonial rulers. Yes, European nations must shoulder some the blame for this. Yes, some of the blame also sits at the USA and the USSR using African counties as pawns in the cold war. However, don't let's think that dumping unwanted products on them is anyway to assuage the guilt from this or is any form of absolution. It is morally wrong for the developed world to act like this, no matter what the spin doctors tell you is the reason for it.
If you are saying that we should be doing something to help then I wholeheartedly agree with you on that front. What that something is I am not so sure about, having seen the way we cower to the likes of Robert Mugabe, the total abomination of our dealing with Rwanda and the ongoing problem in Ethiopia and Eritrea I do not think that there is an appetite amongst world leaders to really solve this "blot on the worlds conscience."
Do you mean asinine?
Anyone else see the irony?
Here is an alternative for you. RTFA before posting. The point is clearly made that it can be produced from a variety of crops including grasses that require no fertilizers.
Even if it need oil based fertilizers using ethanol as the main fuel for vehicles would free up some of the finite oil resource to make it, and those nice man made fabrics you wear.
The energy mainly comes from the sun. When plants take in the solar energy they convert it into sugars by a process called photosynthesis. These sugars then react with yeasts to form alcohol, which is then distilled to give pure ethanol.