Do you think that whoever pulled the plug at Harvard trotted over to the physical computer, logged in and did a
ls -l/jp
and used XV to look at every file?
Doubt it. More likely they just pointed a browser at the URL from thier own desk.
Now consider hypothetical site A which posts critique about hypothetical site B.
Site A may contain hyperlinks and inlines to graphics on site B as examples. If site B wanted to make Site A look bad, they could clone their excerpted files, modify the clone to use unique URLs, then change the files that original URLs pointed to so they now point to nasty stuff.
The effect of this is when someone pulls up the critique on site A, the see a bunch of nasty text and graphics. If that someone is the sysadmin checking for acceptable use, is he going to look at the HTML to see if the content is actually stored locally on the site, or is it going to be assumed that content was purposefully put there by site A because thats whose address is in the address textbox in the browser window?
Unless fraud is suspected from the beginning, I can see the latter being the likely case.
Therefore it is entirely possible that site A could be set up to look like a porn provider or other nasty thing just because site A had hyperlinked content, without site A being rooted or expoited at all.
Was Packetstorm set up like this? Only the backup tapes can tell.
Hmm, if the 'Court Order' rule were really obeyed, she could sue AOL in small claims court for the costs incurred by AOL snatching her sit name from her, with one equitable solution being returning the name to her.
Assuming AOL ignores the supoena to show up in some small out of state small claims court, she would win by default. And armed with said judgement, forces NSI to transfer the name back to her.
For the security consious, consider this. If you install this, big brother won't need fancy recievers that pick up the RF noise of your monitor to spy on you Tempest style. They would not even need Microsoft funded special pirate catching active tempest fonts
Once you have this installed, you have a nice RF pipe that any malware tojan can use to broadcast your data, even if you are not connected to the net at the time. All it needs to do is toggle DTR and RTS, and poof, you are on the air.
According to a neat usenet article I found on Dejanews about the protocol, the Firecracker works by clocking DTR and RTS.
If the control program toggles DTR, the modem could hang up. If the control program toggles RTS, then you could get a buffer overflow from releasing flow control too early. The latter probably isn't so bad, but the former is probably the reason for the dropped connection. Adding a '&D0' to the modem init string would make the modem ignore DTR commanded hangups. Perhaps that would let you activate firecracker without being diconnected from your ISP.
Um, CmdrTaco, the preview screen strips the tags out of the comment field of the form, so if you submit from there you lose all your formatting. Sorry it made a junk post
An Iris is pretty huge. From what I can tell from the article, that the eyes are not very close to the scanner and must have a fair amount of variation in closeness to the camera.
I am sure that there are plenty of pretty high resolution photographs that show details of people's irises. For example, people on magazine covers. How difficult would it be to laser print one on an elastimer sheet, and distort the iris sections mechanically to simulate pupil contraction. A photocell here, a solinoid there, ia bit of circuitry, and boom, a photosenisitve facial fascimle.
Sure magazine could use photoshop or such to replace irises in pictures before publication, but what about the thousands of pictures already out there.
Irises are just too 'out-there' in plain sight. Its like walking around with your pin number tatooed on your face. Anyone with a telephoto camera could steal it.
Slashdot Mirror
ls -l /jp
and used XV to look at every file?
Doubt it. More likely they just pointed a browser at the URL from thier own desk.
Now consider hypothetical site A which posts critique about hypothetical site B.
Site A may contain hyperlinks and inlines to graphics on site B as examples. If site B wanted to make Site A look bad, they could clone their excerpted files, modify the clone to use unique URLs, then change the files that original URLs pointed to so they now point to nasty stuff.
The effect of this is when someone pulls up the critique on site A, the see a bunch of nasty text and graphics. If that someone is the sysadmin checking for acceptable use, is he going to look at the HTML to see if the content is actually stored locally on the site, or is it going to be assumed that content was purposefully put there by site A because thats whose address is in the address textbox in the browser window?
Unless fraud is suspected from the beginning, I can see the latter being the likely case.
Therefore it is entirely possible that site A could be set up to look like a porn provider or other nasty thing just because site A had hyperlinked content, without site A being rooted or expoited at all.
Was Packetstorm set up like this? Only the backup tapes can tell.
Assuming AOL ignores the supoena to show up in some small out of state small claims court, she would win by default. And armed with said judgement, forces NSI to transfer the name back to her.
It would be most amusing.
Once you have this installed, you have a nice RF pipe that any malware tojan can use to broadcast your data, even if you are not connected to the net at the time. All it needs to do is toggle DTR and RTS, and poof, you are on the air.
If the control program toggles DTR, the modem could hang up. If the control program toggles RTS, then you could get a buffer overflow from releasing flow control too early. The latter probably isn't so bad, but the former is probably the reason for the dropped connection. Adding a '&D0' to the modem init string would make the modem ignore DTR commanded hangups. Perhaps that would let you activate firecracker without being diconnected from your ISP.
Even....you......unassisted........to.read....fai
Um, CmdrTaco, the preview screen strips the tags out of the comment field of the form, so if you submit from there you lose all your formatting. Sorry it made a junk post
You know, that worked in preview before I submitted it
Y..d..n..n..t..e..t..m..i..s..G..l..m..d .o..o..o..e..o..n..o..a..n..t..R..i..o..i ..u.....t..e.....c.....k..f..r..E..v..r..f ............d.....r.....e..o..e..P..e..e..f ...................y........r..a..e..s.....i ....................p........m..m..r........c .....................t........a.....'........u ...............................t.....s........l ................................i..............t .................................o............... ..................................n............... Even....you......unassisted........to.read....fair ly....... .....if.....want............humans.........it..... ...simply
I am sure that there are plenty of pretty high resolution photographs that show details of people's irises. For example, people on magazine covers. How difficult would it be to laser print one on an elastimer sheet, and distort the iris sections mechanically to simulate pupil contraction. A photocell here, a solinoid there, ia bit of circuitry, and boom, a photosenisitve facial fascimle.
Sure magazine could use photoshop or such to replace irises in pictures before publication, but what about the thousands of pictures already out there.
Irises are just too 'out-there' in plain sight. Its like walking around with your pin number tatooed on your face. Anyone with a telephoto camera could steal it.