I find it more common, albeit practically nonexistent, that a package fails to compile with emerge, than a binary version from the Windows update site fails to install on Windows.
I do, however, find this study to be a bit strange. It doesn't cost anything to patch OSS or Windows! You use the tools that are provided to you and just do it. I imagine they must have been taking into account down-time and such. That being the case, one could argue that it costs less time to install a binary package than it does for me to compile a new package and then install it. However, one could also argue that I'm not exactly sitting around staring at my Linux systems monitor during the entire process and the system is quite capable of continuing its daily routine while the updates are compiled.
I'm glad somebody pointed out the fact that reboot time was not mentioned in the report.
Looks like I have 120 days to gather as many names as possible of houses strictly running VOIP phones so I can rob them of all their property while they sit back and wait for the 911 service to be connected;-).
Seriously, though, I must be ignorant on this subject. I had no idea you couldn't dial 911 from a VOIP telephone. To be honest, I never gave it much thought.
Linux still wins because it runs on all levels of hardware. I install the same kernel on my 486 that I install on my Pentium 4. I'm just more selective about what goes on the slower machine.
This is too funny. This exact scenario just happened at the company my friend used to work for (my friend wasn't fired, his co-worker from IT was and they just called my friend looking for help).
Mike, did you write this Slashdot story after getting fired and hacking your old company?
Thanks for the post. I was trying to find a way around the $50 article, myself!
On to the topic, I have to say that I agree with the potential for problems. However, I have to wonder if Greasemonkey is perhaps "complex" enough that only a true geek would be interested in playing around with it. There aren't many computer geeks that I know of that are going to just go around installing every script they find without first reading nearly every line of the source code. We're geeks and we like to see how things work;-).
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if later releases include the ability to check for valid signatures on code. We'll see...
All-in-all, I think it's a great idea. I'll have to read through the documentation and see what kind of goodies I can come up with!
So I run off in hopes of reading the controversy and it says I need to pay $49.00 to "By the Research"? What gives? Anybody have any worthwhile information to spare us broke college kids a little cash? Or, is my exam fragmented brain missing something that should be obvious?
Solution
- - --------
Any of the following methods can be used to rectify this issue:
1. Configure ESP to use both confidentiality and integrity protection. This is the recommended
solution.
2. Use the AH protocol alongside ESP to provide integrity protection. However, this must be done
carefully: for example, the configuration where AH in transport mode is applied end-to-end and
tunnelled inside ESP is still vulnerable.
3. Remove the error reporting by restricting the generation of ICMP messages or by filtering
these messages at a firewall or security gateway.
Are you concerned with the large number of reported security holes lately? Somebody please feel to correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that the Firefox developers moved security to their highest priority during the 1.0.x releases in an attempt to catch most of the severe holes before the release of 1.1.x. If this is true, they're probably actively pursuing potential security holes as aggressively as they possibly can and correcting them even faster. Internet Explorer, though somewhat quiet on the security hole announcements recently, still has a few major security holes that Microsoft has known about for a couple of years.
I can see why you would say that, but it's kind of nice to know when a new exploit is announced. I miss other announcements quite frequently, but I rarely miss a Slashdot posting;-).
True...and come to think of it, Ford cars, too:-(.
When you think about it, our cell phones are getting a little bit excessive. For years and years, there was nothing wrong with your regular old telephone. Up until now, the four greatest inventions (that I can think of) that improved the original phone are the answering machine, call waiting, caller-id and touch-tones. And other than those four, there hasn't really been too many advancements up until the point that cell phones started coming into main stream. Now we can have miniature symphonies in our pocket, we can play video games and buy tickets to tonights game. And we can do this all through a color display on our cell phone. And the price is a phone, which is susceptible to virus attacks.
Personally, I don't think all that stuff is necessary. Give me all the great old fashioned features with outstanding range and a long lasting battery and I'm good to go;-)!
Re:"Merge onto I-5 HAL" "Sorry Dave, I can't do th
on
Cars that Can't Crash?
·
· Score: 1
"If your ABS came on, you were skidding, and you would not have stopped as fast if you didn't have ABS.
Not necessarily true. I saw a special once on cars that were tested with and without ABS brakes on a dry road. The same vehicle with the ABS brakes disabled consistently stopped faster than the same car with ABS brakes. It was another story for wet roads and/or icy conditions, where the ABS brakes helped a LOT to keep the test vehicles under control.
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10..... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
Yeah, sure, why not? It's Google and we all love Google, don't we;-)?
Besides the fact the Google seems to be one of the last decent Internet businesses left in the world, Slashdot vistors rely on them for a lot more than you might realize (e.g. cached pages). Without Google, all us die hard geeks would have to sift through thousands of Slashdotted pages on the net. Either that or become so frustrated that we get back to actually working;-).
Personally, I say post the korny Slashdot stories as a way of saying "thank you". I don't know, maybe I just stand alone on this one.
I'm sorry, when was the Constitution updated to read that I had a right to privacy unless it appears that I might be steeling music? Come on! This is just rediculous. And I can totally see them trying to use the DMCA to attack ISP's if they fail to agree to the terms. Can we please take back the control of this country?
" Uhhh...just invoke Godwin's law and end that conversation cold.
Average Joe is obviously a n3wb."
Yeah, AJ is possibly a newbie; but that's the whole point. See, the OSS guys are --unfortunately-- looked down on as "outsiders". They go against the normal Microsoft software and stir up controversy in the things that the average joe finds comfort in (because he doesn't know any better).
Slashdot Mirror
"I've seen many package breaks on unstable branches. but never on stable." I'm sorry, I should have clarified that. Thank you...
I find it more common, albeit practically nonexistent, that a package fails to compile with emerge, than a binary version from the Windows update site fails to install on Windows.
I do, however, find this study to be a bit strange. It doesn't cost anything to patch OSS or Windows! You use the tools that are provided to you and just do it. I imagine they must have been taking into account down-time and such. That being the case, one could argue that it costs less time to install a binary package than it does for me to compile a new package and then install it. However, one could also argue that I'm not exactly sitting around staring at my Linux systems monitor during the entire process and the system is quite capable of continuing its daily routine while the updates are compiled.
I'm glad somebody pointed out the fact that reboot time was not mentioned in the report.
Looks like I have 120 days to gather as many names as possible of houses strictly running VOIP phones so I can rob them of all their property while they sit back and wait for the 911 service to be connected ;-).
Seriously, though, I must be ignorant on this subject. I had no idea you couldn't dial 911 from a VOIP telephone. To be honest, I never gave it much thought.
Linux still wins because it runs on all levels of hardware. I install the same kernel on my 486 that I install on my Pentium 4. I'm just more selective about what goes on the slower machine.
This is too funny. This exact scenario just happened at the company my friend used to work for (my friend wasn't fired, his co-worker from IT was and they just called my friend looking for help).
Mike, did you write this Slashdot story after getting fired and hacking your old company?
"How does it compare to Google's desktop search?"
The best desktop search engine I've used by far is Copernic Desktop Search. I was very disappointed in Google's desktop search utility.
Thanks for the post. I was trying to find a way around the $50 article, myself!
;-).
On to the topic, I have to say that I agree with the potential for problems. However, I have to wonder if Greasemonkey is perhaps "complex" enough that only a true geek would be interested in playing around with it. There aren't many computer geeks that I know of that are going to just go around installing every script they find without first reading nearly every line of the source code. We're geeks and we like to see how things work
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if later releases include the ability to check for valid signatures on code. We'll see...
All-in-all, I think it's a great idea. I'll have to read through the documentation and see what kind of goodies I can come up with!
Erg...That'll teach me to post without proof reading. Please ignore my horrible typo!
So I run off in hopes of reading the controversy and it says I need to pay $49.00 to "By the Research"? What gives? Anybody have any worthwhile information to spare us broke college kids a little cash? Or, is my exam fragmented brain missing something that should be obvious?
I read the Security Bulletin; but, I see nowhere that that anybody says whether or not the vulnerabilities will be covered in this release.
Here's the much awaited paper from Colin:
http://www.daemonology.net/papers/htt.pdf
Taken from the NISC website.
Solution
- - --------
Any of the following methods can be used to rectify this issue:
1. Configure ESP to use both confidentiality and integrity protection. This is the recommended solution.
2. Use the AH protocol alongside ESP to provide integrity protection. However, this must be done carefully: for example, the configuration where AH in transport mode is applied end-to-end and tunnelled inside ESP is still vulnerable.
3. Remove the error reporting by restricting the generation of ICMP messages or by filtering these messages at a firewall or security gateway.
Cause if it's not, you're gonna look like such a doofass ;-)!
Are you concerned with the large number of reported security holes lately? Somebody please feel to correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that the Firefox developers moved security to their highest priority during the 1.0.x releases in an attempt to catch most of the severe holes before the release of 1.1.x. If this is true, they're probably actively pursuing potential security holes as aggressively as they possibly can and correcting them even faster. Internet Explorer, though somewhat quiet on the security hole announcements recently, still has a few major security holes that Microsoft has known about for a couple of years.
Thank you! I'm sure that will come in handy some day ;-).
Sounds like it could be a good idea; but (and please no offense to Java programmers) why Java?
I can see why you would say that, but it's kind of nice to know when a new exploit is announced. I miss other announcements quite frequently, but I rarely miss a Slashdot posting ;-).
True...and come to think of it, Ford cars, too :-(.
;-)!
When you think about it, our cell phones are getting a little bit excessive. For years and years, there was nothing wrong with your regular old telephone. Up until now, the four greatest inventions (that I can think of) that improved the original phone are the answering machine, call waiting, caller-id and touch-tones. And other than those four, there hasn't really been too many advancements up until the point that cell phones started coming into main stream. Now we can have miniature symphonies in our pocket, we can play video games and buy tickets to tonights game. And we can do this all through a color display on our cell phone. And the price is a phone, which is susceptible to virus attacks.
Personally, I don't think all that stuff is necessary. Give me all the great old fashioned features with outstanding range and a long lasting battery and I'm good to go
"If your ABS came on, you were skidding, and you would not have stopped as fast if you didn't have ABS.
Not necessarily true. I saw a special once on cars that were tested with and without ABS brakes on a dry road. The same vehicle with the ABS brakes disabled consistently stopped faster than the same car with ABS brakes. It was another story for wet roads and/or icy conditions, where the ABS brakes helped a LOT to keep the test vehicles under control.
Oldie, but goodie ;-)!
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10..... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
Yeah, sure, why not? It's Google and we all love Google, don't we ;-)?
;-).
Besides the fact the Google seems to be one of the last decent Internet businesses left in the world, Slashdot vistors rely on them for a lot more than you might realize (e.g. cached pages). Without Google, all us die hard geeks would have to sift through thousands of Slashdotted pages on the net. Either that or become so frustrated that we get back to actually working
Personally, I say post the korny Slashdot stories as a way of saying "thank you". I don't know, maybe I just stand alone on this one.
No -- in Soviet Russia, the plane goes down on you! (Ewww...)
Am I the only one that doesn't get this? Does it have anything to do with the large number of prostitutes I hear exist in Russia?
If anybody reading this is interested in participating in the test procedure, check out the Linux Test Project.
I'm sorry, when was the Constitution updated to read that I had a right to privacy unless it appears that I might be steeling music? Come on! This is just rediculous. And I can totally see them trying to use the DMCA to attack ISP's if they fail to agree to the terms. Can we please take back the control of this country?
" Uhhh...just invoke Godwin's law and end that conversation cold.
Average Joe is obviously a n3wb."
Yeah, AJ is possibly a newbie; but that's the whole point. See, the OSS guys are --unfortunately-- looked down on as "outsiders". They go against the normal Microsoft software and stir up controversy in the things that the average joe finds comfort in (because he doesn't know any better).
Make sense now?