You know if you could prove that this was real, Apple would be in the hole for hundreds of millions, and generally be considered vile. Apple engineers would likely also depart in large numbers, because if something like this is real, most of them wouldn't be aware of it. Apple would take a great deal of risk just to dick people into upgrading- why would they take that risk?
Lets say you have an iphone X. Then an OS update comes out.
Is iphone X the newest? If so, SAFE TO UPGRADE. Is iphone Xs the newest? If so, SAFE TO UPGRADE. Is there an iphone X+1? If so, MOSTLY SAFE TO UPGRADE. A couple things you won't care about will be a *dash* slower. Is there an iphone X+1s? If so, DUBIOUS UPGRADE. You will gain features but lose performance. Is there an iphone X+2? If so, DO NOT UPGRADE!
And it really doesn't matter too much whether it's a minor version or a major version. If you are at all concerned, wait a week and check the forums. The simple fact is, the older phones won't be tested for performance, but for whether or not it eventually works. Apple won't deliberately slow your phone, but it won't matter- it will absolutely be slower and shittier than before.
Lucas is correct that they aren't making the movies he wanted. Frankly, I wanted to see those movies. But, he PROMISED us we'd NEVER see them! He also had literal decades to do stuff, and couldn't be bothered.
Star Wars will be used constantly and ceaselessly by Disney. They will not stop pumping out movies until the franchise is dry, then they will pause briefly and continue. And for a story about A WHOLE GALAXY wherein you can tell a zillion stories, that's FINE!
Star Wars came out in 1977. Return of the Jedi came out in 1983. That's three movies in six years- one every two years.
Then Phantom Menance in 1999. Lets be clear here- they could have told three OTHER stories in the Star Wars universe. They could have gone back in time to tell stories (video games inserted an "Old Republic" in the distant past, and novelists have gone to town). They could have followed the stories of the smaller characters, who Lucas had no problems spinning up backstories and names for, to put out all the merchandise. Lucas could have pushed stories to the past or the future and continued to tell entirely different stories, could have hired other people to tell the stories, and could have just had a team review all the ramifications (technological and political) to be sure that it didn't shut down anything he did in the future.
He could have had an action movie with none of the force users. He could have followed a bad guy around a temple, or any goddamned thing. In fact, if there had been a movie every FOUR years following Jedi, we would have had a 1987 release, a 1991 release, and a 1995 release before Phantom Menace, each would have made money, and even if Phantom Menace was the exact same, it wouldn't have mattered.
Further, EVERY TIME Lucas finishes a Star Wars series, he talks like a wounded artist. If the movie was successful, he talks like someone who is sad that people liked the wrong things. If it's unsuccessful, he talks like someone who is sad that people didn't know enough to like the good things. It's subtle, and overall I'm sure he knows how influential, popular, and polarizing he and his works have been.
But if he didn't like the path Disney would take, he should NEVER have sold it. If he wanted to make movies, he shouldn't have been telling us that there would NEVER have been an episode seven. Disney will release a Star Wars movie every year for at least six years hence, and probably more- they have them announced with spinoff movies on the years where they aren't telling the main plot.
Lucas could have done all that and more. Anyone would have lent him any amounts of money to make this happen, if in fact he wasn't vastly in the positive already.
So I feel for his lost vision and am sad we don't get to see it, but it's not at all obvious that we would have.
Wikipedia at this point is just a site that has one point of view on something. It's assuredly not a neutral point of view, and massive swaths of data on the site are suppressed or banned, including entire social movements. In many cases, discussion and topics are deleted, and their policies on original research often eliminate uncontroversial but interesting things. The fact that their primary method of debate is deletionism, there's no possible way to debate them. It's a private website with an agenda, much like any other slanted website.
The government should NOT be spying on its own citizens, but spying on heads of state? That's kind of what they are for, right? I mean, if you're opposed to them spying on those guys, you're probably opposed to their existence in general.
Probably should mod parent up. There are still too damned many patents, but a design patent that covers a specific type of slider, with specific look and feel, that you would reasonably never accidentally stumble upon as a designer, nor require as a user, is not the most egregious thing going on in the ludicrous universe of patents.
Remember that Bitlocker is not included in most installs. This refers to the stripped down version "device encryption" included in Windows Home, which is the vast majority of Windows 10.
Bitlocker lets you have the option to save your "recovery key" to USB, or to print it. In both cases, you can destroy the key effectively (note that you'll have to take care to ensure that the USB device is physically destroyed or secured in a manner secure against attackers you are concerned about, and that your printer doesn't keep a recoverable copy somewhere).
So Bitlocker is (in theory) safe and secure. Personally, I wouldn't trust this- it's proprietary, it's Microsoft, and there's every motivation to either make the key recoverable or disclose it for uses Microsoft deems useful (for instance, a future tyrannical government might be able to threaten them in such a way as to produce the keys). But by their claims, it should be.
The article distinguishes this from "device encryption", a gimped form of Bitlocker present in the "Home" edition that they give for free (or cheap or whatever- once I did even the first amount of research into Windows 10 I decided to avoid it entirely). If you pay for Professional, you get access to "Bitlocker", which has configuration options, including the print-out and USB options, which can result in NO recovery key- the generally desired state from a security perspective.
The headline of the article truthfully states that Microsoft "probably" has your recovery key, and the slashdot headline leaves that out totally. Both leave out the important fact that you have to be using the "device encryption" version of Bitlocker in the shit-tier version of Windows 10.
There's other posts talking about the keylogger, or kernel keylogging. I'm not sure the fact that the kernel keeps your keystrokes for awhile is inherently vulnerable, but it is suspicious.
In any event, the fact that you must be an expert user to get anything that MIGHT be security out of Windows 10 is absolutely disgusting. The Home version will be the most common by far, and the average user will not be aware of the default settings where keys are sent (along with a ton of other things) upstream, nor will he be aware of the fact that his supposed device encryption is recoverable by any hacker or bad actor in the future. The level of drama required to do anything in Windows 10 is massive. It's a real nightmare.
Anyone notice how oddly hard it is to set up anything but straight AES in almost all places? There's a shocking lack of user exposed options even in Linux (and Linux can be configured to extremely high levels of redundancy or security). Name a distro that lets you full disk encrypt with AES-Twofish-Serpent from a GUI, for instance (again, you can absolutely configure this, but it seems hard to get anything but straight AES). I know AES is trusted, but I'd trust it more if there were ways more ways to opt out of it and use either another block cipher, or it WITH another block cipher.
Veracrypt as well. I'm not sure about Ciphershed, but probably. These are the forks of Truecrypt once the Truecrypt devs gave their warnings and went away.
The keylogger's transmission can be disabled, and I'm not 100% sure if the fact that the data is in the kernel is inherently flawed. It's definitely highly suspicious, however.
The DDOS attacks will continue until network infrastructure prevents it.
I think this group wants a name for themselves, and that may be the end of it, but who knows. The point isn't to ask why the rain falls- it's to wonder why we can't build a roof.
Do you think they knew it would be a shitpile so they made sure to give it an even numbered release so everyone would just know immediately? We all know the blight of even numbered Windowses, so maybe it was a hint.
I'm so puzzled by why they had to shit it up so hard. The festival of data leaks you can't turn off, the giant walls of scripts people run trying to fix it... I get that privacy aware users aren't any kind of majority, but why even get that word of mouth? When 7 came out, I told everyone that it was really good. When 8 came out, I said that the UI sucked when people asked me, but that internally it was solid. When 10 came out, I told everyone to avoid it period because it's scary as all hell. I'm just one dude but... I know a bunch of other guys who have the same general thought process. I mean, why jump through hoops to piss off ANY part of your potential userbase? Is the allure of the machine that sends what you do, what you type, who you type it to, when you use progams, etc. just so DELICIOUS that they couldn't resist?
We knew it would suck when you couldn't turn off the updates. If you aren't allowed to do something, then you probably have a really great reason to do that thing. We knew it would suck way more when we saw the embedded ads and such, and the total lack of privacy is so shocking I don't know why anyone would use it.
The two people at work running 10 both got it when someone else in their house pressed the upgrade button. I don't know anyone personally who sought out and installed Windows 10. Microsoft's marketing strategy is apparently hoping that your wife or kid has admin rights on the family PC and will press yes to popups. Windows 10 is the new Bonzi buddy.
You got modded down (obviously), but it's worth pointing out that if native advertising is banned or limited by the FCC, hosts blocking will retain its power indefinitely. The push towards mixing content with manipulative bullshit has always been the weak point of hosts blocking, and probably the biggest reason to not accept hosts based solutions in general.
Your comment is the best one in the thread, and should probably be in the summary. It's interesting to talk about the odd ramifications of their laws, but so many are unique that it's not fair to make the obvious comparison of "could that happen here" (for most western values of "here"). The other question- how could this be enforced- is also somewhat interesting, but will be more interesting if they actually make some Orwellian action about his data, which has yet to occur.
Cisco hasn't rocked the boat on this. I don't know why you brought up Apple- what did they do wrong?
The backdoors here are shocking. At this point, you're better off buying your network hardware from foreigners- or really, you're better off pushing everything through two or more stages, each under a different jurisdiction of manufacture, so that someone would have to know at least more than ONE backdoor.
One this is certain- given how the Juniper patch just reenabled the old backdoor (presumably the intended one), and that they are still using the known-bad "predictable number generator", while having the good one included (and disabled, tee hee!), they are absolutely untrustworthy, and anyone using them is a fool, no MATTER their later actions. If anyone continues to use them, assume that they want more of the same. Cisco is getting close to that too- because even if they mean well (and that's not been proven!), they certainly have demonstrated that they are constantly under attack and losing ground.
I don't think so. But I will say that such cynicism and paranoia was unthinkable five years ago, possible as a cautionary issue a year ago, and now seems unlikely but by no means crazy talk. Lame and scary.
There have been some epic ones, especially the ones where we found out about all the backdoors in every product, and all the ones where rooms full of people who don't understand encryption talk about it because they saw a movie or something.
But I have to concur- this one involves Nicolas Cage AND a dinosaur AND theft. Bingo!
Slashdot Mirror
You know if you could prove that this was real, Apple would be in the hole for hundreds of millions, and generally be considered vile. Apple engineers would likely also depart in large numbers, because if something like this is real, most of them wouldn't be aware of it. Apple would take a great deal of risk just to dick people into upgrading- why would they take that risk?
Lets say you have an iphone X. Then an OS update comes out.
Is iphone X the newest? If so, SAFE TO UPGRADE.
Is iphone Xs the newest? If so, SAFE TO UPGRADE.
Is there an iphone X+1? If so, MOSTLY SAFE TO UPGRADE. A couple things you won't care about will be a *dash* slower.
Is there an iphone X+1s? If so, DUBIOUS UPGRADE. You will gain features but lose performance.
Is there an iphone X+2? If so, DO NOT UPGRADE!
And it really doesn't matter too much whether it's a minor version or a major version. If you are at all concerned, wait a week and check the forums. The simple fact is, the older phones won't be tested for performance, but for whether or not it eventually works. Apple won't deliberately slow your phone, but it won't matter- it will absolutely be slower and shittier than before.
Maybe Apple will stop making it almost impossible to get an earlier version of ios. Probably not though!
Lucas is correct that they aren't making the movies he wanted. Frankly, I wanted to see those movies. But, he PROMISED us we'd NEVER see them! He also had literal decades to do stuff, and couldn't be bothered.
Star Wars will be used constantly and ceaselessly by Disney. They will not stop pumping out movies until the franchise is dry, then they will pause briefly and continue. And for a story about A WHOLE GALAXY wherein you can tell a zillion stories, that's FINE!
Star Wars came out in 1977. Return of the Jedi came out in 1983. That's three movies in six years- one every two years.
Then Phantom Menance in 1999. Lets be clear here- they could have told three OTHER stories in the Star Wars universe. They could have gone back in time to tell stories (video games inserted an "Old Republic" in the distant past, and novelists have gone to town). They could have followed the stories of the smaller characters, who Lucas had no problems spinning up backstories and names for, to put out all the merchandise. Lucas could have pushed stories to the past or the future and continued to tell entirely different stories, could have hired other people to tell the stories, and could have just had a team review all the ramifications (technological and political) to be sure that it didn't shut down anything he did in the future.
He could have had an action movie with none of the force users. He could have followed a bad guy around a temple, or any goddamned thing. In fact, if there had been a movie every FOUR years following Jedi, we would have had a 1987 release, a 1991 release, and a 1995 release before Phantom Menace, each would have made money, and even if Phantom Menace was the exact same, it wouldn't have mattered.
Further, EVERY TIME Lucas finishes a Star Wars series, he talks like a wounded artist. If the movie was successful, he talks like someone who is sad that people liked the wrong things. If it's unsuccessful, he talks like someone who is sad that people didn't know enough to like the good things. It's subtle, and overall I'm sure he knows how influential, popular, and polarizing he and his works have been.
But if he didn't like the path Disney would take, he should NEVER have sold it. If he wanted to make movies, he shouldn't have been telling us that there would NEVER have been an episode seven. Disney will release a Star Wars movie every year for at least six years hence, and probably more- they have them announced with spinoff movies on the years where they aren't telling the main plot.
Lucas could have done all that and more. Anyone would have lent him any amounts of money to make this happen, if in fact he wasn't vastly in the positive already.
So I feel for his lost vision and am sad we don't get to see it, but it's not at all obvious that we would have.
Wikipedia at this point is just a site that has one point of view on something. It's assuredly not a neutral point of view, and massive swaths of data on the site are suppressed or banned, including entire social movements. In many cases, discussion and topics are deleted, and their policies on original research often eliminate uncontroversial but interesting things. The fact that their primary method of debate is deletionism, there's no possible way to debate them. It's a private website with an agenda, much like any other slanted website.
The government should NOT be spying on its own citizens, but spying on heads of state? That's kind of what they are for, right? I mean, if you're opposed to them spying on those guys, you're probably opposed to their existence in general.
Probably should mod parent up. There are still too damned many patents, but a design patent that covers a specific type of slider, with specific look and feel, that you would reasonably never accidentally stumble upon as a designer, nor require as a user, is not the most egregious thing going on in the ludicrous universe of patents.
Remember that Bitlocker is not included in most installs. This refers to the stripped down version "device encryption" included in Windows Home, which is the vast majority of Windows 10.
I don't think you can use Windows 10 in that setting at all yet.
Bitlocker lets you have the option to save your "recovery key" to USB, or to print it. In both cases, you can destroy the key effectively (note that you'll have to take care to ensure that the USB device is physically destroyed or secured in a manner secure against attackers you are concerned about, and that your printer doesn't keep a recoverable copy somewhere).
So Bitlocker is (in theory) safe and secure. Personally, I wouldn't trust this- it's proprietary, it's Microsoft, and there's every motivation to either make the key recoverable or disclose it for uses Microsoft deems useful (for instance, a future tyrannical government might be able to threaten them in such a way as to produce the keys). But by their claims, it should be.
The article distinguishes this from "device encryption", a gimped form of Bitlocker present in the "Home" edition that they give for free (or cheap or whatever- once I did even the first amount of research into Windows 10 I decided to avoid it entirely). If you pay for Professional, you get access to "Bitlocker", which has configuration options, including the print-out and USB options, which can result in NO recovery key- the generally desired state from a security perspective.
The headline of the article truthfully states that Microsoft "probably" has your recovery key, and the slashdot headline leaves that out totally. Both leave out the important fact that you have to be using the "device encryption" version of Bitlocker in the shit-tier version of Windows 10.
There's other posts talking about the keylogger, or kernel keylogging. I'm not sure the fact that the kernel keeps your keystrokes for awhile is inherently vulnerable, but it is suspicious.
In any event, the fact that you must be an expert user to get anything that MIGHT be security out of Windows 10 is absolutely disgusting. The Home version will be the most common by far, and the average user will not be aware of the default settings where keys are sent (along with a ton of other things) upstream, nor will he be aware of the fact that his supposed device encryption is recoverable by any hacker or bad actor in the future. The level of drama required to do anything in Windows 10 is massive. It's a real nightmare.
Anyone notice how oddly hard it is to set up anything but straight AES in almost all places? There's a shocking lack of user exposed options even in Linux (and Linux can be configured to extremely high levels of redundancy or security). Name a distro that lets you full disk encrypt with AES-Twofish-Serpent from a GUI, for instance (again, you can absolutely configure this, but it seems hard to get anything but straight AES). I know AES is trusted, but I'd trust it more if there were ways more ways to opt out of it and use either another block cipher, or it WITH another block cipher.
Veracrypt as well. I'm not sure about Ciphershed, but probably. These are the forks of Truecrypt once the Truecrypt devs gave their warnings and went away.
The keylogger's transmission can be disabled, and I'm not 100% sure if the fact that the data is in the kernel is inherently flawed. It's definitely highly suspicious, however.
If they didn't, they wouldn't be named PhantomSquad, and on twitter.
Customers pay for a product and get it? That sounds like a business plan. What we have now is "customers pay for a product and don't get it".
Build the roof.
The DDOS attacks will continue until network infrastructure prevents it.
I think this group wants a name for themselves, and that may be the end of it, but who knows. The point isn't to ask why the rain falls- it's to wonder why we can't build a roof.
Do you think they knew it would be a shitpile so they made sure to give it an even numbered release so everyone would just know immediately? We all know the blight of even numbered Windowses, so maybe it was a hint.
I'm so puzzled by why they had to shit it up so hard. The festival of data leaks you can't turn off, the giant walls of scripts people run trying to fix it... I get that privacy aware users aren't any kind of majority, but why even get that word of mouth? When 7 came out, I told everyone that it was really good. When 8 came out, I said that the UI sucked when people asked me, but that internally it was solid. When 10 came out, I told everyone to avoid it period because it's scary as all hell. I'm just one dude but... I know a bunch of other guys who have the same general thought process. I mean, why jump through hoops to piss off ANY part of your potential userbase? Is the allure of the machine that sends what you do, what you type, who you type it to, when you use progams, etc. just so DELICIOUS that they couldn't resist?
We knew it would suck when you couldn't turn off the updates. If you aren't allowed to do something, then you probably have a really great reason to do that thing. We knew it would suck way more when we saw the embedded ads and such, and the total lack of privacy is so shocking I don't know why anyone would use it.
The two people at work running 10 both got it when someone else in their house pressed the upgrade button. I don't know anyone personally who sought out and installed Windows 10. Microsoft's marketing strategy is apparently hoping that your wife or kid has admin rights on the family PC and will press yes to popups. Windows 10 is the new Bonzi buddy.
Well they are better at gaming than OTHER laptops but.....
Ad blocking on ios is only for websites (not apps), but it doesn't require rooting.
What law does downloading a pirated movie break?
Naw, that can be worked around.
Based on this preliminary stuff, ads labeled as ads would not be affected. Who knows if this will go anywhere or not though.
You got modded down (obviously), but it's worth pointing out that if native advertising is banned or limited by the FCC, hosts blocking will retain its power indefinitely. The push towards mixing content with manipulative bullshit has always been the weak point of hosts blocking, and probably the biggest reason to not accept hosts based solutions in general.
Your comment is the best one in the thread, and should probably be in the summary. It's interesting to talk about the odd ramifications of their laws, but so many are unique that it's not fair to make the obvious comparison of "could that happen here" (for most western values of "here"). The other question- how could this be enforced- is also somewhat interesting, but will be more interesting if they actually make some Orwellian action about his data, which has yet to occur.
The same Cisco that keeps getting pwned hard.
Cisco hasn't rocked the boat on this. I don't know why you brought up Apple- what did they do wrong?
The backdoors here are shocking. At this point, you're better off buying your network hardware from foreigners- or really, you're better off pushing everything through two or more stages, each under a different jurisdiction of manufacture, so that someone would have to know at least more than ONE backdoor.
One this is certain- given how the Juniper patch just reenabled the old backdoor (presumably the intended one), and that they are still using the known-bad "predictable number generator", while having the good one included (and disabled, tee hee!), they are absolutely untrustworthy, and anyone using them is a fool, no MATTER their later actions. If anyone continues to use them, assume that they want more of the same. Cisco is getting close to that too- because even if they mean well (and that's not been proven!), they certainly have demonstrated that they are constantly under attack and losing ground.
> This is all High Theatre,
> Good show old boy!
I don't think so. But I will say that such cynicism and paranoia was unthinkable five years ago, possible as a cautionary issue a year ago, and now seems unlikely but by no means crazy talk. Lame and scary.
There have been some epic ones, especially the ones where we found out about all the backdoors in every product, and all the ones where rooms full of people who don't understand encryption talk about it because they saw a movie or something.
But I have to concur- this one involves Nicolas Cage AND a dinosaur AND theft. Bingo!