Anyone else at Purdue know where they've got this set up? I wouldn't mind "getting lost" and finding my way into there before the rush of undergrads back to campus.
Seriously - can anyone think of the kind of thing that anyone could have patented? Disk I/O? Threading?
Remember that anything already presented to the public cannot be patented. You have to file before presentation. For example, if you present your concepts to a conference before filing a patent, you're screwed. I'm wondering how many of these "patents" were filed after Linux was released with the incorporated code? Granted, the USPTO is back-logged and can't do prior art searches.
Speaking from experience in studying semantics and natural language processing, these ideas aren't far off. However, I know of people who are starting their business based on semantic searches. I'd give them an edge over Google only because Google would have to re-gear from their present PageRank method while the other fellows can start from scratch.
True. I watched an interesting television program that suggested the number 666 was part of a game people of that era used to play. They'd take a person's name and sum up the values of the characters in that name. The program suggested that Nero = 666. So by saying "666" Christian's were making a somewhat encrypted political statement against the Romans. It continued to say that because of a mistranslation, apparently the number is actually 616, which is the sum of another un-popular Roman emperor, Caligula. I don't remember the actual math so don't take this as the final word on the matter.
While port knocking is by now an established technique, I do not think OS fingerprinting adds anything useful, because the ease of static replay attacks is left unchanged by OS fingerprinting.
The problem I see with OS fingerprinting is the assumption that certains OSes are running certain (vulnerable/potentionally trojaned) applications. I don't think you can safely make those assumptions.
I hope they are allowed to continue what they are doing but unfortunately, i'm not familiar with american copyright laws.
Don't worry. You're not alone. Most Americans aren't familiar with copyright laws. There's some good discussion is threads above this on the legal precedents on satire vs. parody. That's what it will most likely come down to.
I thought political humor was supposed to be funny. Your link is just a rabid attack that although it has a few logical points mostly misrepresents the issues (when it isn't launching on an ad hominem attack that is).
The parent post is only tangentially on topic in the sense that it's about politics. This Land was funny because it poked at both candidates; the parent's link is just spiteful.
Thank you. I'm glad some other sane people agree with my assessment. Although apparently calling it "propaganda" is inflamatory language...
I thought the cartoon was funny and equally made light of both candidates.
Glad somebody else realized that. It was pretty one-to-one. Although I realized that everything said about Bush has been said in the past four years while the Kerry stuff seems to be fairly new. I guess the only one-sided part is where Howard Dean goes insane on stage.
But the parent is right about one thing: It's not about IP [it's really about money!]
Very true. So is it a vast, right-wing conspiracy plotting to keep quiet opinions about their candidate that've already been voiced for years, or is it greed of an IP-owning company? I think Occam's Razor points to the latter.
What it boils down to is that DES has a fixed key length of 56 bits. Sure, you can 3DES it but you've also tripled the number of computations you have to do for every block of data. So while DES's key size has remained fixed, computing power is expanding at Moore's law. So, inevitably, computing power will overwhelm DES's practicality. It's just a matter of time (read: now). While AES, on the other hand, allows you to expand the key size from 128-bits by 64-bit blocks. So we could be running encrypted communications channels with 512-bit (or higher) AES if we liked.
Microsoft's.NET has AES built in and I'm pretty sure AES is what Trillian uses for encryption, so I say go for it!
The vast majority of times the problem isn't with the algorithm, but rather with the implementation. So just because something has a certain crypto algorithm doesn't mean it will be invulnerable to attacks.
The NSA was accused of planting a "back-door" in Lucifer that would allow agents to decrypt without the key, but of course such a thing was never found.
I don't have sources to back it up, but I believe the story goes that NSA made certain change recommendations without specifying why. Long story short, about a decade later the differential cryptanalysis attack was discovered but somehow DES was resistant to it because of the changes NSA suggested. I think NSA even came out after that and admitted knowing about differential cyptanalysis for around twenty years.
now, to really mess it up - the effective key length of 3DES is 112 bits, because only 2 keys are actually used, key A and B. Encrypt with A, then B, then A.
Close. Triple DES with two keys works as follows: Encrypt with key 1, decrypt with key 2, then finally encrypt again with key 1. That'll give you a cipher with a 112-bit key strength.
But, you can also do 3DES with three keys as follows: Encrypt with key 1, decrypt with key 2, encrypt with key 3. Now you have the strength of a 168-bit key. AES could do 192-bit keys with fewer computations.
Seriously. The FBI never takes too kindly to civilians 'helping out'.
He can wave goodbye to all his computer equipment. And in about a week's time, he'll be complaining, and starting up a paypal account to pay his legal fees. But really, how can you not see this coming? He's just asking for the FBI to pay him a visit.
Indeed. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Kind of like running with the bulls in Pamplona. You can, but is it really that good of an idea?
The site's operator, a 30-year-old named Rick Wallace, wrote in a blog posting that he is trying to help the military understand how serious a security risk unmonitored peer-to-peer file sharing can be.
In the latest news: Mr. Wallace's information was posted on the Internet. While he was gone his home was broken into and his family brutally murdered. Sources say this should give Mr. Wallace a good idea of how serious security should be.
It sounds like a great idea, I have to say I have been wating for such a cellphone for a while. I do have a few potential issues though. Battery life and size. While the Palm Cell phones were cool, they would eat a battery in about an hour and were about as sleek as carrying a forty pound rock.
What would be really cool is if this was integrated with Bluetooth into a Motorola phone. Since my Powerbook has built-in Bluetooth the phone could then just stream from the Powerbook and use the 12-song space as a cache.
Two interesting analogies but they're twisted together. They should be: 1) damage/theft to physical objects is the same as to digital ones; and 2) a third party who stores your objects has a duty to protect them.
So the first analogy says that breaking into my system really is the same as kicking down my door. You've done damage, tampered with my logs, broken executables, etc. Intent is irrelevant since the results are the same.
The second analogy is like the doctors' office. They have a duty to keep your private (health) data locked up. Digital firms such as Spymac are under the same onus.
vigilantes cease to be useful when they become indistinguishable from the crackers.
True. The question to then ask is: How is the vigilante different from the cracker? Motivation? But motivation doesn't make for moral action. The actions of both are unwelcome system intrusions. Perhaps the cracker and the vigilante aren't so different as one might think?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else at Purdue know where they've got this set up? I wouldn't mind "getting lost" and finding my way into there before the rush of undergrads back to campus.
Seriously - can anyone think of the kind of thing that anyone could have patented? Disk I/O? Threading?
Remember that anything already presented to the public cannot be patented. You have to file before presentation. For example, if you present your concepts to a conference before filing a patent, you're screwed. I'm wondering how many of these "patents" were filed after Linux was released with the incorporated code? Granted, the USPTO is back-logged and can't do prior art searches.
Speaking from experience in studying semantics and natural language processing, these ideas aren't far off. However, I know of people who are starting their business based on semantic searches. I'd give them an edge over Google only because Google would have to re-gear from their present PageRank method while the other fellows can start from scratch.
And oh, 666 is a christian number.
True. I watched an interesting television program that suggested the number 666 was part of a game people of that era used to play. They'd take a person's name and sum up the values of the characters in that name. The program suggested that Nero = 666. So by saying "666" Christian's were making a somewhat encrypted political statement against the Romans. It continued to say that because of a mistranslation, apparently the number is actually 616, which is the sum of another un-popular Roman emperor, Caligula. I don't remember the actual math so don't take this as the final word on the matter.
While port knocking is by now an established technique, I do not think OS fingerprinting adds anything useful, because the ease of static replay attacks is left unchanged by OS fingerprinting.
The problem I see with OS fingerprinting is the assumption that certains OSes are running certain (vulnerable/potentionally trojaned) applications. I don't think you can safely make those assumptions.
I would be scared to meet the person who considers "Damn Colby Jack... I just hate it so much!!" to be a troll.
Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me anymore.
I hope they are allowed to continue what they are doing but unfortunately, i'm not familiar with american copyright laws.
Don't worry. You're not alone. Most Americans aren't familiar with copyright laws. There's some good discussion is threads above this on the legal precedents on satire vs. parody. That's what it will most likely come down to.
I thought political humor was supposed to be funny. Your link is just a rabid attack that although it has a few logical points mostly misrepresents the issues (when it isn't launching on an ad hominem attack that is).
The parent post is only tangentially on topic in the sense that it's about politics. This Land was funny because it poked at both candidates; the parent's link is just spiteful.
Thank you. I'm glad some other sane people agree with my assessment. Although apparently calling it "propaganda" is inflamatory language...
The parent post is definately trolling.
Here, here.
I thought the cartoon was funny and equally made light of both candidates.
Glad somebody else realized that. It was pretty one-to-one. Although I realized that everything said about Bush has been said in the past four years while the Kerry stuff seems to be fairly new. I guess the only one-sided part is where Howard Dean goes insane on stage.
But the parent is right about one thing: It's not about IP [it's really about money!]
Very true. So is it a vast, right-wing conspiracy plotting to keep quiet opinions about their candidate that've already been voiced for years, or is it greed of an IP-owning company? I think Occam's Razor points to the latter.
There shouldn't be any difference between making a political statement and, say, a statement about how much you hate cheese.
Damn Colby Jack... I just hate it so much!!
(Editor's note: this is just the obvious joke and not intended to be trolling or flamebaiting.)
The Right Wing Conspiracy meetings are on Thursday nights at 7pm
Thanks. My Chauvanist White Males mailing with the times and dates must've been misplaced somewhere.
Its really about dubya trying to hide anything that shows what a dumbass he is. It's repression of free speech under the guise of an IP squabble.
As a Republican, I'm afraid I missed the Right Wing Conspiracy meeting on this one.
Not humor so much as propaganda.
"Interceptors! They put them in my eyes too!"
Insufficient for what?
What it boils down to is that DES has a fixed key length of 56 bits. Sure, you can 3DES it but you've also tripled the number of computations you have to do for every block of data. So while DES's key size has remained fixed, computing power is expanding at Moore's law. So, inevitably, computing power will overwhelm DES's practicality. It's just a matter of time (read: now). While AES, on the other hand, allows you to expand the key size from 128-bits by 64-bit blocks. So we could be running encrypted communications channels with 512-bit (or higher) AES if we liked.
Microsoft's .NET has AES built in and I'm pretty sure AES is what Trillian uses for encryption, so I say go for it!
The vast majority of times the problem isn't with the algorithm, but rather with the implementation. So just because something has a certain crypto algorithm doesn't mean it will be invulnerable to attacks.
I'm not one to point fingers, but if they do have to be pointed, they should be pointed at Mushrooms or toad licking. Not acid.
Remember: when you lick a toad, you're licking every toad that toad has had sex with!
The NSA was accused of planting a "back-door" in Lucifer that would allow agents to decrypt without the key, but of course such a thing was never found.
I don't have sources to back it up, but I believe the story goes that NSA made certain change recommendations without specifying why. Long story short, about a decade later the differential cryptanalysis attack was discovered but somehow DES was resistant to it because of the changes NSA suggested. I think NSA even came out after that and admitted knowing about differential cyptanalysis for around twenty years.
now, to really mess it up - the effective key length of 3DES is 112 bits, because only 2 keys are actually used, key A and B. Encrypt with A, then B, then A.
Close. Triple DES with two keys works as follows:
Encrypt with key 1, decrypt with key 2, then finally encrypt again with key 1.
That'll give you a cipher with a 112-bit key strength.
But, you can also do 3DES with three keys as follows:
Encrypt with key 1, decrypt with key 2, encrypt with key 3.
Now you have the strength of a 168-bit key. AES could do 192-bit keys with fewer computations.
Seriously. The FBI never takes too kindly to civilians 'helping out'. He can wave goodbye to all his computer equipment. And in about a week's time, he'll be complaining, and starting up a paypal account to pay his legal fees. But really, how can you not see this coming? He's just asking for the FBI to pay him a visit.
Indeed. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Kind of like running with the bulls in Pamplona. You can, but is it really that good of an idea?
The site's operator, a 30-year-old named Rick Wallace, wrote in a blog posting that he is trying to help the military understand how serious a security risk unmonitored peer-to-peer file sharing can be.
In the latest news: Mr. Wallace's information was posted on the Internet. While he was gone his home was broken into and his family brutally murdered. Sources say this should give Mr. Wallace a good idea of how serious security should be.
I should have prefaced: I'm on a CDMA network, not GSM.
It sounds like a great idea, I have to say I have been wating for such a cellphone for a while. I do have a few potential issues though. Battery life and size. While the Palm Cell phones were cool, they would eat a battery in about an hour and were about as sleek as carrying a forty pound rock.
What would be really cool is if this was integrated with Bluetooth into a Motorola phone. Since my Powerbook has built-in Bluetooth the phone could then just stream from the Powerbook and use the 12-song space as a cache.
Two interesting analogies but they're twisted together. They should be: 1) damage/theft to physical objects is the same as to digital ones; and 2) a third party who stores your objects has a duty to protect them.
So the first analogy says that breaking into my system really is the same as kicking down my door. You've done damage, tampered with my logs, broken executables, etc. Intent is irrelevant since the results are the same.
The second analogy is like the doctors' office. They have a duty to keep your private (health) data locked up. Digital firms such as Spymac are under the same onus.
vigilantes cease to be useful when they become indistinguishable from the crackers.
True. The question to then ask is: How is the vigilante different from the cracker? Motivation? But motivation doesn't make for moral action. The actions of both are unwelcome system intrusions. Perhaps the cracker and the vigilante aren't so different as one might think?