Re:Major security issues...
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 1
The Harris company has produced a WiFi network that is capable of carrying Top Secret data.
No offense intended, but why are you talking about top secret data when the article describes how to best communicate with families back home?
Unless the spouse of the soldier has a military classification and a "need to know", Top Secret or other classified data should not be communicated to the soldier's home.
Re:Security Nightmare...
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 1
Unless it is well secured (and fully encrypted end-to-end), it could well be a valuable source of information for the Bad Guys.
Unless the Bad Guys are looking for information on how often Billy has crapped his diapers and whether Daisy needs braces on her teeth, there shouldn't be much to glean from this information stream.
The folks in the military are trained to keep operational details out of personal conversations with their family for several reasons, including national security, personal safety, and the safety of their families.
With all due respect, I doubt that Al Qaeda will get much by sniffing WiFi traffic from Afghanistan to the US.
While that may be true, does that mean we have to cater to the delusions of the Chinese (PRC) government?
I guess it depends on you point of view, and in the case of Microsoft, profits.
[Tom Edwards, Microsoft's senior geopolitical strategist, stated]"Of course we offended Kurds [removing references to Kurdistan] but we had offended the Turks more and they were a much more important market for our products. It was a hard commercial decision, not political."
The only Republicans I know are all voting that way for a fatter wallet.
Contractors who work for the bloated federal agencies the US taxpayers support get their wallets fattened every time a Republican or a Democrat recommends putting another seat at the Cabinet table.
I work for a government contractor. A small fraction of the money that gets allocated (appropriated) by the government gets to the target of the funding. It doesn't matter whether that money is targeting defense contractors, social service agencies, or oversight agencies. You appropriate $10M dollars for a program and by the time it gets out of Washington D.C., it is now down to $8M. The field office takes another $1M for oversight, and the contractor gets a performance award fee (on top of the work performed) of $2M. The project gets $5M, of which $1M is tied up in overhead (contracting, permitting, procurement), and that leaves $4M to perform the work. Unfortunately, the work NEEDED $10M, so only a small effort is expended getting the work done. Congress (who also spends money) will look at the work completed for the $10M appropriated and bitch that nothing was done and will cut the $10M to $8M, leaving $2M at the tail end to get the work done.
Getting the picture? It doesn't matter if the Administration is Republican or Democrat. I've been here for Bush's I and II and 8 years of Clinton.
It doesn't matter which party is in power.
Vote for a third party and scare the shit out of both of them. You can't waste your vote any worse than voting for either of the other two.
You should always assume that your system is compromised and be looking for places where attackers can penetrate your defenses.
You should never assume that the software you just deployed is bulletproof.
The use of security advisories and patches as an indication of overall vulnerability is inherently flawed.
Just saying that "it is so" doesn't prove much. I could argue that knowing how the vulnerability can be exploited gives me, the system administrator, an opportunity to work around the hole until a patch is distributed.
If the hole is only known to the software vendor and the Blackhat community, then how is your assumption that advisories are "inherently flawed" better than disclosure?
I think I would have more Republican leanings if the Party weren't trying so hard to be "The Party Of God(tm)".
I'm not particularly offended by religion or religious people, but their social agenda is every bit as overzealous as the leftists of the 60's and 70's.
Actually it was Kerry who said that we need to fight a "more sensitive" war on terrorism.
I think the poster was describing this public comment by the VP.
Bush later gave a speech where he stated that the US should be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence".
I guess the VP doesn't keep the Bush on tight enough leash. You can't be on camera criticizing Kerry for using the word 'sensitive' while your running mate is using the same word, on camera, in another venue.
"This demonstration is a major advance in closing a gap" in how materials can be used to control light in optical devices, according to Mark Kuzyk, a physics professor at Washington State University. Kuzyk said materials studied previously could control only 3 percent to 5 percent of light.
Well, let's put it this way, a 'possible' risk is a very different kettle of fish to 'NO' risk, isn't it?
A zero-risk paradigm is scientifically unrealistic, impossible to achieve, and working toward that goal would bankrupt even the most productive and wealthy society (the US is moving quickly in that direction).
How do you protect yourself from a supernova? Sol does have a 'possible risk' of exploding taking the Earth and surrounding solar system with it.
Which was all I was trying to say in my very inelegant British way.
In addition to our cheek, your cousins on the other side of The Pond have a fascination with the profane and banal. We memorize the best of both and can reproduce it (some would say, regurgitate it) at will.;)
some epidemiological studies do indicate a possible small risk of childhood leukaemia associated with exposure to unusually high levels of power frequency magnetic fields.
Note the use of the word "possible".
It is possible that monkeys will shoot out of my ass, but not likely.
The guy is correct. The name was incorrectly cited in the article header. The context of the correction was not meant to be a slam, just good EDITORIAL review.
...power frequency electromagnetic fields that exist in the vast majority of homes, are not a cause of cancer in general.
Great. Thank you for yet another report that states that there is NO link between powerline EM fields and cancer.
And this one was NOT from the US.
Please note that this is a British government body!
And that is supposed to mean what? That the study is invalid due to the fact that the government performed the it, or that it has greater validity due to its affliation with the govenment?
Your comment about warming indicates your age, your lack of historical knowledge, and lack of general education on the environment.
I work thrity feet from this country's best and brightest anadramous salmonid experts and less than 100 meters from the Columbia River. I am a groundwater scientist (licensed hydrologist) working on one of the world's largest radiological cleanup projects. I am over forty and have a great sense of humor.
You are a humorless fuck who thinks he has made a point.
What makes the NAS's report so much better than Koreas?
Nothing.
I just think that it is rediculous that there have been several published reports attempting to make a connection between EM and cancer, and all of them have failed.
Do you have any evidence that these previous researchers are less capable than the Koreans?
I hope you're not making the mistake of conflating a big name at the top of the paper with its validity.
Nope. Just making the point that this claim is nothing new.
Slashdot Mirror
The Harris company has produced a WiFi network that is capable of carrying Top Secret data.
No offense intended, but why are you talking about top secret data when the article describes how to best communicate with families back home?
Unless the spouse of the soldier has a military classification and a "need to know", Top Secret or other classified data should not be communicated to the soldier's home.
Unless it is well secured (and fully encrypted end-to-end), it could well be a valuable source of information for the Bad Guys.
Unless the Bad Guys are looking for information on how often Billy has crapped his diapers and whether Daisy needs braces on her teeth, there shouldn't be much to glean from this information stream.
The folks in the military are trained to keep operational details out of personal conversations with their family for several reasons, including national security, personal safety, and the safety of their families.
With all due respect, I doubt that Al Qaeda will get much by sniffing WiFi traffic from Afghanistan to the US.
While that may be true, does that mean we have to cater to the delusions of the Chinese (PRC) government?
I guess it depends on you point of view, and in the case of Microsoft, profits.
[Tom Edwards, Microsoft's senior geopolitical strategist, stated]"Of course we offended Kurds [removing references to Kurdistan] but we had offended the Turks more and they were a much more important market for our products. It was a hard commercial decision, not political."
Do you even know what "pork-barrel" politics are?
Yep. I work for a government contractor.
morons
Plural?
Did I give you the impression that there was more than one person writing my posts?
The only Republicans I know are all voting that way for a fatter wallet.
Contractors who work for the bloated federal agencies the US taxpayers support get their wallets fattened every time a Republican or a Democrat recommends putting another seat at the Cabinet table.
I work for a government contractor. A small fraction of the money that gets allocated (appropriated) by the government gets to the target of the funding. It doesn't matter whether that money is targeting defense contractors, social service agencies, or oversight agencies. You appropriate $10M dollars for a program and by the time it gets out of Washington D.C., it is now down to $8M. The field office takes another $1M for oversight, and the contractor gets a performance award fee (on top of the work performed) of $2M. The project gets $5M, of which $1M is tied up in overhead (contracting, permitting, procurement), and that leaves $4M to perform the work. Unfortunately, the work NEEDED $10M, so only a small effort is expended getting the work done. Congress (who also spends money) will look at the work completed for the $10M appropriated and bitch that nothing was done and will cut the $10M to $8M, leaving $2M at the tail end to get the work done.
Getting the picture? It doesn't matter if the Administration is Republican or Democrat. I've been here for Bush's I and II and 8 years of Clinton.
It doesn't matter which party is in power.
Vote for a third party and scare the shit out of both of them. You can't waste your vote any worse than voting for either of the other two.
What exactly does that have to do with the original point?
...making the reality a lot more mundane than the tin-foil-hat-wearing slashdotters would want to acknowledge.
The rest of the sentence:
As I said, the length of the contract is pure pork-barrel politics.
And why do you assume the council wasn't ready to sign a similar deal with the open-source firm?
I didn't assume anything. Even if they had inked a deal with an open-source organization, it still would have been pork-barrel.
IMHO, contracts of this length for IT products are not in the public's interest.
If nobody knows about it...
I don't think that is a valid assumption.
You should always assume that your system is compromised and be looking for places where attackers can penetrate your defenses.
You should never assume that the software you just deployed is bulletproof.
The use of security advisories and patches as an indication of overall vulnerability is inherently flawed.
Just saying that "it is so" doesn't prove much. I could argue that knowing how the vulnerability can be exploited gives me, the system administrator, an opportunity to work around the hole until a patch is distributed.
If the hole is only known to the software vendor and the Blackhat community, then how is your assumption that advisories are "inherently flawed" better than disclosure?
All of which have been fixed. Next!
Are you calling for the next vulnerability, or the next topic?
I'd suggest both studies might have had an ax to grind...
Perhaps, but a ten year deal?
Even if this weren't a decison based on a self-serving study, the length of the contract is pure pork-barrel politics.
Libertarians: Republicans who smoke pot.
An equally good description!
I think I would have more Republican leanings if the Party weren't trying so hard to be "The Party Of God(tm)".
I'm not particularly offended by religion or religious people, but their social agenda is every bit as overzealous as the leftists of the 60's and 70's.
Let Kerry flip and flop about his War service,
..and get caught in a bunch of lies,
..and he'll just dig a deeper hole for himself.
You mean the same way Bush filp and flopped on supporting the Department of Homeland Security?
I guess Kerry isn't as adept as Bush at expunging all of his incriminating files.
What was in his arrest record before it went in the shredder?
But Kerry will only hurt himself. When GW is ousted, Jeb is hurt because then there will be TWO Bush losers in the family.
Republicans: Democrats without the guilt.
Actually it was Kerry who said that we need to fight a "more sensitive" war on terrorism.
I think the poster was describing this public comment by the VP.
Bush later gave a speech where he stated that the US should be "sensitive about expressing our power and influence".
I guess the VP doesn't keep the Bush on tight enough leash. You can't be on camera criticizing Kerry for using the word 'sensitive' while your running mate is using the same word, on camera, in another venue.
Republicans: Democrats without the guilt.
Somewhere, whomever made up the name of this technology is laughing his ass off, as am I.
Named after Buckminster Fuller.
"This demonstration is a major advance in closing a gap" in how materials can be used to control light in optical devices, according to Mark Kuzyk, a physics professor at Washington State University. Kuzyk said materials studied previously could control only 3 percent to 5 percent of light.
Go Cougs!
WOOT!!!
Well, let's put it this way, a 'possible' risk is a very different kettle of fish to 'NO' risk, isn't it?
;)
A zero-risk paradigm is scientifically unrealistic, impossible to achieve, and working toward that goal would bankrupt even the most productive and wealthy society (the US is moving quickly in that direction).
How do you protect yourself from a supernova? Sol does have a 'possible risk' of exploding taking the Earth and surrounding solar system with it.
Which was all I was trying to say in my very inelegant British way.
In addition to our cheek, your cousins on the other side of The Pond have a fascination with the profane and banal. We memorize the best of both and can reproduce it (some would say, regurgitate it) at will.
some epidemiological studies do indicate a possible small risk of childhood leukaemia associated with exposure to unusually high levels of power frequency magnetic fields.
Note the use of the word "possible".
It is possible that monkeys will shoot out of my ass, but not likely.
Troll?
The guy is correct. The name was incorrectly cited in the article header. The context of the correction was not meant to be a slam, just good EDITORIAL review.
...power frequency electromagnetic fields that exist in the vast majority of homes, are not a cause of cancer in general.
Great. Thank you for yet another report that states that there is NO link between powerline EM fields and cancer.
And this one was NOT from the US.
Please note that this is a British government body!
And that is supposed to mean what? That the study is invalid due to the fact that the government performed the it, or that it has greater validity due to its affliation with the govenment?
at least attempt to have a long term view of problems.
How do you propose stopping the increase in UV from the Sun over the next 700 million years?
Tree huggers don't have a long term view, just narrow minds.
So you say you are, but frankly to be still debating global warming...
You appear to have lost track in the thread.
I never debated the validity of global warming.
Point to the post where I wrote that global warming was not a real phenomenon.
You've outed me.
Your comment about warming indicates your age, your lack of historical knowledge, and lack of general education on the environment.
I work thrity feet from this country's best and brightest anadramous salmonid experts and less than 100 meters from the Columbia River. I am a groundwater scientist (licensed hydrologist) working on one of the world's largest radiological cleanup projects. I am over forty and have a great sense of humor.
You are a humorless fuck who thinks he has made a point.
It's a perpetual scam to get more grant money.
Yeah, seven years ago it was salmon recovery, recently is has been global warming....
Just stick all of these buzz words in your grant proposal and you are bound to get SOME funding.
What makes the NAS's report so much better than Koreas?
Nothing.
I just think that it is rediculous that there have been several published reports attempting to make a connection between EM and cancer, and all of them have failed.
Do you have any evidence that these previous researchers are less capable than the Koreans?
I hope you're not making the mistake of conflating a big name at the top of the paper with its validity.
Nope. Just making the point that this claim is nothing new.
Science is about being open to new ideas,...
Except that this is not a new idea.
Let's see:
First it was microwave towers, then power lines, then cell phones.
And every time, the National Academy of Sciences found NOTHING to warrant the claim of a causal link between elecromagnetics OF ANY FORM and cancer.