You're confusing a lot of things here.
First off, I didn't hack out the protection.
Second: this is GPL-derived work so it shouldn't be protected in the first place.
Third: In contrast to Sveasoft I have never send threat emails, false DMCA copyright violation notices, called ISPs making false claims that someone was hacking my network.
If you think that I am the "criminal" in this scenario then you either didn't follow the story properly or you're a moron. Next thing you're telling me is that I'm making that all up out of the blue.
Actually no, they did not provide source code for a few month. Continous pressure brought them to deliver some source code that doesn't compile to a working firmware, but at least there is now partial source code.
Geez most people can't even distinguish between WAV and 256kbit MP3.
The whole audiophile scene is a joke to me, that's more like a religion then anything else.
Remember those are the folks claiming that a CDR copy doesn't sound identical to a CD-Rom even though clearly it will play the exact same bits.
People want to believe that their 1cm cable makes a huge difference when 1mm would be enough. On the other hand, if it makes them happy...
Ok you want to get some math lesson?
40,000,000 * 20 byte = 763 MB
And that's without compression. Assuming a connection of 3Mbit, that's 35 minutes.
I don't see that as an unreasonable amount of data to get from an infected/infiltrated PC.
So how will they or it? A) They deliver beta-patches to the DoD or B) They deliver final patches to the DoD and delay them for a month before public release
Obviously both cases are a desaster: A) We all know how buggy Microsoft's final software is, I can't imagine how someone can use their beta patches in a critical desaster.
B) Telling the government about security issues first and delaying patches for the general public is bound to cause an uproar. They are already quite slow when it comes to releasing patches.
This just sounds like a very bad decision either way...
The nice thing is that you don't need to break or change the standard. It just shows that you should think a little about something before you implement it, even if it a widely used standard. In this case, why not introduce a warning popup if the domain name contains a unicode letter that looks like a normal ASCII letter. Effort? One lookup table of "bad" unicode letters and a small if-statement before opening a link...
How is this insightful? IE is the most used browser so it is very important if it is vulnerable. Given that IE isn't vulnerable, there may not be a critical mass of victims for phishers to try this.
Well it isn't really a bug. Their implementation is correct it just suffers a flaw that IDN introduced.
So from a technical point of view, the browser does what it is supposed to do. However it would be nice to see them implement some kind of protection against unicode letters looking like ASCII-letters. A warning popup or colour coding of those letter maybe.
There's a software called total recorder that captures anything that gets played on your computer.
However there's an even easier way: some sound drivers (like my Nforce2) offer the ability to use the output of all active sound sources (e.g. Mercora) as input for any recording tool (e.g. Adobe Audition). In the case of nvidia's audio tool the input is called "stereo mix".
I don't see the difference between offering an MP3 or offering a stream to allow instant realtime listening. Technically it is the same thing from the sender's point of view. It sends out bytes of copyrighted material. Just because the client software isn't saving those by default (think hacks, direct recording...) doesn't mean it isn't possible. This software will probably result in new laws which will trouble normal webradios...
Slashdot Mirror
It actually looks quite normal in the latest Opera Weekly Build.
Get it at http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/
He didn't suggest a switch to XP, he pointed out that running unpatched Win2k copies is a security risk.
The best solution would be to apply patches in an organized manner, it's hardly rocket science.
First off, I didn't hack out the protection.
Second: this is GPL-derived work so it shouldn't be protected in the first place.
Third: In contrast to Sveasoft I have never send threat emails, false DMCA copyright violation notices, called ISPs making false claims that someone was hacking my network.
If you think that I am the "criminal" in this scenario then you either didn't follow the story properly or you're a moron. Next thing you're telling me is that I'm making that all up out of the blue.
Here's a nice link for you: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgiActually no, they did not provide source code for a few month. Continous pressure brought them to deliver some source code that doesn't compile to a working firmware, but at least there is now partial source code.
Geez most people can't even distinguish between WAV and 256kbit MP3. The whole audiophile scene is a joke to me, that's more like a religion then anything else. Remember those are the folks claiming that a CDR copy doesn't sound identical to a CD-Rom even though clearly it will play the exact same bits. People want to believe that their 1cm cable makes a huge difference when 1mm would be enough. On the other hand, if it makes them happy...
The trick is not to buy the most recent CPUs.
For example I bought an AthlonXP 2000 when I already knew that 3000's will be available some time in the future.
Saved a lot of money and ended up having a spare CPU when I switched to the faster one (on the same board).
Opps, actually 10 bytes should be enough for 16+3 digits. Just wanted to point out that its not as much as you may think.
Ok you want to get some math lesson? 40,000,000 * 20 byte = 763 MB And that's without compression. Assuming a connection of 3Mbit, that's 35 minutes. I don't see that as an unreasonable amount of data to get from an infected/infiltrated PC.
So how will they or it?
A) They deliver beta-patches to the DoD
or
B) They deliver final patches to the DoD and delay them for a month before public release
Obviously both cases are a desaster:
A) We all know how buggy Microsoft's final software is, I can't imagine how someone can use their beta patches in a critical desaster.
B) Telling the government about security issues first and delaying patches for the general public is bound to cause an uproar. They are already quite slow when it comes to releasing patches.
This just sounds like a very bad decision either way...
Yeah but unlike mainframe CPU's (Sun, are you listening?), x86 CPUs rarely fail under normal conditions.
The nice thing is that you don't need to break or change the standard. It just shows that you should think a little about something before you implement it, even if it a widely used standard.
In this case, why not introduce a warning popup if the domain name contains a unicode letter that looks like a normal ASCII letter.
Effort? One lookup table of "bad" unicode letters and a small if-statement before opening a link...
How is this insightful?
IE is the most used browser so it is very important if it is vulnerable.
Given that IE isn't vulnerable, there may not be a critical mass of victims for phishers to try this.
Well it isn't really a bug. Their implementation is correct it just suffers a flaw that IDN introduced. So from a technical point of view, the browser does what it is supposed to do. However it would be nice to see them implement some kind of protection against unicode letters looking like ASCII-letters. A warning popup or colour coding of those letter maybe.
Geez what's with all those advertisement here. Read up on pyramid schemes and don't post your spam here. Thanks
There's a software called total recorder that captures anything that gets played on your computer. However there's an even easier way: some sound drivers (like my Nforce2) offer the ability to use the output of all active sound sources (e.g. Mercora) as input for any recording tool (e.g. Adobe Audition). In the case of nvidia's audio tool the input is called "stereo mix".
I don't see the difference between offering an MP3 or offering a stream to allow instant realtime listening.
Technically it is the same thing from the sender's point of view. It sends out bytes of copyrighted material. Just because the client software isn't saving those by default (think hacks, direct recording...) doesn't mean it isn't possible.
This software will probably result in new laws which will trouble normal webradios...
It's about 45-50 and available since yesterday IIRC.