Re:Detect Modified Software?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
What if the bootrom verifies a signature on the flash before jumping to it? If the bootrom is physically in the same chip as the CPU and peripherals and it verifies a signature using public-key cryptography, it's very hard to get around. Even cracking the chip open would only tell you the public key, not the private key you need to sign software with, and just using software you won't be able to get that or even tell what the key algorithms are.
The vast majority of systems with a general purpose CPU are embedded systems. And the vast majority of those use a static linked binary. Which means if they use GPL software they'd have open source all the software in the box. Given that most people don't build systems from scratch - they buy in a closed source OS or other components from a third party, they can't do that.
Mind you, I think most software for this sort of system is either developed in house or bought in from a third party who developed it in house.
And even in the desktop PC market place, GPL software is pretty rare, <1% of the boxes run Linux
After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries. But that was 60 years ago under a pyschopath. Then again, the initial assumption of the Bolsheviks was that they WOULD need to force worldwide revolution. But the hard core of Bolsheviks rapidly dissappeared too.
So wait is Stalin bad (expansionist, psychopathic dictator) or good (the hard code of Bolsheviks rapidly disappeared) ?
Iran is decades off from the kind of technology you're talking about
It's hard to tell really. Most people reckon that they will have it in a decade or so. And possibly some other rogue state will develop it and sell it to them.
Sooner or later I suspect Iran, North Korea and a few other places will have a small number of 50's style ICBMs. Post Iraq, invading them is out of the question and the UN won't do anything to stop them. So it makes sense to try to make sure that the technology (missiles) and politics (basing) is ready to shoot them down.
Maybe you should study history and look at the suffering you have caused all around the world. Iraq is only the latest in the line of atrocities.
And FYI, your country DID hang my country out to dry, it happened in 1956, look it up.
So intervening in Iraq where the bad guys had almost no military capability was bad, but intervening in Hungary where there was a fair chance of starting WWIII with the Russians would have been good?
It seems like the US has already done this. They've explained that
1) The missiles are no threat to Russia. They can only shoot down ICBMs and are thus completely defensive. 2) The missiles are no threate to Russian ICBMs. If Russia launches an all out attack, they would overwhelm the system.
The problem is that either the Russians don't believe this, or Russian internal politics forces Putin to make this somehwhat crazy threat. Or maybe there's something else going on, like Russia is trying to make sure some other third rate power like Iran has the ability to lob ICBMs at the US.
I think the Russians and the Chinese are worried that even if a missile defense system starts of being designed to shoot down a few 1950's technology missiles from Iran, it will eventually be upgraded to the point where it can shoot down thousands of state of the art missiles from Russia or China. At which point, their deterrent would not be worth anything.
I dunno, I hope to read some posts explaining how Russia is totally justified in threatening to attack Poland and the Czech Republic for hosting American missiles which are designed to shoot down Iranian ICBMs.
I still think these things are funny. Imagine explaining to your non technical coworkers that people will think she's a retard unless she calls "Gigabytes" "Gibioctets" or "Gibibiocelots" if you're feeling particularly cruel.
FAT32 supports up to 8TB volumes in 2k and xp under certain conditions
The current limit is 2TB because of a 32 bit "disk size in sectors" field in the bootsector.
If that were a 64bit sector count (or a 32 bit cluster count) you could have volumes of 2^28 clusters, each 32K which takes you to 8TB. With 64K clusters you could get to 16TB.
And by using the reserved 4 bits in the FAT entry to get 2^32 64K clusters you could have 256TB.
But at the moment, the version of FAT32 which most OSs supports is limited to 2TB, because the disk size in sectors is a 32 bit field.
Some Microsoft documentation mentions an 8TB limit, but the released version does not support it. Personally, I think at one point a "disk size in clusters" field was in the FSInfo sector, which explains the 8TB limit, but this was removed at some point.
Microsoft nerfed their format tool to ensure that people used ntfs instead.
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.
As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs
It seems like they could set up GCC so it copies parts of itself into the output and then the output would be covered by the GPL. They only need a code change, not a license change.
I didn't indicate my feelings towards it, but since you asked, I would be unhappy with that. I like the idea that RCTV is being nationalized. I hope that TVes enables not only the oppositions, and the chavistas to speak, but others with their own opinion.
Oh come on! Do you really think that once it's nationalized anyone but Chavistas will speak?
Uhm. Doesn't Micheal Moore produce films? You have to see the difference.
Well, I can't think of an exact American equivalent of RCTV. But use your imagination - how would you feel if Bush pulled a TV station's license.
They can send over cable, and they can send over satellite. They chose Youtube, and that's fine as well...
For now they can. But Chavez might ban Youtube too. Or maybe he knows that they can only reach a fraction of their former audience over youtube and satellite.
Chavez banned a TV station and you're complaining that the "US/right wing media/ western nations project this issue ignoring all the above mentioned facts". Which seems to be implying that the fact that the TV station was "real crap in quality" is somehow a mitigating factor in the ban?
But then at the end of your post you say "They are not saying everything with chavez rule is fine. They are(mostly) not even justifying this act. But just pointing out the hypocrisy"
In which case how is your opinion of the quality of the station relevant? People complained about the Iranian regime's attempt to supress the Satanic Verses because it was an assault on freedom, the actual quality of the book wasn't relevant then. It seems the same here - the problem is that Chavez is attempting to set up a dictatorship and silence the opposition. It doesn't matter whether RCTV is like Fox or like PBS.
You seem to think that just because Chavez has bashed the US in few speeches he can do no wrong.
Each core would have less than a million transistors in the 80 core model. You have to go all the way back to the 486 to see that kind of count from Intel.
You can do in order cores very small - 486 is probably quite a good model for this. AMD considered using '486 like' cores, 12 per chip. 18 if you share the FPU.
RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him -- while permitting no response from the government.
Sounds like Michael Moore's coverage of Bush to me. Or Fox's coverage of the Clinton impeachment.
You mean, didn't renew the license of the station that assisted in the coup of April 2002.
So if the Bush decided not to renew the license of your favourite station because it annoyed him, you'd be happy with that? Since when are politicians in charge of renewing station's licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the bootrom verifies a signature on the flash before jumping to it? If the bootrom is physically in the same chip as the CPU and peripherals and it verifies a signature using public-key cryptography, it's very hard to get around. Even cracking the chip open would only tell you the public key, not the private key you need to sign software with, and just using software you won't be able to get that or even tell what the key algorithms are.
You can DRM using GPL3 all you want, but the code has to be free. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
What if I want to smoke cigarettes, or hand rolled blunts, or a hookah? Or not smoke at all? Stop oppressing me, fascist!
The vast majority of systems with a general purpose CPU are embedded systems. And the vast majority of those use a static linked binary. Which means if they use GPL software they'd have open source all the software in the box. Given that most people don't build systems from scratch - they buy in a closed source OS or other components from a third party, they can't do that.
2 007_web_server_survey.html
_ source_parking_spoofing_headers_to_benefit_apache. html
Mind you, I think most software for this sort of system is either developed in house or bought in from a third party who developed it in house.
And even in the desktop PC market place, GPL software is pretty rare, <1% of the boxes run Linux
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/May/os.php
Apache is doing pretty well against IIS. Mind you even there, IIS is growing faster
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/01/may_
Some of the Apache numbers are due to open source parking.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/04/04/open
After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries. But that was 60 years ago under a pyschopath. Then again, the initial assumption of the Bolsheviks was that they WOULD need to force worldwide revolution. But the hard core of Bolsheviks rapidly dissappeared too.
So wait is Stalin bad (expansionist, psychopathic dictator) or good (the hard code of Bolsheviks rapidly disappeared) ?
Iran is decades off from the kind of technology you're talking about
It's hard to tell really. Most people reckon that they will have it in a decade or so. And possibly some other rogue state will develop it and sell it to them.
Sooner or later I suspect Iran, North Korea and a few other places will have a small number of 50's style ICBMs. Post Iraq, invading them is out of the question and the UN won't do anything to stop them. So it makes sense to try to make sure that the technology (missiles) and politics (basing) is ready to shoot them down.
Maybe you should study history and look at the suffering you have caused all around the world. Iraq is only the latest in the line of atrocities.
And FYI, your country DID hang my country out to dry, it happened in 1956, look it up.
So intervening in Iraq where the bad guys had almost no military capability was bad, but intervening in Hungary where there was a fair chance of starting WWIII with the Russians would have been good?
You have to admire the almost Chaucerian vulgarity of the Anonymous Coward.
It seems like the US has already done this. They've explained that
1) The missiles are no threat to Russia. They can only shoot down ICBMs and are thus completely defensive.
2) The missiles are no threate to Russian ICBMs. If Russia launches an all out attack, they would overwhelm the system.
The problem is that either the Russians don't believe this, or Russian internal politics forces Putin to make this somehwhat crazy threat. Or maybe there's something else going on, like Russia is trying to make sure some other third rate power like Iran has the ability to lob ICBMs at the US.
I think the Russians and the Chinese are worried that even if a missile defense system starts of being designed to shoot down a few 1950's technology missiles from Iran, it will eventually be upgraded to the point where it can shoot down thousands of state of the art missiles from Russia or China. At which point, their deterrent would not be worth anything.
I dunno, I hope to read some posts explaining how Russia is totally justified in threatening to attack Poland and the Czech Republic for hosting American missiles which are designed to shoot down Iranian ICBMs.
While not technically a "maschinenpistole", MP44 was an official, Hitler-approved name.
Well if Hitler said so it must be correct, I guess.
You need to change the code which works out the disk capacity, but read and write commands still use 512 byte sectors.
It's a one to two line change, not changing the sector size everywhere which would be a pain to do.
I still think these things are funny. Imagine explaining to your non technical coworkers that people will think she's a retard unless she calls "Gigabytes" "Gibioctets" or "Gibibiocelots" if you're feeling particularly cruel.
I've always liked the sound of go back your hugbox, aspie
FAT32 supports up to 8TB volumes in 2k and xp under certain conditions
The current limit is 2TB because of a 32 bit "disk size in sectors" field in the bootsector.
If that were a 64bit sector count (or a 32 bit cluster count) you could have volumes of 2^28 clusters, each 32K which takes you to 8TB. With 64K clusters you could get to 16TB.
And by using the reserved 4 bits in the FAT entry to get 2^32 64K clusters you could have 256TB.
But at the moment, the version of FAT32 which most OSs supports is limited to 2TB, because the disk size in sectors is a 32 bit field.
Some Microsoft documentation mentions an 8TB limit, but the released version does not support it. Personally, I think at one point a "disk size in clusters" field was in the FSInfo sector, which explains the 8TB limit, but this was removed at some point.
Microsoft nerfed their format tool to ensure that people used ntfs instead.
Yes, but you can use this one instead
http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/fat32format.htm
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseG
It seems like they could set up GCC so it copies parts of itself into the output and then the output would be covered by the GPL. They only need a code change, not a license change.
I didn't indicate my feelings towards it, but since you asked, I would be unhappy with that. I like the idea that RCTV is being nationalized. I hope that TVes enables not only the oppositions, and the chavistas to speak, but others with their own opinion.
Oh come on! Do you really think that once it's nationalized anyone but Chavistas will speak?
Uhm. Doesn't Micheal Moore produce films? You have to see the difference.
Well, I can't think of an exact American equivalent of RCTV. But use your imagination - how would you feel if Bush pulled a TV station's license.
They can send over cable, and they can send over satellite. They chose Youtube, and that's fine as well...
For now they can. But Chavez might ban Youtube too. Or maybe he knows that they can only reach a fraction of their former audience over youtube and satellite.
No TV station has been banned? They are just disallowed to send terrestrial television
Which is another way of saying banned.
The question is how you'd react if Bush decided to stop Michael Moore from 'disallowed from sending terrestrial television.'
Chavez banned a TV station and you're complaining that the "US/right wing media/ western nations project this issue ignoring all the above mentioned facts". Which seems to be implying that the fact that the TV station was "real crap in quality" is somehow a mitigating factor in the ban?
But then at the end of your post you say "They are not saying everything with chavez rule is fine. They are(mostly) not even justifying this act. But just pointing out the hypocrisy"
In which case how is your opinion of the quality of the station relevant? People complained about the Iranian regime's attempt to supress the Satanic Verses because it was an assault on freedom, the actual quality of the book wasn't relevant then. It seems the same here - the problem is that Chavez is attempting to set up a dictatorship and silence the opposition. It doesn't matter whether RCTV is like Fox or like PBS.
You seem to think that just because Chavez has bashed the US in few speeches he can do no wrong.
Each core would have less than a million transistors in the 80 core model. You have to go all the way back to the 486 to see that kind of count from Intel.
f 1390b277b98?&hl=en
You can do in order cores very small - 486 is probably quite a good model for this. AMD considered using '486 like' cores, 12 per chip. 18 if you share the FPU.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch/msg/991f
ARM cores can be smaller and you could probably brew up a really stripped down in order risc chip much smaller.
A Watt is a Joule per second. There is no such thing as "watts per second"
Unless you were measuring an increase in power consumption.
RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him -- while permitting no response from the government.
Sounds like Michael Moore's coverage of Bush to me. Or Fox's coverage of the Clinton impeachment.
If you look around, you can find debunkings of the so-called "debunkings".
Oh Yeah? Well I can find debunkings of the debunkings of the debunkings.
You mean, didn't renew the license of the station that assisted in the coup of April 2002.
So if the Bush decided not to renew the license of your favourite station because it annoyed him, you'd be happy with that? Since when are politicians in charge of renewing station's licenses.
Whatever wrong you can accuse Bush of doing, Chavez has verifiably done . I should add arm-twisting of the media to that list...
Excellent link!