You're talking about Early Middle Ages when some Christians indeed tried to suppress the heritage of the Ancient Greece and keep it secret. However, the materials were never destoyed. They were there in Europe locked in libraries. However, Renaissance was at the very end of the Middle Ages. Arabs played no role there. Materials from Ancient Greeks were still in the European libraries. When they were rediscovered by Europeans in the European libraries, then Renaissance, more or less, began.
Renaissance did not happen in Sweden, but rather in Italy in the 15th century for one reason: it is closer to the Arab World, which was much more advanced than Europe (Middle Ages...).
Arab World world had absolutely nothing to do with Renaissance.
Renaissance was started by citizens of Europe and it was the "rediscovery and rebirth" (= renaissance) of Ancient Greece, its culture, and values. I hope you know Greece is in Europe.
Also, I don't know in which respect Arab World was more advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages.
do you mean: "this attack only works on the cheapest certificates", which I would read as "only works against the cheapest certificates, certificates bought at Paypal are secure."?
Yes. I thought it was obvious from the mentioned facts.
That works only on the cheapest certificates. PayPal and other prominent sites use more expensive extended certificates that are not issued after a simple click on an emailed link.
I've never used IRC, so I can't recommend any. IRC as far as I know is used only by geeks and hackers. Not really an ideal target audience for Windows developers.
Anyway, specific arguments such as yours are irrelevant here. I criticized the blanket statement that "Windows programmers [all of them] create software only to make money from it." That is a false blanket statement.
Windows programmers hoard their creations and try to make money from them
Nice blanket statement and wrong. There is plenty of FOSS for Windows (the fact that some people make money selling software for Windows doesn't mean that there is no FOSS for Windows).
Are all mods crazy now? What is Informative +5 about the parent post? Speculations (see the use of the word "probably") without citing any sources? What exactly is informative? I don't see any piece of information in that.
Except for the fact that it happens on any system that CAN run BitLocker, rather than any system ACTUALLY running BitLocker.
Don't know what you're doing there or why it is modded +5 insighful but I installed a non-Vista boot loader on Vista SP1 and it still boots without any problems. (I have never used BitLocker.)
Unreal Tournament 3 seems to be hardcoded to only install on Vista and below - it should be a laugh when Windows 7 comes out and nobody can install the game on it.
That's why Vista auto-detects failed installation and offers you to retry it in Compatible mode (which means that, in the future, Windows 7 will identify itself as Vista or XP as part of the same procedure).
You can also switch a file permanently to compatible mode in the exe file properties (in Windows XP too).
"You should use the decoy operating system as frequently as you use your computer. Ideally, you should use it for all activities that do not involve sensitive data.... Note that you can save data to the decoy system partition anytime without any risk that the hidden volume will get damaged (because the decoy system is not installed in the outer volume -- see below)."
Uh, I'd mod you down as Misleading if that was possible. If you at least bothered to read something about it before commenting, you would know that you are wrong.
"Even when the outer volume is mounted, it is impossible to prove whether there is a hidden volume within it or not*, because free space on any TrueCrypt volume is always filled with random data when the volume is created** and no part of the (dismounted) hidden volume can be distinguished from random data."
Business and Home editions (i.e. the vast majority of Vista users) don't have BitLocker (hence, the need for TrueCrypt). Oh, and I forgot the most important reason: TrueCrypt is open source so anyone can peer review it, whereas BitLocker is a closed-source black box where people can only speculate whether everything is implemented correctly or not.
Look no matter how hard you try, what you wrote was wrong. Period. You wrote that legacy applications are "seamlessly" integrated and that they do not need to be rewritten. I can give you an example of a standard API call (no low-level hacks) that just silently fails. TrueCrypt needs to scan the cluster volume bitmap of a file system in which it wants to create a hidden volume. To do that it uses a standard DeviceIoControl (FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP) call. This is no hacking or low-level stuff. It's standard Windows XP API (interface for user-space applications that need administrator privileges). This call works on XP but it fails on Vista (by default). Therefore, your claims about "seamless integration of legacy applications" is just plain wrong.
BTW, your babbling about PGP and TrueCrypt being redundant clearly shows that you are either a MS fanboy or some and MS insider (alas, one without proper knowledge). You should know that Vista Home and Vista Business do not have disk encryption (BitLocker). Also, BitLocker cannot create virtual encrypted disks in files, hidden volumes (plausible deniability), makes you have 1,5 GB of unencrypted system files so that you can boot (ROFL!), and it's not unlikely that it contains government-requested backdoors (or will in the future).
Again, a Win32 application written for XP that requires administrator rights anytime during its execution will NOT run on Vista. The function of the program will fail. For example, TrueCrypt. Before it was Vista-ready it did not work, because it required admin privileges. The developers had to IMPLEMENT requests for elevation to invoke the UAC prompts. So what you wrote (that legacy apps will run) is false.
is able to detect the request for elevation, which is far more important, not only for noticing security compromise attempts, but for legacy software to still be able to run. The end result is allowing seamless application operation and complete security.
That's just plain wrong. A "legacy" app written for XP does NOT do any elevation requests and therefore will NOT run on Vista. It will just silently fail. The only exceptions are files that have the keyword "Setup" in their filenames. These files get UAC prompts automatically when the user tries to run them.
Apparently, you have no counter-arguments. Just as I thought. And again, the MS document does not mean that C++ is not suitable for kernel or hardware-related development. The fact that someone wrote shit doesn't meant that C++ is shit.
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about Early Middle Ages when some Christians indeed tried to suppress the heritage of the Ancient Greece and keep it secret. However, the materials were never destoyed. They were there in Europe locked in libraries. However, Renaissance was at the very end of the Middle Ages. Arabs played no role there. Materials from Ancient Greeks were still in the European libraries. When they were rediscovered by Europeans in the European libraries, then Renaissance, more or less, began.
Renaissance did not happen in Sweden, but rather in Italy in the 15th century for one reason: it is closer to the Arab World, which was much more advanced than Europe (Middle Ages...).
Arab World world had absolutely nothing to do with Renaissance.
Renaissance was started by citizens of Europe and it was the "rediscovery and rebirth" (= renaissance) of Ancient Greece, its culture, and values. I hope you know Greece is in Europe.
Also, I don't know in which respect Arab World was more advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages.
there will be no way to use the internet with any modicum of privacy.
Let me fix that for you:
there will be no way to use the internet with any modicum of privacy, apart from SSL.
do you mean: "this attack only works on the cheapest certificates", which I would read as "only works against the cheapest certificates, certificates bought at Paypal are secure."?
Yes. I thought it was obvious from the mentioned facts.
How about you read my post again.
That works only on the cheapest certificates. PayPal and other prominent sites use more expensive extended certificates that are not issued after a simple click on an emailed link.
I've never used IRC, so I can't recommend any. IRC as far as I know is used only by geeks and hackers. Not really an ideal target audience for Windows developers.
Anyway, specific arguments such as yours are irrelevant here. I criticized the blanket statement that "Windows programmers [all of them] create software only to make money from it." That is a false blanket statement.
Windows programmers hoard their creations and try to make money from them
Nice blanket statement and wrong. There is plenty of FOSS for Windows (the fact that some people make money selling software for Windows doesn't mean that there is no FOSS for Windows).
Are all mods crazy now? What is Informative +5 about the parent post? Speculations (see the use of the word "probably") without citing any sources? What exactly is informative? I don't see any piece of information in that.
Microsoft can take Apache software and embrace and enhance, providing their own versions of the project's software.
Yes, but the Apache license does not allow forks to use the name Apache (I also bet it is a trademark).
Kind of hard to embrace and extend if you need to call it something like "Iceweasel"....
I should add that it was Vista ULTIMATE 32-bit.
Except for the fact that it happens on any system that CAN run BitLocker, rather than any system ACTUALLY running BitLocker.
Don't know what you're doing there or why it is modded +5 insighful but I installed a non-Vista boot loader on Vista SP1 and it still boots without any problems. (I have never used BitLocker.)
Visual Studio development environment
Unless, umm, he set up the Express edition, which is completely free of charge (and no MSDN subscription is required).
Unreal Tournament 3 seems to be hardcoded to only install on Vista and below - it should be a laugh when Windows 7 comes out and nobody can install the game on it.
That's why Vista auto-detects failed installation and offers you to retry it in Compatible mode (which means that, in the future, Windows 7 will identify itself as Vista or XP as part of the same procedure).
You can also switch a file permanently to compatible mode in the exe file properties (in Windows XP too).
Do you at least read what you quote?
The quote says:
note that the decoy operating system is not installed in the outer volume
Do you get it now?
AFAIK, yes, if you fill the decoy volume it will kill your hidden volume.
And yet again, yet another incorrect statement modded +5. We really need "Incorrect" moderation.
From: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-operating-system
"You should use the decoy operating system as frequently as you use your computer. Ideally, you should use it for all activities that do not involve sensitive data. ... Note that you can save data to the decoy system partition anytime without any risk that the hidden volume will get damaged (because the decoy system is not installed in the outer volume -- see below)."
Uh, I'd mod you down as Misleading if that was possible. If you at least bothered to read something about it before commenting, you would know that you are wrong.
From, the TrueCrypt documentation at http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume.php :
"Even when the outer volume is mounted, it is impossible to prove whether there is a hidden volume within it or not*, because free space on any TrueCrypt volume is always filled with random data when the volume is created** and no part of the (dismounted) hidden volume can be distinguished from random data."
Oh, this was all because I was too general in my statement about what UAC is capable of doing.
I'm glad you finally admitted it. Albeit, not directly. But at least something...
Vista Business DOES HAVE BITLOCKER
You are again wrong. From the official source: "BitLocker Drive Encryption is a data protection feature available in Windows Vista Enterprise and Ultimate". See: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/bitlocker.mspx
Business and Home editions (i.e. the vast majority of Vista users) don't have BitLocker (hence, the need for TrueCrypt). Oh, and I forgot the most important reason: TrueCrypt is open source so anyone can peer review it, whereas BitLocker is a closed-source black box where people can only speculate whether everything is implemented correctly or not.
Look no matter how hard you try, what you wrote was wrong. Period. You wrote that legacy applications are "seamlessly" integrated and that they do not need to be rewritten. I can give you an example of a standard API call (no low-level hacks) that just silently fails. TrueCrypt needs to scan the cluster volume bitmap of a file system in which it wants to create a hidden volume. To do that it uses a standard DeviceIoControl (FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP) call. This is no hacking or low-level stuff. It's standard Windows XP API (interface for user-space applications that need administrator privileges). This call works on XP but it fails on Vista (by default). Therefore, your claims about "seamless integration of legacy applications" is just plain wrong.
BTW, your babbling about PGP and TrueCrypt being redundant clearly shows that you are either a MS fanboy or some and MS insider (alas, one without proper knowledge). You should know that Vista Home and Vista Business do not have disk encryption (BitLocker). Also, BitLocker cannot create virtual encrypted disks in files, hidden volumes (plausible deniability), makes you have 1,5 GB of unencrypted system files so that you can boot (ROFL!), and it's not unlikely that it contains government-requested backdoors (or will in the future).
TrueCrypt is a standard application fully compatible with Windows XP. You can keep saying it isn't, but it's not going to help you.
Again, a Win32 application written for XP that requires administrator rights anytime during its execution will NOT run on Vista. The function of the program will fail. For example, TrueCrypt. Before it was Vista-ready it did not work, because it required admin privileges. The developers had to IMPLEMENT requests for elevation to invoke the UAC prompts. So what you wrote (that legacy apps will run) is false.
is able to detect the request for elevation, which is far more important, not only for noticing security compromise attempts, but for legacy software to still be able to run. The end result is allowing seamless application operation and complete security.
That's just plain wrong. A "legacy" app written for XP does NOT do any elevation requests and therefore will NOT run on Vista. It will just silently fail. The only exceptions are files that have the keyword "Setup" in their filenames. These files get UAC prompts automatically when the user tries to run them.
I am still waiting for any specific arguments. All I see is mumbo jumbo again and now even personal attacks. Nice.
No specific arguments. Sheer mumbo jumbo.
Apparently, you have no counter-arguments. Just as I thought. And again, the MS document does not mean that C++ is not suitable for kernel or hardware-related development. The fact that someone wrote shit doesn't meant that C++ is shit.