> It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.
You refer to heuristic scanning, or pro-active security. This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.
You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics (60%) in retroactive tests (outdated definitions, therefore, unknown viruses) with by far the least number of false positives (which is crucial for good heuristics).
They even overtook the former leader, NOD32 (and often even in performance).
> viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware?
Actually, malware is a universal term collectively referring to viruses, trojans, worms, rootkits, and spyware. In other words, malware is any kind of malicious software.
What I would like to see Google do (and all the other search engines too for that matter), is create an option and associated algorithm to break out web searches into two fundamental/gross search categories:
That's already starting to be done on google.com. Click 'Show Options' and click the links on the left to filter the results. I know the links look like some ads, but hey, at least they started.
So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users? Just because I compete with IE?
Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.
It works by detecting hidden patterns that don't exist in a random file.
That would be equal to breaking AES or the mode of operation (XTS).
If they could distinguish the AES-XTS ciphertext from random data, they would be famous in the cryptographic community instantly. However, these fraudsters obviously cannot do anything like that. They are just posting a bunch of lies hoping to earn big money on it.
Wow, the quality of Slashdot has really been going down lately. Now any random fraud can submit his misleading material and it gets accepted to front page just because it sounds interesting? Is this actually tabloid or serious news for nerds who understand what the talk about?
In short, this is yet another lame attempt to make money by posting bogus claims about a popular product.
First, hidden volumes are the only kind of steganography that TrueCrypt offers. Second, if you read the TrueCrypt documentation, you'll learn the following about hidden volumes vs. dynamic:
On Linux or Mac OS X, if you intend to create a hidden volume within a file-hosted TrueCrypt volume, make sure that the volume is not sparse-file-hosted (the Windows version of TrueCrypt verifies this and disallows creation of hidden volumes within sparse files).
Furthermore, when I try to create a dynamic TrueCrypt volume, TrueCrypt displays a big warning saying that dynamic volumes are insecure. That's right. Insecure.
So again, I demote this story as total and utter bogus motivated by the vision commercial gain.
They're not giving you Windows 7 for free. They allow anyone to use a beta version of Windows 7 for one year. And, yes, RC is still beta. Microsoft has admitted that they falsely and intentionally label the last few betas as RCs to make hardware vendors to test their hardware and write proper drivers before a RTM build is created.
The only purpose of this/. submission is to make money on ads or something I suppose (I didn't follow any link, I confess, as I don't follow misleading and moronic articles).
Look, Mozilla doesn't allow anyone to purchase a domain name containing "firefox" unless they give you permission. Otherwise, they can sue you for trademark infringement (that's why trademark policies are created). There is no difference between this and this Wikipedia case.
However, you can choose to continue to be ignorant.
They're just maintaining the Win32 API, which is easy and it does not decrease the quality of the new systems in any way. Most of the other parts of the 9x systems (such as the driver model) have been made incompatible for home users as soon as Windows XP was released. As for MS-DOS applications, I know quite a lot of businesses that still use software that someone wrote for them back in the early 90's. Believe me, you basically don't know what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
> It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones.
You refer to heuristic scanning, or pro-active security. This means that the software is able to discover new unknown viruses based on their behavior or properties.
You might be surprised but MS Security Essentials has been found to have the best heuristics (60%) in retroactive tests (outdated definitions, therefore, unknown viruses) with by far the least number of false positives (which is crucial for good heuristics).
They even overtook the former leader, NOD32 (and often even in performance).
Source for heuristics (2009):
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report22.pdf
> viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware?
Actually, malware is a universal term collectively referring to viruses, trojans, worms, rootkits, and spyware. In other words, malware is any kind of malicious software.
> It's not stealing, it's a copyright violation :P
Actually, it's copyright infringement. The word violation is used with the word license (as in GPL violation).
What I would like to see Google do (and all the other search engines too for that matter), is create an option and associated algorithm to break out web searches into two fundamental/gross search categories:
That's already starting to be done on google.com. Click 'Show Options' and click the links on the left to filter the results. I know the links look like some ads, but hey, at least they started.
I can't see any reference nor any point in your post. Now I'm not sure why you posted it.
So if I make a spyware-based browser with malicious components, will Microsoft be obliged to offer my browser to the users? Just because I compete with IE?
Yep, I'd be complaining to EU if they didn't include my browser. That would be discrimination and abuse of monopoly.
Can it get any more silly?
This article in no way says, "Teh Interwebs as we know it are ovur!".
Don't know about TFA as I don't read crap. But TF summary certainly does say that.
Also, w3schools are a skewed demography. A reality check is here:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
The browsers you named have even smaller market share than Firefox...
The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.
It's almost invariably the top link of the actual search results
The key word in that sentence is "actual".
most technical users know never to click on the ads.
Why?
Can we please ask the Slashdot editors to avoid tabloid titles?
The title reads "Trademarks Considered Harmful To Open Source".
but it should read: "A Random [Uneducated] Guy Considers Trademarks Harmful To FOSS"
Thanks for listening.
Insurance company: We are sorry, sir, but this substantially exceeds the Upper Limit.
It works by detecting hidden patterns that don't exist in a random file.
That would be equal to breaking AES or the mode of operation (XTS).
If they could distinguish the AES-XTS ciphertext from random data, they would be famous in the cryptographic community instantly. However, these fraudsters obviously cannot do anything like that. They are just posting a bunch of lies hoping to earn big money on it.
And yet another omission on my side:
Dynamic volumes = Sparse-file-hosted volumes
Sorry, I forgot to add a reference for the quote in bold. Here it is:
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume-precautions
Wow, the quality of Slashdot has really been going down lately. Now any random fraud can submit his misleading material and it gets accepted to front page just because it sounds interesting? Is this actually tabloid or serious news for nerds who understand what the talk about?
In short, this is yet another lame attempt to make money by posting bogus claims about a popular product.
First, hidden volumes are the only kind of steganography that TrueCrypt offers. Second, if you read the TrueCrypt documentation, you'll learn the following about hidden volumes vs. dynamic:
On Linux or Mac OS X, if you intend to create a hidden volume within a file-hosted TrueCrypt volume, make sure that the volume is not sparse-file-hosted (the Windows version of TrueCrypt verifies this and disallows creation of hidden volumes within sparse files).
Furthermore, when I try to create a dynamic TrueCrypt volume, TrueCrypt displays a big warning saying that dynamic volumes are insecure. That's right. Insecure.
So again, I demote this story as total and utter bogus motivated by the vision commercial gain.
The RC isn't going to be supported with security fixes
True. That should be a very good reason to switch to the stable version once it's out.
Really? Can you cite a source for this
Yes, I can.
They're not giving you Windows 7 for free. They allow anyone to use a beta version of Windows 7 for one year. And, yes, RC is still beta. Microsoft has admitted that they falsely and intentionally label the last few betas as RCs to make hardware vendors to test their hardware and write proper drivers before a RTM build is created.
The only purpose of this /. submission is to make money on ads or something I suppose (I didn't follow any link, I confess, as I don't follow misleading and moronic articles).
Seeing as how IE is integrated into the OS
IE has not been integrated into Windows XP since IE7.
No, it doesn't. Only if you launch a shortcut to windowsupdate.microsoft.com. The Windows Auto-Update does not use IE at all.
We really need a "-1 Incorrect/misleading" mod point type...
It makes XP the safe choice of API to write new code to.
Wrong. (The Home versions of Windows 7 will not support the Virtual XP mode.)
Look, Mozilla doesn't allow anyone to purchase a domain name containing "firefox" unless they give you permission. Otherwise, they can sue you for trademark infringement (that's why trademark policies are created). There is no difference between this and this Wikipedia case.
However, you can choose to continue to be ignorant.
They're just maintaining the Win32 API, which is easy and it does not decrease the quality of the new systems in any way. Most of the other parts of the 9x systems (such as the driver model) have been made incompatible for home users as soon as Windows XP was released. As for MS-DOS applications, I know quite a lot of businesses that still use software that someone wrote for them back in the early 90's. Believe me, you basically don't know what you're talking about.