The civilians, yourself and myself among them, live among many other civilians who are unwilling to act to preserve their freedoms. Reminds a bit of the parable about evil being more about good people doing nothing rather than evil people doing bad things.
Yeesh, if they're trying to do cleanup behind themselves rather than e-mail you to let them know they'd rooted the box, it's time to switch. This goes double if (and, you may have specified regarding this; apologies if you have) you've already asked them in writing to never jump into your box without asking you first.
As others have said, if the provider has physical access, you can not expect mathematically no chance of them breaking in and grabbing or (worse) changing stuff.
Focus on what you are providing and just how secure it needs to be, and act accordingly.
A really nice host carries machines with remote management built-in. This goes double for x86 or x86-64 where the architecture didn't grow up with the idea of "the text put up by the systemboard's ROMs can go to a monitor and/or to a serial port."
Obviously, if they've gone through some trouble to make code paths different, changed static strings and symbols around, then you don't necessarily know without spending a lot of time to see if the resulting code seems to do step-by-step what a compiled version of your original code does.
I didn't read the material thoroughly, but that's indeed part of the weird; you need to target to intercept traffic for a specific area, implying a limited locus of sources.
You don't get to hijack, say, IP 11.4.3.3 worldwide doing this.
However, you're in trouble if a number of BGP operators decide to operate in concert. That's when the fun really begins.
So far, internet operators have used their powers for good (c.f. Usenet Death Penalty)... Or at least used them with good intentions.
All sorts of folks run BGP w/o TCPMD5. They configure BGP peers that simply trust that an exchange's ARP is difficult to jack, therefore whomever has the matching IP and AS announcements must be who it says it is.
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
It looks like the article "5 reasons for" is an enumeration of technical reasons it could be good for an organization to use MySQL, and the article "8 reasons against" is an enumeration of reasons why a CTO/CIO may be unwilling to be responsible for what might happen if MySQL were deployed.
...Given that there is no objective "history", do you feel there is no value in teaching anything about the past that cannot be experimentally demonstrated on an apparatus today?
Note that I don't mean to call you out; I would like to know your (and anyone else's) view of exposition of past events that includes its own "error factor", as it were.
(start off-topic bits) FDR's Executive Order 9066, among other things, was used to relocate people of Japanese ancestry, a number of whom were/are American citizens, away from the pacific home front during World War 2.
If I were an American citizen of Middle Eastern decent, I might be worried about measures being taken against myself based on my ethinicity without regard for my citizenship. (end off-topic bits)
I'm not a subject of the crown, nor do I live in any United Kingdom territories. So I don't have any direct experience of what it is like to raise children in those areas. But to ignore any area of history (whether Germany's Final Solution or the Palestinian Troubles) would be curious. To encourage it via elimination from school would be disturbing. What does it say about a culture that chooses to whitewash history?
(Note: American citizen. Well aware that school ignored a whole bunch of stuff. Even more keenly aware that people don't like to discuss the troubles of the past. Try having a restaurant discussion of Rosa Parks somewhere outside of America's 10 largest cities.)
...I don't have kids, but I get the impression that those who do find it dangerous, or too difficult, to explain to kids that information is usually affected by perspective.
Apart from the relative difficulty of controlling what a child is exposed to, why is this?
When you are in this situation, turn your head, and politely (or not) tell them to shut up. Tell them they're being irritating. If it gets out of hand, summon the flight crew and explain the situation. If enough of your passengers agree, things happen.
...in that form because it's rather domain-specific to Windows. But there are hardware devices out there and drivers that provide interfaces to said harware to provide similar bits.
Most security doctrines operate with the conviction that physical access to the box, along with enough time and resources, negates all possible security measures.
Please get an education. You did something ignorant that a first year physics student (as well as a first year cooking student) generally knows not to do. Bye now.
There are way to be helpful without dealing with these kinds of liability issues. For instance, offer a standardized test.
If the technology is obscure enough, where are you going to find a test that can be shown to be a fair evaluation of technology X that the test-taker can't attempt to refute in civil court? Even if you can prove it well, the act of going into small claims (or worse) will waste time.
Just to point out: we would have to care about Windows users not liking it regardless of the reasons why.
Some of us care, some of us don't. To say that the people who are trying to evangelize Linux to non-Linux users are characteristic of, say, me, would be mis-characterizing me.
All sorts of 3rd-party-licensed bits are likely to be in any modern graphics accelerator made for PCs today. Most of these bits (shader pipeline design, filtering and rastering algorithms encoded in ASIC chunks, etc.) carry NFR licenses for the hardware registers and procedures, forbidding nVidia (in this case) from releasing the source to drivers or hardware register information. Since these are covered as trade secrets, 3rd-party licensors like nVidia are entitled and required to obscure the details for said information. Practical result: several important bits with no available source.
One day in the past in Europe, Germans decided that merely being a Jew meant you were no longer a "good citizen."
One day in the past in Korea, Japanese decided that merely being a Korean meant you were no longer a "good citizen."
I'm not worried about privacy because I feel that the current holders of information are bad people, I'm worried about privacy because what happens if the current holders of information get shot by bad people before the information holders can set fire to their records.
Slashdot Mirror
Move off campus.
The civilians, yourself and myself among them, live among many other civilians who are unwilling to act to preserve their freedoms. Reminds a bit of the parable about evil being more about good people doing nothing rather than evil people doing bad things.
Yeesh, if they're trying to do cleanup behind themselves rather than e-mail you to let them know they'd rooted the box, it's time to switch. This goes double if (and, you may have specified regarding this; apologies if you have) you've already asked them in writing to never jump into your box without asking you first.
As others have said, if the provider has physical access, you can not expect mathematically no chance of them breaking in and grabbing or (worse) changing stuff.
Focus on what you are providing and just how secure it needs to be, and act accordingly.
A really nice host carries machines with remote management built-in. This goes double for x86 or x86-64 where the architecture didn't grow up with the idea of "the text put up by the systemboard's ROMs can go to a monitor and/or to a serial port."
Indeed. I can't speak for gpl-violations' work. But without doing this I don't see how a case is possible from a technical perspective.
Obviously, if they've gone through some trouble to make code paths different, changed static strings and symbols around, then you don't necessarily know without spending a lot of time to see if the resulting code seems to do step-by-step what a compiled version of your original code does.
I didn't read the material thoroughly, but that's indeed part of the weird; you need to target to intercept traffic for a specific area, implying a limited locus of sources.
You don't get to hijack, say, IP 11.4.3.3 worldwide doing this.
However, you're in trouble if a number of BGP operators decide to operate in concert. That's when the fun really begins.
So far, internet operators have used their powers for good (c.f. Usenet Death Penalty)... Or at least used them with good intentions.
All sorts of folks run BGP w/o TCPMD5. They configure BGP peers that simply trust that an exchange's ARP is difficult to jack, therefore whomever has the matching IP and AS announcements must be who it says it is.
would the gathering of requirements not work out better if the deadline were in 1 month from now, not 11 months before now?
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
Probably shouldn't. But possibly will be. And this hypothetical person won't be alone :(
It looks like the article "5 reasons for" is an enumeration of technical reasons it could be good for an organization to use MySQL, and the article "8 reasons against" is an enumeration of reasons why a CTO/CIO may be unwilling to be responsible for what might happen if MySQL were deployed.
...Given that there is no objective "history", do you feel there is no value in teaching anything about the past that cannot be experimentally demonstrated on an apparatus today?
Note that I don't mean to call you out; I would like to know your (and anyone else's) view of exposition of past events that includes its own "error factor", as it were.
(start off-topic bits)
FDR's Executive Order 9066, among other things, was used to relocate people of Japanese ancestry, a number of whom were/are American citizens, away from the pacific home front during World War 2.
If I were an American citizen of Middle Eastern decent, I might be worried about measures being taken against myself based on my ethinicity without regard for my citizenship.
(end off-topic bits)
I'm not a subject of the crown, nor do I live in any United Kingdom territories. So I don't have any direct experience of what it is like to raise children in those areas. But to ignore any area of history (whether Germany's Final Solution or the Palestinian Troubles) would be curious. To encourage it via elimination from school would be disturbing. What does it say about a culture that chooses to whitewash history?
(Note: American citizen. Well aware that school ignored a whole bunch of stuff. Even more keenly aware that people don't like to discuss the troubles of the past. Try having a restaurant discussion of Rosa Parks somewhere outside of America's 10 largest cities.)
...I don't have kids, but I get the impression that those who do find it dangerous, or too difficult, to explain to kids that information is usually affected by perspective.
Apart from the relative difficulty of controlling what a child is exposed to, why is this?
Just personal experience, but you might try the Python documentation. Class organization, an index, and a useful tutorial to boot.
(redundant, but whatever)
When you are in this situation, turn your head, and politely (or not) tell them to shut up. Tell them they're being irritating. If it gets out of hand, summon the flight crew and explain the situation. If enough of your passengers agree, things happen.
...in that form because it's rather domain-specific to Windows. But there are hardware devices out there and drivers that provide interfaces to said harware to provide similar bits.
Most security doctrines operate with the conviction that physical access to the box, along with enough time and resources, negates all possible security measures.
Please get an education. You did something ignorant that a first year physics student (as well as a first year cooking student) generally knows not to do. Bye now.
Was his name John Smith? Or, did he actually post mother's maiden name, living area, SSID and driver's license numbers in his UseNet messages?
There are way to be helpful without dealing with these kinds of liability issues. For instance, offer a standardized test.
If the technology is obscure enough, where are you going to find a test that can be shown to be a fair evaluation of technology X that the test-taker can't attempt to refute in civil court? Even if you can prove it well, the act of going into small claims (or worse) will waste time.
Just to point out: we would have to care about Windows users not liking it regardless of the reasons why.
Some of us care, some of us don't. To say that the people who are trying to evangelize Linux to non-Linux users are characteristic of, say, me, would be mis-characterizing me.
All sorts of 3rd-party-licensed bits are likely to be in any modern graphics accelerator made for PCs today. Most of these bits (shader pipeline design, filtering and rastering algorithms encoded in ASIC chunks, etc.) carry NFR licenses for the hardware registers and procedures, forbidding nVidia (in this case) from releasing the source to drivers or hardware register information. Since these are covered as trade secrets, 3rd-party licensors like nVidia are entitled and required to obscure the details for said information. Practical result: several important bits with no available source.
One day in the past in Europe, Germans decided that merely being a Jew meant you were no longer a "good citizen."
One day in the past in Korea, Japanese decided that merely being a Korean meant you were no longer a "good citizen."
I'm not worried about privacy because I feel that the current holders of information are bad people, I'm worried about privacy because what happens if the current holders of information get shot by bad people before the information holders can set fire to their records.
No known attempts to filter due to content. Probably infeasible given the size of the network.