There was a time when Sega, Nintendo and Sony would all design unique hardware. Later on these unique designs became less common, and now thanks to consoles like the Xbox, the common design is an intel chip (or IBM), a standard PC graphics card, etc.
It's going to take a quantum leap in hardware design in my opinion. They can start with moving away from DVDs and going to solid state storage. They can go the fastest possible read, write, access times, for ram and data transfer speed between the different chips and components. They can up the ram to a level of 32 gigs, 64 gigs, etc. Since ram is cheap enough I'd actually go with 64 gigs of ram, 80gig SSD, an ARM based 64 CPU, and flash based cartridges. Yes I'm asking for a return to cartridges because this would provide the best performance.
The graphics card should be the most important part of the console, along with the AI chip. The console should be of modular design, allowing the user to upgrade the graphics card while providing backward compatibility with all the games. The original console should come in three versions, the low cost, medium cost, and high performance version. The high performance version should include state of the art graphics card which can handle real time raytracing at least, and it should be something which can be upgraded or stacked, so that if a customer has the money or buys a game which requires more power, a new graphics chip can be added to the card as easily as plugging in a cartridge. Yes you read it right, the graphics card chip should be designed to fit into the cartridge slot, and then the cartridge plugged directly into that. It also should allow for some type of cloud based graphics or AI setup if it's feasible.
Could it work? I think it's worth a try. They should also focus on streaming the games, and on letting people download time limited games for low prices similar to itunes. You pay for a weeks worth or months worth of play and you can play any game released that month. For certain games of course you'll still have to buy. This will expand the size of the market so causal gamers can just switch to the gaming channel on their TV or go online and click to play.
Gordon cannot be stopped. Gordon can and must see all or Gordon will destroy, torture, and kill all.
So you also have Mallory. When you deal with Gordon you know Gordon's name. You know who Gordon works for. You know Gordon. When you are dealing with Mallory, you don't know who Mallory is. You don't know Mallory's motivations. You don't know Mallory.
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. You know Gordon is a part of a necessary evil. Mallory could be your rival, your competitor, or just a predator. So while Gordon has to be trained and typically has some orders he is following, all the way up a chain of command, and has selfless motivations, Mallory may have entirely selfish motivations.
The Justice Dept also has informants, wiretaps, backdoors in popular software. What you present are the very basics, the core minimum. A journalist will need to know this and then some.
It's not enough to just have sophisticated software. The software will just be outlawed, banned, and anyone caught with it will be abused until they give up the key or give up their sources.
Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux?
on
FreeBSD 8.2 Released
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
At this point Linux is far more secure, stable, and powerful than FreeBSD. Just analyze the amount of bug reports from both kernels. At this point FreeBSD is old hat.
yes, they are a security firm, and as such need to maintain a white hat / ethical hacker image. I'd judge their actions individually, though, and I'm thinking in this case they weren't wearing a hat at all - they were only creating tools and strategies. of course, internally such tools must be tested, and doing so is pure white-hat. using the same tools against another party without their knowledge and permission, for a purpose other than improving their security, would not constitute a white hat operation even if they maintain a normally clean reputation. I don't think they did that, though, and even if they did, it doesn't say whether they are good guys or bad guys or evil or anything. the convention of hats is about something else entirely.
I don't think White Hat = Pacifist. If there is a legitimate cyber war, then you'd know that there would be White Hats who would have the legal authority or responsibility to fight the cyber war.
These White Hats would be cyber warriors first. White Hats in specific would be improving the national security of the United States in this context, and as long as no laws are broken I don't see any problem with it.
Now if they broke the law to enforce the law then I have a problem. If they abuse human rights to defend human rights then I have a problem. It depends on what they were doing but from what I've seen of HBGaryFederal they seem to have the role of the much hyped cyber warrior.
What exactly did we expect them to be doing? At worse they could be Grey Hat's but they are not Black Hats because they aren't breaking the law, so even if the user of the system does not give them permission to enter and search the system the government and true owner of all systems in the United States has the permission and gave them the permission on the behalf of the United States.
It's like saying a detective isn't really a cop. Of course a detective is a cop. And as long as the detective follows the law, the detective is not a corrupt cop or pig. Just like with Black Hats, they can hack and break the law, but if they ever work with the feds then they are snitching, because Black Hats aren't supposed to work with law enforcement while they break the law.
It's about being consistent, honest, and maintaining reputation. That is what makes them "White", that requires following the law and being like a choirboy or saint in the eyes of government. It's a strategic position hackers take when they want to go legit and avoid prison.
Black Hats like Alberto Gonzales on the other hand who go around setting up and hacking their buddies, these are the problem. Specifically because this group is dishonest to everybody, dishonest to the hacker community.
This is the problem I had with what HBGaryFederal did with Anonymous. HBGaryFederal if they are White Hats, had no business trying to infiltrate Anonymous. Essentially White Hat's now have the role like it or not, as being the cops. Black Hats have the role of being the criminals. The Black Hats who assist the White Hats are the informers or snitches whom the the vast majority of the hacker community hate.
This is also the problem the community has with what Adrian Lamo did. If Adrian Lamo is a White Hat then why the hell would Bradley Manning a Black Hat be contacting him and discussing illegal information and activities? Adrian Lamo was never a Black Hat. He was always either White Hat or Grey Hat.
So basically what we see is that the government is creating this whole cyberwarfare environment probably to increase funding. The government is paying White Hat's and Grey Hat's to help fight the Black Hat's that pissed the government and establishment off. If it's a Black Hat the government likes, this Black Hat is typically either an informant or some sort of government operator. If it's a Black Hat the government does not like, then it's a cyber terrorist. Ultimately the government selectively allows some Black Hat's to break the law, and does not or will not investiga
The basic principle still stands, to hack a network you basically must exploit a weakness. The ultimate goal of all security experts is to close all weaknesses. You can not exploit what you close, you can not secure what you leave weak. Any security organisation that knowingly leaves citizens exposed to security holes, in order to pursue personal promotions via committing crimes in other countries is in fact acting in a treasonous manner.
The white hate chooses honour and integrity and secures networks, the black hat chooses personal success and leaves discovered security weakness in place so that they can exploit them, for what ever reason and in which ever location the choose.
So international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda cannot be hacked? That to me is ridiculous. How do you have a cyber war if there are no offensive capabilities?
As far as I know, that would make HBGaryFederal White Hats. In specific they did not break any laws. In specific they were building tools, strategies and software for cyber warriors or may even be the cyber warriors. In specific they are honest about what they are doing, they call themselves HBGaryFederal, they use their real names.
It does not seem to me that there is anything Black Hat about them. If they are Black Hat then they don't seem to know a damn thing about opsec. I mean first of all they don't have fake identities, which is the first thing you'd expect Black Hat hackers to have. Black Hat hackers never hack or do any kind of security research under their real identity.
So just working for HBGaryFederal would probably make it impossible for any of them to break any laws or do anything off the books which means they can't be an effective Black Hat. The fact that they warned Anonymous is another White Hat type move, or Grey Hat move. Black Hats would never warn the enemy, in fact Black Hats would never exist because they would not have names or identities from which to trace, or a company from which to find their hive.
Your countries espionage White hats would be other countries Black Hats as there are always many more other countries and you would also consider other countries White Hat espionage agents as Black Hats, the numbers are definitely for Black Hats as the appropriate nomenclature.
Time of course to point out the stupid. You also would be giving away dangerous technology that once discovered could and would be used against you. Now to make that even worse, you can not defend against the attack without alerting others to it thus defeating it's value, what can you say but, "the stupid, oh my God, it burns". So not only Black hats but really bloody stupid Black Hats.
The White Hats can and must aggressively hack. This is the only way they can hack Al Qaeda.
I find it funny this site at one time will claim they can't wait for the US Cyber Command and wants the USA to win the Cyber War, but then gets angry at HBGaryFederal. I don't agree with or understand why HBGaryFederal was hacking American citizens and in specific hacking some of the people they chose, but I also am not President Obama.
Before we judge what they were doing, we ought to wait until the full story comes out. According to definition they are the US White Hat Cyber Army. They hack Al Qaeda. They hack terrorists. They hack some really bad guys, but they also hack Wikileak supporters and Glenn Greenwald.
I don't understand why they'd hack these groups, but I'd assume it would have to do with counter espionage or counter intelligence. It is probably in the interest of US national security, whether we like it or not. Obama probably authorized the whole thing, or the directors of the agencies, so it is what it is. It's just like if the generals told the troops to bomb a mosque, they might not like it but there could be terrorists in the mosque so they bomb it anyway. I'm sure HBGaryFederal's employees were given the impression either by the government or by the people within their company with the connections to government and security clearances that they were acting in the interest of US national security and saving the world etc.
Honestly I do not know what they were told, but don't underestimate the impact or influence of a bunch of generals, agency directors, former government officials, on some low level techies. They probably made these people feel important, probably gave them a mission of some sort, something like mission impossible or Sneakers. It's just they apparently fucked it up.
The ego of Aaron Barr caused this. He decided to go to the media and announce that he had dirt on Anonymous. He decided to make contact with Anonymous. Why on earth would he make contact with them? They'd never have found out who he was or what HBGaryFederal was if he hadn't made contact.
If HBGaryFederal is Black Hat and working in the interest of protecting the security of the US Government, then the US Government is also Black Hat. Correct?
If you break the law period, you're a Black Hat. If you follow the law period, you're a White Hat.
What HBGaryFederal did was not against the law. If they were contractors for federal agencies, they have the authority of the FBI which means they have the legal authority to do these types of searches.
I don't necessarily like it. The Patriot Act and many other Bush era laws were set in place that we don't like. But the law specifically says the government can do practically anything it wants to us in a time of war. The US is technically in war time, and the government has war powers, if the government deems anyone an enemy combatant, a terror suspect or anything like that, they can get a warrant to conduct a search which could include wiretapping, or hacking.
The problem I have is when the law is clearly broken. It's unknown from the information in those emails whether or not HBGaryFederal broke any laws but it does not seem that they did.
The White Hat and Black Hat divide was invented entirely by and for the government so that the government could categorize the hacker community. In essence the only difference between White Hat and Black Hat is that the White Hat follows the law when conducting their hacks. Despite what you think, the federal government had legal authority under the patriot act and other previsions to wiretap. The government still can get a search warrant and once a search warrant is obtained then any group of contractors can be hired to execute the search warrant.
The government is the one who invented this white hat black hat division.
White hats are the hackers who refuse to break the law. They can write offensive programs, they can be investigators, they can hack terrorists, because they have a search warrant and it's not illegal.
Grey hats are the hackers who will break the law in the name of research, science, security and or improvement. They wont break just any law, but the minor laws that nobody will arrest them for.
Black hats will break any and every law because they don't care about laws.
So the difference between the hats are their fear of or respect for the law. This would make HBGaryFederal white hats unless you can show they didn't have a search warrant. If they are government contractors with permission from the FBI or whomever then they had a search warrant and were not breaking the law. In essence they are cyber cops.
White hats don't break the law. If it's legal then it's okay. Grey hats break some laws, but only to do their jobs and not any really important laws. Black hats will use any means necessary, including abuse of human rights and breaking the law.
Maybe. In principal I agree, but I don't want to see the US in the same spot over food in 30 years that we've been in with oil for 40. There's value in having some level of independence of production of food stuffs in all markets. Suppose Brazil became hostile to the US? It could take several years to have kiwi again.:) (Of course, if we hadn't invested so damn much in securing supplies of oil, we probably wouldn't be in such a spot.)
There is no independence. You know the foreigners will just buy the American food companies and take it take that. The only way to have independence is to have small family owned farms across the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a time when Sega, Nintendo and Sony would all design unique hardware. Later on these unique designs became less common, and now thanks to consoles like the Xbox, the common design is an intel chip (or IBM), a standard PC graphics card, etc.
It's going to take a quantum leap in hardware design in my opinion. They can start with moving away from DVDs and going to solid state storage. They can go the fastest possible read, write, access times, for ram and data transfer speed between the different chips and components. They can up the ram to a level of 32 gigs, 64 gigs, etc. Since ram is cheap enough I'd actually go with 64 gigs of ram, 80gig SSD, an ARM based 64 CPU, and flash based cartridges. Yes I'm asking for a return to cartridges because this would provide the best performance.
The graphics card should be the most important part of the console, along with the AI chip. The console should be of modular design, allowing the user to upgrade the graphics card while providing backward compatibility with all the games. The original console should come in three versions, the low cost, medium cost, and high performance version. The high performance version should include state of the art graphics card which can handle real time raytracing at least, and it should be something which can be upgraded or stacked, so that if a customer has the money or buys a game which requires more power, a new graphics chip can be added to the card as easily as plugging in a cartridge. Yes you read it right, the graphics card chip should be designed to fit into the cartridge slot, and then the cartridge plugged directly into that. It also should allow for some type of cloud based graphics or AI setup if it's feasible.
Could it work? I think it's worth a try. They should also focus on streaming the games, and on letting people download time limited games for low prices similar to itunes. You pay for a weeks worth or months worth of play and you can play any game released that month. For certain games of course you'll still have to buy. This will expand the size of the market so causal gamers can just switch to the gaming channel on their TV or go online and click to play.
Gordon cannot be stopped. Gordon can and must see all or Gordon will destroy, torture, and kill all.
So you also have Mallory. When you deal with Gordon you know Gordon's name. You know who Gordon works for. You know Gordon. When you are dealing with Mallory, you don't know who Mallory is. You don't know Mallory's motivations. You don't know Mallory.
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. You know Gordon is a part of a necessary evil. Mallory could be your rival, your competitor, or just a predator. So while Gordon has to be trained and typically has some orders he is following, all the way up a chain of command, and has selfless motivations, Mallory may have entirely selfish motivations.
They need it to monitor us criminals, terrorists, and subversives.
What do we expect? Now our bosses will be able to read our minds.
The Justice Dept also has informants, wiretaps, backdoors in popular software. What you present are the very basics, the core minimum. A journalist will need to know this and then some.
It's not enough to just have sophisticated software. The software will just be outlawed, banned, and anyone caught with it will be abused until they give up the key or give up their sources.
At this point Linux is far more secure, stable, and powerful than FreeBSD. Just analyze the amount of bug reports from both kernels.
At this point FreeBSD is old hat.
Anonymous? Where are you?
If they just get a search warrant then thats the legitimate reason.
yes, they are a security firm, and as such need to maintain a white hat / ethical hacker image. I'd judge their actions individually, though, and I'm thinking in this case they weren't wearing a hat at all - they were only creating tools and strategies. of course, internally such tools must be tested, and doing so is pure white-hat. using the same tools against another party without their knowledge and permission, for a purpose other than improving their security, would not constitute a white hat operation even if they maintain a normally clean reputation. I don't think they did that, though, and even if they did, it doesn't say whether they are good guys or bad guys or evil or anything. the convention of hats is about something else entirely.
I don't think White Hat = Pacifist. If there is a legitimate cyber war, then you'd know that there would be White Hats who would have the legal authority or responsibility to fight the cyber war.
These White Hats would be cyber warriors first.
White Hats in specific would be improving the national security of the United States in this context, and as long as no laws are broken I don't see any problem with it.
Now if they broke the law to enforce the law then I have a problem. If they abuse human rights to defend human rights then I have a problem. It depends on what they were doing but from what I've seen of HBGaryFederal they seem to have the role of the much hyped cyber warrior.
What exactly did we expect them to be doing? At worse they could be Grey Hat's but they are not Black Hats because they aren't breaking the law, so even if the user of the system does not give them permission to enter and search the system the government and true owner of all systems in the United States has the permission and gave them the permission on the behalf of the United States.
It's like saying a detective isn't really a cop. Of course a detective is a cop. And as long as the detective follows the law, the detective is not a corrupt cop or pig. Just like with Black Hats, they can hack and break the law, but if they ever work with the feds then they are snitching, because Black Hats aren't supposed to work with law enforcement while they break the law.
It's about being consistent, honest, and maintaining reputation. That is what makes them "White", that requires following the law and being like a choirboy or saint in the eyes of government. It's a strategic position hackers take when they want to go legit and avoid prison.
Black Hats like Alberto Gonzales on the other hand who go around setting up and hacking their buddies, these are the problem. Specifically because this group is dishonest to everybody, dishonest to the hacker community.
This is the problem I had with what HBGaryFederal did with Anonymous. HBGaryFederal if they are White Hats, had no business trying to infiltrate Anonymous. Essentially White Hat's now have the role like it or not, as being the cops. Black Hats have the role of being the criminals. The Black Hats who assist the White Hats are the informers or snitches whom the the vast majority of the hacker community hate.
This is also the problem the community has with what Adrian Lamo did. If Adrian Lamo is a White Hat then why the hell would Bradley Manning a Black Hat be contacting him and discussing illegal information and activities? Adrian Lamo was never a Black Hat. He was always either White Hat or Grey Hat.
So basically what we see is that the government is creating this whole cyberwarfare environment probably to increase funding. The government is paying White Hat's and Grey Hat's to help fight the Black Hat's that pissed the government and establishment off. If it's a Black Hat the government likes, this Black Hat is typically either an informant or some sort of government operator. If it's a Black Hat the government does not like, then it's a cyber terrorist. Ultimately the government selectively allows some Black Hat's to break the law, and does not or will not investiga
The basic principle still stands, to hack a network you basically must exploit a weakness. The ultimate goal of all security experts is to close all weaknesses. You can not exploit what you close, you can not secure what you leave weak. Any security organisation that knowingly leaves citizens exposed to security holes, in order to pursue personal promotions via committing crimes in other countries is in fact acting in a treasonous manner.
The white hate chooses honour and integrity and secures networks, the black hat chooses personal success and leaves discovered security weakness in place so that they can exploit them, for what ever reason and in which ever location the choose.
So international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda cannot be hacked? That to me is ridiculous.
How do you have a cyber war if there are no offensive capabilities?
As far as I know, that would make HBGaryFederal White Hats.
In specific they did not break any laws.
In specific they were building tools, strategies and software for cyber warriors or may even be the cyber warriors.
In specific they are honest about what they are doing, they call themselves HBGaryFederal, they use their real names.
It does not seem to me that there is anything Black Hat about them. If they are Black Hat then they don't seem to know a damn thing about opsec. I mean first of all they don't have fake identities, which is the first thing you'd expect Black Hat hackers to have. Black Hat hackers never hack or do any kind of security research under their real identity.
So just working for HBGaryFederal would probably make it impossible for any of them to break any laws or do anything off the books which means they can't be an effective Black Hat. The fact that they warned Anonymous is another White Hat type move, or Grey Hat move. Black Hats would never warn the enemy, in fact Black Hats would never exist because they would not have names or identities from which to trace, or a company from which to find their hive.
Anonymous are the Black Hats.
Your countries espionage White hats would be other countries Black Hats as there are always many more other countries and you would also consider other countries White Hat espionage agents as Black Hats, the numbers are definitely for Black Hats as the appropriate nomenclature.
Time of course to point out the stupid. You also would be giving away dangerous technology that once discovered could and would be used against you. Now to make that even worse, you can not defend against the attack without alerting others to it thus defeating it's value, what can you say but, "the stupid, oh my God, it burns". So not only Black hats but really bloody stupid Black Hats.
The White Hats can and must aggressively hack. This is the only way they can hack Al Qaeda.
I find it funny this site at one time will claim they can't wait for the US Cyber Command and wants the USA to win the Cyber War, but then gets angry at HBGaryFederal. I don't agree with or understand why HBGaryFederal was hacking American citizens and in specific hacking some of the people they chose, but I also am not President Obama.
Before we judge what they were doing, we ought to wait until the full story comes out. According to definition they are the US White Hat Cyber Army. They hack Al Qaeda. They hack terrorists. They hack some really bad guys, but they also hack Wikileak supporters and Glenn Greenwald.
I don't understand why they'd hack these groups, but I'd assume it would have to do with counter espionage or counter intelligence. It is probably in the interest of US national security, whether we like it or not. Obama probably authorized the whole thing, or the directors of the agencies, so it is what it is. It's just like if the generals told the troops to bomb a mosque, they might not like it but there could be terrorists in the mosque so they bomb it anyway. I'm sure HBGaryFederal's employees were given the impression either by the government or by the people within their company with the connections to government and security clearances that they were acting in the interest of US national security and saving the world etc.
Honestly I do not know what they were told, but don't underestimate the impact or influence of a bunch of generals, agency directors, former government officials, on some low level techies. They probably made these people feel important, probably gave them a mission of some sort, something like mission impossible or Sneakers. It's just they apparently fucked it up.
The ego of Aaron Barr caused this. He decided to go to the media and announce that he had dirt on Anonymous. He decided to make contact with Anonymous. Why on earth would he make contact with them? They'd never have found out who he was or what HBGaryFederal was if he hadn't made contact.
Which is why if they give themselves permission to wiretap and hack all of our computers and networks, they have the permission.
The FCC gave them that legal authority a long time ago.
The work was being done for a government agency. White Hat.
By that definition the Chinese hackers that were involved in Operation NightDragon were probably also "Wiite hats"
To the Chinese yes they'd be the White Hats. To the rest of the world they'd be something else.
If HBGaryFederal is Black Hat and working in the interest of protecting the security of the US Government, then the US Government is also Black Hat. Correct?
If you break the law period, you're a Black Hat.
If you follow the law period, you're a White Hat.
What HBGaryFederal did was not against the law. If they were contractors for federal agencies, they have the authority of the FBI which means they have the legal authority to do these types of searches.
I don't necessarily like it. The Patriot Act and many other Bush era laws were set in place that we don't like. But the law specifically says the government can do practically anything it wants to us in a time of war. The US is technically in war time, and the government has war powers, if the government deems anyone an enemy combatant, a terror suspect or anything like that, they can get a warrant to conduct a search which could include wiretapping, or hacking.
The problem I have is when the law is clearly broken. It's unknown from the information in those emails whether or not HBGaryFederal broke any laws but it does not seem that they did.
The White Hat and Black Hat divide was invented entirely by and for the government so that the government could categorize the hacker community. In essence the only difference between White Hat and Black Hat is that the White Hat follows the law when conducting their hacks. Despite what you think, the federal government had legal authority under the patriot act and other previsions to wiretap. The government still can get a search warrant and once a search warrant is obtained then any group of contractors can be hired to execute the search warrant.
The government is the one who invented this white hat black hat division.
White hats are the hackers who refuse to break the law. They can write offensive programs, they can be investigators, they can hack terrorists, because they have a search warrant and it's not illegal.
Grey hats are the hackers who will break the law in the name of research, science, security and or improvement. They wont break just any law, but the minor laws that nobody will arrest them for.
Black hats will break any and every law because they don't care about laws.
So the difference between the hats are their fear of or respect for the law. This would make HBGaryFederal white hats unless you can show they didn't have a search warrant. If they are government contractors with permission from the FBI or whomever then they had a search warrant and were not breaking the law. In essence they are cyber cops.
White hats don't break the law. If it's legal then it's okay.
Grey hats break some laws, but only to do their jobs and not any really important laws.
Black hats will use any means necessary, including abuse of human rights and breaking the law.
For the very same reason.
Maybe. In principal I agree, but I don't want to see the US in the same spot over food in 30 years that we've been in with oil for 40. There's value in having some level of independence of production of food stuffs in all markets. Suppose Brazil became hostile to the US? It could take several years to have kiwi again. :) (Of course, if we hadn't invested so damn much in securing supplies of oil, we probably wouldn't be in such a spot.)
There is no independence. You know the foreigners will just buy the American food companies and take it take that. The only way to have independence is to have small family owned farms across the USA.
We can buy food from other countries. Display the food crops.
It's a good start but the costs need to be brought down to as cheap as possible.
Lets get China and India involved ASAP. :)
And invest 50 billion dollars into emerging technologies.
It's not illegal to donate money and just donating money doesn't mean you know the person.