The attacker used a memory corruption bug to overwrite the null terminator of a string. He then read that string, which kept going until it hit another null terminator (two consecutive 0 bytes). He read memory he wasn't supposed to have access to, which included pointers to a C++ object's member functions (vftable). With these pointers in hand, he has defeated ASLR, because he has information about the address space that he's not supposed to have.
This MS's fault for a memory corruption bug, but their ASLR implementation isn't broken (at least not by this attack).
It's very easy to disable a system by, for example, shutting down all the network switches. Actually initiating a launch would require intimate knowledge of the system and pervasive control.
TrueCrypt requires that you burn a Rescue Disk before encrypting your boot partition. It saves a 2-meg ISO to 'My Documents' and gives you links to free burning software. It won't let you proceed without the burned CD in the drive. The rescue disk can be used to restore the boot loader (which has the password-encrypted keys, etc) in case of corruption, but it also has a 'Decrypt entire disk now' option. If you need to boot from a BartPE, you can decrypt your whole disk, then boot from the BartPE.
They've really thought this through. I've gotta hand it to the people at Truecrypt.org. I'm impressed, especially considering this is the first release of their whole disk encryption product.
The protocol filtering won't fix a thing, unfortunately. The bad guys will then just switch to using common ports (80, 443, 21, etc) to control their botnets. It would also create a usability for lay users. Imagine "I bought this just-released game, but I can't connect to the multiplayer system." Most users would be clueless.
I like the unusual traffic notifications. It reminds me of the credit card companies' notifications about odd purchases, except the volume of traffic to monitor would be several orders of magnitude greater than those of the CC companies. A drawback of this approach is that the ISPs would then need to keep track of which protocols each of their users used, when they used them, how often, etc. This information would be ripe for subpoena by law enforcement, effectively defenestrating privacy.
Yes. Windows Vista will only load signed drivers. However, many, many more entities than Microsoft will be able to sign drivers. Basically, anyone with $500 and a verifiable identity can sign drivers. The purpose is to keep rootkit authors from installing kernel-mode anything. If they're caught, their certificate can be revoked and all future installations of their malicious drivers would fail (assuming the victims' computers got word of the certificate revocation).
The 1.0 and 1.5 firmwares didn't have all of the security features enabled. In 1.51 and above, the PSP will only run signed code, and since we don't and probably never will have Sony's private key, we can't sign our own code. Hopefully they'll find a workaround or exploit that can be used.
2) I don't violate the DMCA by ripping my DVDs because the DMCA has a specific provision for "Fair Use", which allows me to rip DVDs I purchased for viewing in my own home. I don't share on P2P, and I don't rip DVDs I haven't bought.
Interesting. Is that true? I thought the 'gotcha' about DVDs is the anticircumvention part, where it's illegal to circumvent CSS.
Would you be able to rip the DVD and do a byte for byte copy legally? (for personal use)
How about ripping the DVD to a HD, then decrypting it to remove region info? (still for personal use)
Such hostility. You know, not everyone sees the world the way you do. Sometimes we need a little "devil's advocate" to keep peoples' reasoning in check and make sure that they're looking at all sides of an issue. Anyway, lets get right into it:
Finally, they're providing internet access to paying customers on contract. They don't have fuck all right to censor the experience without having an existing agreement with their customers that permits them to do so.
Actually, unless it's stipulated in law that they, as a common carrier, are required to provide internet access uncensored - which it very well might be - then they can censor whatever they want, unless they specifically limited themselves by writing it into whatever contract.
Oh yeah about that contract. What contract? I'd like to see a show of hands who's signed a contract with their ISP (seriously - not sarcasm). I never have, with either Comcast or Verizon. They tend to go for the 'Terms of Service' approach which often includes a clause allowing them to change the ToS whenever they want without notifying anyone.
Anyway, I hope they lose their common carrier status for pulling this crap on their customers. I like the approach listed here
about their increased responsibility since they've forfeited their CC status. From reading some posts written by those familiar with Canadian law, it looks like it might be illegal/unconstitutional for them to do this simply on the 'restriction of free speech' approach. Do Canadians have a right to be heard? I know not. Time will tell.
Just because I agree with one side of the argument doesn't mean that I'll ignore evidence to the contrary. I don't like censorship, but I recognize an organization's right to property, and that has to be weighed against the fact that they're a common carrier, and (maybe) Canadians' right to be heard. We should let the (non-armchair) lawyers sort this one out.
So about that
existing agreement with their customers that permits them to do so.
They have one. It's called the ToS.
But then, you know all this already... you're just angry and hostile.
Firstly, IANAL
Wow. From your attitide, it looks like you're about two sentences away from Godwinning.
exactly!!! Comcast should block all access to Yahoo (since they're partners with SBC/Yahoo DSL), Charter, and all the other broadband providers out there. In fact a search of google should just return on links back to Comcast!!
There's a difference between 'should' and 'should be able to.' Comcast should be able to block whatever they want, unless there's a prior agreement with customers or the government. If they choose to do so, their customers can express their dissatisfaction by either complaining or changing services. I know it's heresy to be pro free-market on slashdot, but the system has (mostly) worked in this country for the last two centuries. In the Telus example, they're benefitting from blocking the union site, but Comcast blocking other ISPs would be a horribly bad business decision.
satelite TV providers should block commericals for competitors and cable, instead replaying them with other commercials.
This probably violates the licensing contract, so they would liable to be sued if they did so.
Just like when I pick up my cellphone and call another cellphone service they should interrupt and disconnect the line... or better yet not let the call go thru at all.
I am not familiar with the laws regarding telephony, but if it's not illegal, they should be allowed to do so. Again, their customers would probably catch on after a few weeks and they'd be losing hundreds of thousands of customers in not too much time. Again, another HORRIBLE business decision.
This is great!! I hate having the freedom to go to whatever website I want, i'd much rather pay someone tell me what websites I get to go to.
Well then, you'd probably want to move to China. They're good at telling people what to think. Seriously, Telus has the right (unless given a monopoly or forbidden by prior contract) to block whatever they want. It's their network. They built it. They maintain it. They OWN it. Does your (nonexistant) RIGHT to have access to everything on the net override their right to their own property?
I love peoples' sense of entitlement to others' property. It's always good for a laughdot.
Wow. Exactly HOW is my comment flamebait?
Is it too inflammatory to point out that side effects for many medications often occur in a very small percentage of the users and that the risks are often overexaggerated?
Why is moderation anonymous?
Also, another (too often overlooked) natural supplement is 5-HTP. It's the direct precursor to seratonin in the brain, and is absorbed better than L-Tryptophan. 5-HTP comes from an african plant.
Giving 5-HTP a try might be very worthwhile if you'd benefit from an
SSRI such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, or Lexapro.
Yeah, but most people ignore the fact that the side effects they list happen in less than X% of patients, where X is usually less than 10. Comedians like to overlook this and make jokes as though if you took a pill, you'd get every side effect (when in fact you're often going to get no side effects at all, or something small like 'dry mouth')
Haha. By the way you phrased that sentence, it looks like we're politely mugging them.
But seriously, this is significant. Microwaves at that frequency aren't ionizing. This means that most of these peoples' cancer concerns are romantic paranoia (aka tinfoil hat syndrome). Police state? Get real. They could already do it if they wanted to. They have great nonlethal riot control. This is just another tool at their disposal. Most likely the gun will have a built-in delay, kind of like how tasers do, to keep you from killing the person. Think of a pulsing.1 second agony shock that repeats every 2 seconds or a.01 second shock that repeats every half second (or something like that).
HOWEVER, the whole jewelry/body metal thing would stll be an important thing to take into account before using these weapons. This could very well be a solid argument to not deploy these. Third degree burns for innocent bystanders is expected? I'd like to see them justify that to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
The attacker used a memory corruption bug to overwrite the null terminator of a string. He then read that string, which kept going until it hit another null terminator (two consecutive 0 bytes). He read memory he wasn't supposed to have access to, which included pointers to a C++ object's member functions (vftable). With these pointers in hand, he has defeated ASLR, because he has information about the address space that he's not supposed to have.
This MS's fault for a memory corruption bug, but their ASLR implementation isn't broken (at least not by this attack).
Details if you're curious: http://vreugdenhilresearch.nl/Pwn2Own-2010-Windows7-InternetExplorer8.pdf
It's very easy to disable a system by, for example, shutting down all the network switches. Actually initiating a launch would require intimate knowledge of the system and pervasive control.
Remember the sonic weapon from Firefly?
Two by two, hands of blue. Two by two, hands of blue.
TrueCrypt requires that you burn a Rescue Disk before encrypting your boot partition. It saves a 2-meg ISO to 'My Documents' and gives you links to free burning software. It won't let you proceed without the burned CD in the drive. The rescue disk can be used to restore the boot loader (which has the password-encrypted keys, etc) in case of corruption, but it also has a 'Decrypt entire disk now' option. If you need to boot from a BartPE, you can decrypt your whole disk, then boot from the BartPE.
They've really thought this through. I've gotta hand it to the people at Truecrypt.org. I'm impressed, especially considering this is the first release of their whole disk encryption product.
The protocol filtering won't fix a thing, unfortunately. The bad guys will then just switch to using common ports (80, 443, 21, etc) to control their botnets. It would also create a usability for lay users. Imagine "I bought this just-released game, but I can't connect to the multiplayer system." Most users would be clueless.
I like the unusual traffic notifications. It reminds me of the credit card companies' notifications about odd purchases, except the volume of traffic to monitor would be several orders of magnitude greater than those of the CC companies. A drawback of this approach is that the ISPs would then need to keep track of which protocols each of their users used, when they used them, how often, etc. This information would be ripe for subpoena by law enforcement, effectively defenestrating privacy.
Indeed your point is correct, but I believe that you missed mine. Because of a device like this, the interrogatees may agree with their interrogators.
Imagine using this as part of an interrogation of a religious extremist terrorist. The interrogators could have God on their side.
Damn, I was hoping for oil.
I had a similar idea, but instead of pointing the device at the sound generator, point it at the old man, and leave it on for a few days.
Beforehand, tell him that god will punish him for his sins.
Yes. Windows Vista will only load signed drivers. However, many, many more entities than Microsoft will be able to sign drivers. Basically, anyone with $500 and a verifiable identity can sign drivers. The purpose is to keep rootkit authors from installing kernel-mode anything. If they're caught, their certificate can be revoked and all future installations of their malicious drivers would fail (assuming the victims' computers got word of the certificate revocation).
1 9232
I think it's a great idea.
See http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/17
1. So the files copy to the drive faster.
2. So you can download/upload the files faster.
Please mod parent up.
Well, it looks like the permafrost isn't so permanent. Maybe a change of title is in order?
Yeah. Why is that marked troll? It's a valid point, very relevant to the topic of discussion.
I can't see any real reason to do so. Will the mods give an explanation?
The 1.0 and 1.5 firmwares didn't have all of the security features enabled. In 1.51 and above, the PSP will only run signed code, and since we don't and probably never will have Sony's private key, we can't sign our own code. Hopefully they'll find a workaround or exploit that can be used.
Not yet. They're still trying to figure that one out. That's why upgrading is a big move - it can't be undone.
Interesting. Is that true? I thought the 'gotcha' about DVDs is the anticircumvention part, where it's illegal to circumvent CSS.
Would you be able to rip the DVD and do a byte for byte copy legally? (for personal use)
How about ripping the DVD to a HD, then decrypting it to remove region info? (still for personal use)
The people's front of judea? No! We're the judean people's front! We hate the people's front of judea!
I want one! I want one!
mmm...black holey goodness
How long 'til I can buy one?
Oh yeah about that contract. What contract? I'd like to see a show of hands who's signed a contract with their ISP (seriously - not sarcasm). I never have, with either Comcast or Verizon. They tend to go for the 'Terms of Service' approach which often includes a clause allowing them to change the ToS whenever they want without notifying anyone.
Anyway, I hope they lose their common carrier status for pulling this crap on their customers. I like the approach listed here about their increased responsibility since they've forfeited their CC status. From reading some posts written by those familiar with Canadian law, it looks like it might be illegal/unconstitutional for them to do this simply on the 'restriction of free speech' approach. Do Canadians have a right to be heard? I know not. Time will tell.
Just because I agree with one side of the argument doesn't mean that I'll ignore evidence to the contrary. I don't like censorship, but I recognize an organization's right to property, and that has to be weighed against the fact that they're a common carrier, and (maybe) Canadians' right to be heard. We should let the (non-armchair) lawyers sort this one out.
So about that
They have one. It's called the ToS.But then, you know all this already... you're just angry and hostile.
Wow. From your attitide, it looks like you're about two sentences away from Godwinning. There's a difference between 'should' and 'should be able to.' Comcast should be able to block whatever they want, unless there's a prior agreement with customers or the government. If they choose to do so, their customers can express their dissatisfaction by either complaining or changing services. I know it's heresy to be pro free-market on slashdot, but the system has (mostly) worked in this country for the last two centuries. In the Telus example, they're benefitting from blocking the union site, but Comcast blocking other ISPs would be a horribly bad business decision. This probably violates the licensing contract, so they would liable to be sued if they did so. I am not familiar with the laws regarding telephony, but if it's not illegal, they should be allowed to do so. Again, their customers would probably catch on after a few weeks and they'd be losing hundreds of thousands of customers in not too much time. Again, another HORRIBLE business decision. Well then, you'd probably want to move to China. They're good at telling people what to think. Seriously, Telus has the right (unless given a monopoly or forbidden by prior contract) to block whatever they want. It's their network. They built it. They maintain it. They OWN it. Does your (nonexistant) RIGHT to have access to everything on the net override their right to their own property?
I love peoples' sense of entitlement to others' property. It's always good for a laughdot.
Wow. Exactly HOW is my comment flamebait? Is it too inflammatory to point out that side effects for many medications often occur in a very small percentage of the users and that the risks are often overexaggerated? Why is moderation anonymous?
Giving 5-HTP a try might be very worthwhile if you'd benefit from an SSRI such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, or Lexapro.
Yeah, but most people ignore the fact that the side effects they list happen in less than X% of patients, where X is usually less than 10. Comedians like to overlook this and make jokes as though if you took a pill, you'd get every side effect (when in fact you're often going to get no side effects at all, or something small like 'dry mouth')
But seriously, this is significant. Microwaves at that frequency aren't ionizing. This means that most of these peoples' cancer concerns are romantic paranoia (aka tinfoil hat syndrome). Police state? Get real. They could already do it if they wanted to. They have great nonlethal riot control. This is just another tool at their disposal. Most likely the gun will have a built-in delay, kind of like how tasers do, to keep you from killing the person. Think of a pulsing .1 second agony shock that repeats every 2 seconds or a .01 second shock that repeats every half second (or something like that).
HOWEVER, the whole jewelry/body metal thing would stll be an important thing to take into account before using these weapons. This could very well be a solid argument to not deploy these. Third degree burns for innocent bystanders is expected? I'd like to see them justify that to the public.
Please mod parent up.