My "thin" lenses are still almost a centimeter thick at the edges and that's with small diameter glasses. They distort the look of my face so much that someone looking at me while I'm wearing them sees not just beady eyes but the sides of my head in the glasses. (For the curious, my contact prescription is -9.5 diopters.)
Maybe your "thin" lenses are not as thin as you think. My contact prescription is -8.5 and -10.5 and my glasses (also small diameter) are about.5 cm at the thickest point of the edge.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
BSD style licenses allow redistribution in source
and binary form under conditions like the above. This is not the same thing as taking the source and changing the license of it as the original poster claimed to be possible.
Bah, FUD and snake oil. Written by a five year old too.
I'll pick on a few of the most obvious stupidities:
short of non-reversable encs like md5 it is basically impossible to protect data if you know the before enc and after enc data on a common packet.
1. MD5 isn't a cipher, it's a hash function.
2. Real cipher algorithms, e.g. AES-CBC, handles known plaintext attacks quite well.
a smart sniffer will realise that if he/she sends a standard packet with data to the ip hes trying to access that they can get the keys that way too. This changes the nature from a purely passive interception attack but none-the-less doesnt make it at all secure.
Yeah? That would be the well known ICMP-"g1mme your k3ye5"-request standard packet, or what?
its been well known in military tactics for decades that no matter how you encrypt your data it will always be broken when its exposed to scruitany.
True. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of security will tell you that any defense buys you time. No more, no less.
Hell pgp can even easily be broken if you know the source doc before encryption and thats supposed to be one of the most secure encryption devices out there.
Hmm, got a reference to back that up? No? Thought so.
Add to this that with tcpip you'll always know the source I cant see how you're gonna encrypt the packets short of changing the way tcpip works.
I can see just fine; IPsec - see RFC 2411 etc.
If you're going to use wireless dont expect absolute privacy. This should never have been a concern. If you want security fork out the bucks for wired systems.
Wired networks are not absolutely safe either. Are you sure that there are no passive sniffing devices on your net?
To me tho id encourage open access points to everyone. But then again im sure you dont want to get your cute little ip banned from your favorite channel.
Yes. I guess your mom stopped your pr0n surfing by installing netnanny so you really need to leech bandwidth from others.
Maybe ipv6 could help with a translated address or such. i dunno but as it is now you cant block wireless access so why even try.
IPv6 is supposed to rid us of NATs. Remember that NATs are evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, FUD and snake oil. Written by a five year old too.
I'll pick on a few of the most obvious stupidities:
short of non-reversable encs like md5 it is basically impossible to protect data if you know the before enc and after enc data on a common packet.
1. MD5 isn't a cipher, it's a hash function.
2. Real cipher algorithms, e.g. AES-CBC, handles known plaintext attacks quite well.
a smart sniffer will realise that if he/she sends a standard packet with data to the ip hes trying to access that they can get the keys that way too. This changes the nature from a purely passive interception attack but none-the-less doesnt make it at all secure.
Yeah? That would be the well known ICMP-"g1mme your k3ye5"-request standard packet, or what?
its been well known in military tactics for decades that no matter how you encrypt your data it will always be broken when its exposed to scruitany.
True. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of security will tell you that any defense buys you time. No more, no less.
Hell pgp can even easily be broken if you know the source doc before encryption and thats supposed to be one of the most secure encryption devices out there.
Hmm, got a reference to back that up? No? Thought so.
Add to this that with tcpip you'll always know the source I cant see how you're gonna encrypt the packets short of changing the way tcpip works.
I can see just fine; IPsec - see RFC 2411 etc.
If you're going to use wireless dont expect absolute privacy. This should never have been a concern. If you want security fork out the bucks for wired systems.
Wired networks are not absolutely safe either. Are you sure that there are no passive sniffing devices on your net?
To me tho id encourage open access points to everyone. But then again im sure you dont want to get your cute little ip banned from your favorite channel.
Yes. I guess your mom stopped your pr0n surfing by installing netnanny so you really need to leech bandwidth from others.
Maybe ipv6 could help with a translated address or such. i dunno but as it is now you cant block wireless access so why even try.
IPv6 is supposed to rid us of NATs. Remember that NATs are evil.