How does signing executables work under Windows? I mean, some small company, let's say "John Doe Software" probably does not have its certificate verified down to the root level. Wouldn't this mean that anyone can create an executable with a certificate that says "John Doe Software"? Then I wouldn't know which one is authentic. Have I misunderstood something?
There has been plenty of people here who have claimed that Linux and open source provide an architecture which is by design more resilient against malware than proprietary solutions.
Yep, this is true. There is still work for the odd embedded or Linux kernel hacker guy, but from a sole business perspective, mastering C is not terribly useful.
Since C is a subset of C++.. how is it possible to learn C++ without C?
Because even when the C features are available inside C++, often some higher-level C++ counterpart is used instead. For example pointers are replaced with smart pointers or vectors.
I don't think there is any other. The latest specs of C++ has made some functionality much simpler, but it's still indeed rather complex language. C is the golden standard for embedded and other small footprint stuff, C++ provides high-performance OOP for GUI apps and video games.
While Disney is somewhat of a big monster company, I kind of understand them retaining full rights to Mickey Mouse and the character's legacy. I say this because the company (Disney) is still alive and they even still use Mickey Mouse in their works. It just makes sense.
Bisecting is a technical term with a specific meaning. Essentially, he is using a binary search through git history to identify when the bug was introduced. Dissecting does not convey this. But I guess it is too much to ask to have the submitter both read and understand TFA.
Submitter here. In this case samzenpus has to take the blame, because in my original submission the word is "bisecting".:)
There is some wisdom to that comment. Instead of trying to build enterprise-level systems with lack of developers, the open source community might wind up with more stable system by sticking with something more simple. Linux Mint grabbed GNOME2 which became MATE, and it has been hugely successful. Simple, fast, stable.
Guys, do you ever read LKML where this stuff happens? Your GP comment said that they have found multiple bugs. No, they haven't. They are dealing with the very same bug where the watchdog detects a soft lockup. There is no debugger attached at this point, they are just doing bisecting (another powerful tool of course) to find what was the specific patch that introduced the bug. Browse through the LKML archive and search for the subject "frequent lockups in 3.18rc4".
When companies start having penalties for getting hacked and leaking people's information, they might do something.
It's also too easy for the attackers to hide in Internet.
What good is it for companies to just build increasingly stronger and more complex security fortresses and still be at the complete mercy of sudden anonymous attacks from unknown directions. That's just crappy design of Internet.
A security solution does not have to be 100% perfect to still provide value.
Let's take another example. A workstation requires pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del and typing a password to unlock the computer. You might say that it is useless protection because an attacker can just walk away with the hard drive of the computer.
So why is the password still useful? Well, without a password, an attacker might just start locally using the computer and quickly take a look at various secret documents. If he were to grab the hard drive, it would take significantly more time, which would increase the chances of being captured by the security team.
To get back to the topic, by using encryption you are not the lowest hanging fruit out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Well for a start all the chumps who have computers/devices that auto-approve certificates by Sony are now compromised without even knowing it.
So their devices automatically run all software from Sony? Can you give an example how they would get compromised without knowing it?
How does signing executables work under Windows? I mean, some small company, let's say "John Doe Software" probably does not have its certificate verified down to the root level. Wouldn't this mean that anyone can create an executable with a certificate that says "John Doe Software"? Then I wouldn't know which one is authentic. Have I misunderstood something?
What benefit does the attacker get by signing the malware with a company's certificate?
All Linux desktops have bugs like that. Actually the QA of Unity is one of the best.
So, just to make sure... have you tried GNOME3?
There has been plenty of people here who have claimed that Linux and open source provide an architecture which is by design more resilient against malware than proprietary solutions.
You are correct about that, Linux is actually a huge driver for the need of C experts these days.
Yep, this is true. There is still work for the odd embedded or Linux kernel hacker guy, but from a sole business perspective, mastering C is not terribly useful.
I believe virtual memory and ASLR would also shuffle things around?
Since C is a subset of C++.. how is it possible to learn C++ without C?
Because even when the C features are available inside C++, often some higher-level C++ counterpart is used instead. For example pointers are replaced with smart pointers or vectors.
I don't think there is any other. The latest specs of C++ has made some functionality much simpler, but it's still indeed rather complex language. C is the golden standard for embedded and other small footprint stuff, C++ provides high-performance OOP for GUI apps and video games.
At least he made the first post.
While Disney is somewhat of a big monster company, I kind of understand them retaining full rights to Mickey Mouse and the character's legacy. I say this because the company (Disney) is still alive and they even still use Mickey Mouse in their works. It just makes sense.
Well, in the same summary it reads that Linus concluded that it's not a Xen bug. :)
Bisecting is a technical term with a specific meaning. Essentially, he is using a binary search through git history to identify when the bug was introduced. Dissecting does not convey this. But I guess it is too much to ask to have the submitter both read and understand TFA.
Submitter here. In this case samzenpus has to take the blame, because in my original submission the word is "bisecting". :)
There is some wisdom to that comment. Instead of trying to build enterprise-level systems with lack of developers, the open source community might wind up with more stable system by sticking with something more simple. Linux Mint grabbed GNOME2 which became MATE, and it has been hugely successful. Simple, fast, stable.
Citation? You might be confusing this with some other bug.
Guys, do you ever read LKML where this stuff happens? Your GP comment said that they have found multiple bugs. No, they haven't. They are dealing with the very same bug where the watchdog detects a soft lockup. There is no debugger attached at this point, they are just doing bisecting (another powerful tool of course) to find what was the specific patch that introduced the bug. Browse through the LKML archive and search for the subject "frequent lockups in 3.18rc4".
256 GB should be enough for anyone.
It could also be interpreted as being .50 or .60 times of the price we had before.
When companies start having penalties for getting hacked and leaking people's information, they might do something.
It's also too easy for the attackers to hide in Internet.
What good is it for companies to just build increasingly stronger and more complex security fortresses and still be at the complete mercy of sudden anonymous attacks from unknown directions. That's just crappy design of Internet.
NASA's New Horizons spacecraft awoke from hibernation on Saturday
Apparently isn't a Linux-based system then...
A security solution does not have to be 100% perfect to still provide value.
Let's take another example. A workstation requires pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del and typing a password to unlock the computer. You might say that it is useless protection because an attacker can just walk away with the hard drive of the computer.
So why is the password still useful? Well, without a password, an attacker might just start locally using the computer and quickly take a look at various secret documents. If he were to grab the hard drive, it would take significantly more time, which would increase the chances of being captured by the security team.
To get back to the topic, by using encryption you are not the lowest hanging fruit out there.
Did you have any kind of exercise routine?
Why the 25kHz pulsing?