Sometimes important things bubble up from the very theoretical and seemingly impractical research, things which may ultimately help in solving hunger too.
What if a weird suitcase man comes into my living room, calmly chucks the ethernet cable to the TV, gives me an angry stare, and disappears behind the corner?
At that point, you could probably perform various other attacks too. You are given access to important equipment and the company trusts you not to pull any funny shit. After that it all boils down whether you simply want to work ethically and do your job properly.
It requires a fair amount of RF and broadcast equipment know-how to set up your own mini TV station with a DVB stream with HTML properly injected in the TS metadata. And then you have to make sure that the receivers actually pick up your channel. Possible, but far from trivial. I suspect no one bothers exploiting this one.
So the idea is that the attacker overrides the RF signal with his own one, which contains the malicious data. The client TV then automatically interprets the HTML from the transport stream metadata. Provided that the attack was successful, a bunch of TVs can for example be controlled to access a certain website through HTTP requests, causing a denial of service attack for that website.
Digital handcuffs are the most common malicious features. They restrict what you can do with the data in your own computer.
There's many sides to this. With all the bugs, missing features, and subpar performance, also free software restricts what I can do with my computer.
The ideas of free software can be beautiful, but if they produce crusty software which just makes my life unnecessarily more clunky compared to the proprietary alternative, it's a bit of a "meh" to me. To squeeze the most out of my computer is still the most important battle for me.
I've love to see them re-release the Commander Keen series, as open source. I miss those games.:-)
I think there was some talk about the possibility of releasing the Keen sources. The code may still be around. One might want to poke Carmack/Romero to get this going.
But, yes, most software sucks. But because most software sucks, I'd much rather use open source software, because then I can personally verify how crappy it is. If it's too crappy I can (and have) decided to use different software.
You don't usually even need the source code to verify if a piece of software sucks or not.
Actually I just received another comment like which I talked about. It still seems to be important for people here to point out that "closed source isn't any better".
Personally I (rather unsurprisingly) agree with you: select the best tool for the job.
There are no guaratee that every closed source project (even mission critical projects) have enough of eyeballs in practice - or that they are any good at their job. Why you think closed source teams are better than open source teams, simply due to the development model choice. thats just weird.
I see a lot of comments that try to convince that "closed source isn't any better". So my actual question is: would it be some kind of sin if closed source was actually better?
The point is that if a flaw exists, when found, it can be quickly fixed in open source.
In theory it can be fixed quickly, but even in the recent OpenSSL quality assurance effort, there was fixed a 4 year old publicly reported bug. So it's not guaranteed that anyone fixes the bugs quickly, even if they are already found and described accurately.
It's just like the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" law: the bugs can be found if enough professional people are rigorously going through the code. But there is no guarantee that every open source project (even mission critical projects) have enough of eyeballs in practice.
When I rant about something like that, the typical robotical response I get is "and proprietary software is any better?". There's a lot of hardcore open source fans around here, and you won't get the message across their boneheads, no matter how much it is obvious that open source sucks in that particular area.
The problem is that games and benchmarking applications require only a single simple OpenGL context but the performance of composited Linux desktops is trash.
Why don't we ever read about more useful metrics, such as the amount of (floating-point) operations per second per $ of a given CPU?
Amen, brother. For example, let's take a Pentium 4, 3.0GHz and a Core i7, 3.5GHz. At the same TDP (and all cores utilized), the Core i7 is 28x more powerful than the P4. Even if we compensate the clockspeed to be equal (downclock the i7 to 3GHz), it clearly shows that something like "GHz" is today completely useless for comparing CPUs.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes important things bubble up from the very theoretical and seemingly impractical research, things which may ultimately help in solving hunger too.
Okay, so far so good, but how about the signal amplifying and transmitting part?
What if a weird suitcase man comes into my living room, calmly chucks the ethernet cable to the TV, gives me an angry stare, and disappears behind the corner?
At that point, you could probably perform various other attacks too. You are given access to important equipment and the company trusts you not to pull any funny shit. After that it all boils down whether you simply want to work ethically and do your job properly.
It requires a fair amount of RF and broadcast equipment know-how to set up your own mini TV station with a DVB stream with HTML properly injected in the TS metadata. And then you have to make sure that the receivers actually pick up your channel. Possible, but far from trivial. I suspect no one bothers exploiting this one.
So the idea is that the attacker overrides the RF signal with his own one, which contains the malicious data. The client TV then automatically interprets the HTML from the transport stream metadata. Provided that the attack was successful, a bunch of TVs can for example be controlled to access a certain website through HTTP requests, causing a denial of service attack for that website.
While I'm pleased to see a longstanding opensource project is alive & well, I'm not sure if it's really relevant anymore.
Slashdotter, what say you?
The main OpenGL stack of Linux is not relevant? Interesting.
Nerd rage, the funniest form of rage.
Digital handcuffs are the most common malicious features. They restrict what you can do with the data in your own computer.
There's many sides to this. With all the bugs, missing features, and subpar performance, also free software restricts what I can do with my computer.
The ideas of free software can be beautiful, but if they produce crusty software which just makes my life unnecessarily more clunky compared to the proprietary alternative, it's a bit of a "meh" to me. To squeeze the most out of my computer is still the most important battle for me.
I've love to see them re-release the Commander Keen series, as open source. I miss those games. :-)
I think there was some talk about the possibility of releasing the Keen sources. The code may still be around. One might want to poke Carmack/Romero to get this going.
I can't wait until someone ports them over to Google Native Client so I can play them in my browser.
Gah! Of all the possible environments, you want to play them in a web browser.
But, yes, most software sucks. But because most software sucks, I'd much rather use open source software, because then I can personally verify how crappy it is. If it's too crappy I can (and have) decided to use different software.
You don't usually even need the source code to verify if a piece of software sucks or not.
Actually I just received another comment like which I talked about. It still seems to be important for people here to point out that "closed source isn't any better".
Personally I (rather unsurprisingly) agree with you: select the best tool for the job.
There are no guaratee that every closed source project (even mission critical projects) have enough of eyeballs in practice - or that they are any good at their job. Why you think closed source teams are better than open source teams, simply due to the development model choice. thats just weird.
I didn't say that!
I see a lot of comments that try to convince that "closed source isn't any better". So my actual question is: would it be some kind of sin if closed source was actually better?
The point is that if a flaw exists, when found, it can be quickly fixed in open source.
In theory it can be fixed quickly, but even in the recent OpenSSL quality assurance effort, there was fixed a 4 year old publicly reported bug. So it's not guaranteed that anyone fixes the bugs quickly, even if they are already found and described accurately.
It's just like the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" law: the bugs can be found if enough professional people are rigorously going through the code. But there is no guarantee that every open source project (even mission critical projects) have enough of eyeballs in practice.
When I rant about something like that, the typical robotical response I get is "and proprietary software is any better?". There's a lot of hardcore open source fans around here, and you won't get the message across their boneheads, no matter how much it is obvious that open source sucks in that particular area.
My experience is that the open source Radeon driver has been getting much better in 3D performance lately.
The problem is that games and benchmarking applications require only a single simple OpenGL context but the performance of composited Linux desktops is trash.
RenderMan is only a renderer. It cannot replace the modeling interface of Blender anyway.
Keep an eye on the Core i3 lineup, they have a good price/performance ratio, and a low power consumption as a bonus.
It's why there are no 666MHz parts. Memory, processors, buses... All 667Mhz.
Try this: round(1000 * 2 / 3)
Why don't we ever read about more useful metrics, such as the amount of (floating-point) operations per second per $ of a given CPU?
Amen, brother. For example, let's take a Pentium 4, 3.0GHz and a Core i7, 3.5GHz. At the same TDP (and all cores utilized), the Core i7 is 28x more powerful than the P4. Even if we compensate the clockspeed to be equal (downclock the i7 to 3GHz), it clearly shows that something like "GHz" is today completely useless for comparing CPUs.
Doesn't have 4g, but does your daughter need it?
The title explicitly mentions 4G, so I believe that she really needs it. The body text says that she needs high-speed data.
I'm not claiming that it's different.