In does not. But if you follow secure anonymous browsing practices (see the Tor website), that information would not help the FBI and other attackers. Of course, if they can identify you from what you do, you are screwed anyways.
Sorry, but I did not say doing a PhD does give you deep insight into a topic, I said that realistically it is the only way to get that deep insight if you otherwise have what it takes. Many people with a PhD do not and basically wasted their time. I hope you can see that there is an implication here and it has a direction.
The thing is that for almost all people, acquiring the "motivation, time, and resources" needed is not feasible any other way.
In fascism (and its precursors), "TRUTH" is whatever those in power want it to be. The "snoopers-charter" is just one step in a logical progression that leads to an inevitable catastrophe at the end. Those that want to control and dominate others have no restraint and no ethics.
In order to qualify as "genius" in modern times and be able to actually contribute to society, as opposed destroying wealth (as so many of those that amassed personal riches routinely do), a PhD in your chosen field is about the minimum.
The whole 'PhD' thing is locked down in thick layers of conformity. You need to 'play well with others' in order to work your way through post-graduate studies. And that whole mess is locked up by climbers who've made academia an insular elite network.
Sure, there are issues. But in actual reality, there is no alternative to it if you really need to get deep into a topic.
Sure, to make a large amount of money
Are you resentful because you chose the academic track and instead of leaving the campus to live a life after graduating, you stayed within the insular ranks? Too bad.
Complete, fail at Ad Hominem. Pathetic. While I am still doing applied research as part of my job and some teaching on the side, I am in a pretty well-paid industrial position. Your argument is as clueless as it is worthless.
Yes, and more. For secure remote computing, you must be the only one to be able to access the hardware. The best you can get today is a locked rack in a data-center. That is also the only thing that gives you some level of trust. The cloud is not and will not be secure against the cloud-provider or anybody that hacks the cloud-provider. It also seems unlike that this will be solved on a technology-level anytime in the next few decades.
As a matter of fact, this topic and the need for it is very, very old. When I studied for my Master's in CS (some 25 years back), it was already a hot topic. At that time it was trusted chip-cards offloading computations to untrusted servers and the like, but the base-problem is the same. There have been no convincing approaches on how to do it in > 30 years of research. The only thing we have now is Fully Homomorphic Encryption, but that has major functionality and performance limitations. You cannot even begin to use it to create an untrusted application to work on trusted data, you can just delegate some specific computations.
For the next few decades, if you do not fully control the hardware and software, you are not secure. And it is actually getting worse, not better, with backdoors and bugs in hardware, software and firmware.
Actually, an attacker would only need to replace the hypervisor as I described and reboot the VMs. Job done. Sure, that is a lot of work, but once somebody writes that emulator, a short while later it will be out there for any criminal (whether private or government-employed) to use.
Sure, to make a large amount of money, you do not need a real education. Just have a talent to rip-off people.
In order to qualify as "genius" in modern times and be able to actually contribute to society, as opposed destroying wealth (as so many of those that amassed personal riches routinely do), a PhD in your chosen field is about the minimum. Without that, you will never get deep enough into a subject to really understand it and to really understand the difference it makes to really understand it.
Methinks this thing is about as valid as "Trump University".
The need is pretty clear: Processing of data that needs to be secure against the cloud-provider. That this is very likely infeasible is however quite clear as well. In the worst case, a malicious hypervisor could just run on entirely different hardware and simulate all the protection features that are supposedly preventing it from full access to the VMs, thereby getting that access. The best this technology could ever hope to achieve is to make it somewhat harder for the cloud provider to look at a full, decrypted VM state.
Seriously? Here is news for all that do not get how virtualization works: If the hypervisor is malicious, you are screwed. It just has far too much control, and it needs it. So this is basically a non-issue.
Well, if it was Windows (which has a somewhat unpredictable and randomized installation process), or you broke it yourself and forgot what you broke, sure. But otherwise no. You need to find the root-cause of the problem and fix that. Re-installation is not going to do that and is basically a system-administration "worst practice" (meaning you are a bloody amateur if that is your idea of fixing things).
As to "poser", as an AC, you have zero standing calling anybody anything.
From my experience with engineering screw-ups really large companies, I would say that it is likely that some people at Samsung did know the whole time what was wrong, but never were asked. Also take into account that some low-level design engineer would have to accuse somebody really high up of having screwed up badly. Even if that person has the integrity to do that, it is not going to be escalated up. Escalationg bad news is not a move that advances a career. Before I made those observations (fortunately all as an external expert), I had the same opinion as you just expressed. Not anymore. If anything, engineering screw-ups in large organizations are worse than in small ones.
Well, yes. But that is not what I get from the blog-post describing their conclusion. I do have personally observed the effect of LiPos getting thicker with use though. Hence I conclude that is a widely-known fact to battery experts and 10% spare space seems to be quite reasonable. I may be wrong on that one though, and I an not a battery expert.
One main reason for LTBS is that I could block these criminals in my firewall and not have updates all the time that invalidate the blocking and that I could download security updates that are really only security updates.
They did. But it was (I think) an optional update. With the new model we can expect a new attempt though, if they dare. After all, implementing opt-out telemetry is a criminal act in the EU for COTS software.
I agree. I really hope Vulcan will finally break the MS dominance for games. Android already made some inroads (game-developers familiar with OpenGL and not being on Windows), but not enough.
You do not understand statistics at all, do you? With the published numbers of fires, they would have had to buy 100'000 units or so and test them several months to even get one instance of a fire.
And fail. They would have had to admit that management (likely upper management) had massively screwed up by messing with the design-process. If they had people with that level of integrity and insight there, this would not have happened in the first place.
The problem here is that smartphones have gotten too similar. There is no actual value in making them thinner now, but it is something that the (let's face it, mostly stupid) customers can get excited about if primed right.
Slashdot Mirror
In does not. But if you follow secure anonymous browsing practices (see the Tor website), that information would not help the FBI and other attackers. Of course, if they can identify you from what you do, you are screwed anyways.
Indeed. Either that or a drop into deep poverty for almost everyone. It can go either way...
Sorry, but I did not say doing a PhD does give you deep insight into a topic, I said that realistically it is the only way to get that deep insight if you otherwise have what it takes. Many people with a PhD do not and basically wasted their time. I hope you can see that there is an implication here and it has a direction.
The thing is that for almost all people, acquiring the "motivation, time, and resources" needed is not feasible any other way.
In fascism (and its precursors), "TRUTH" is whatever those in power want it to be. The "snoopers-charter" is just one step in a logical progression that leads to an inevitable catastrophe at the end. Those that want to control and dominate others have no restraint and no ethics.
In order to qualify as "genius" in modern times and be able to actually contribute to society, as opposed destroying wealth (as so many of those that amassed personal riches routinely do), a PhD in your chosen field is about the minimum.
The whole 'PhD' thing is locked down in thick layers of conformity. You need to 'play well with others' in order to work your way through post-graduate studies. And that whole mess is locked up by climbers who've made academia an insular elite network.
Sure, there are issues. But in actual reality, there is no alternative to it if you really need to get deep into a topic.
Sure, to make a large amount of money
Are you resentful because you chose the academic track and instead of leaving the campus to live a life after graduating, you stayed within the insular ranks? Too bad.
Complete, fail at Ad Hominem. Pathetic. While I am still doing applied research as part of my job and some teaching on the side, I am in a pretty well-paid industrial position. Your argument is as clueless as it is worthless.
Yes, and more. For secure remote computing, you must be the only one to be able to access the hardware. The best you can get today is a locked rack in a data-center. That is also the only thing that gives you some level of trust. The cloud is not and will not be secure against the cloud-provider or anybody that hacks the cloud-provider. It also seems unlike that this will be solved on a technology-level anytime in the next few decades.
As a matter of fact, this topic and the need for it is very, very old. When I studied for my Master's in CS (some 25 years back), it was already a hot topic. At that time it was trusted chip-cards offloading computations to untrusted servers and the like, but the base-problem is the same. There have been no convincing approaches on how to do it in > 30 years of research. The only thing we have now is Fully Homomorphic Encryption, but that has major functionality and performance limitations. You cannot even begin to use it to create an untrusted application to work on trusted data, you can just delegate some specific computations.
For the next few decades, if you do not fully control the hardware and software, you are not secure. And it is actually getting worse, not better, with backdoors and bugs in hardware, software and firmware.
Actually, an attacker would only need to replace the hypervisor as I described and reboot the VMs. Job done. Sure, that is a lot of work, but once somebody writes that emulator, a short while later it will be out there for any criminal (whether private or government-employed) to use.
Sure, to make a large amount of money, you do not need a real education. Just have a talent to rip-off people.
In order to qualify as "genius" in modern times and be able to actually contribute to society, as opposed destroying wealth (as so many of those that amassed personal riches routinely do), a PhD in your chosen field is about the minimum. Without that, you will never get deep enough into a subject to really understand it and to really understand the difference it makes to really understand it.
Methinks this thing is about as valid as "Trump University".
Then it is game over. And this is not a surprise at all. Virtualization _decreases_ security, by offering more attack surface.
The need is pretty clear: Processing of data that needs to be secure against the cloud-provider. That this is very likely infeasible is however quite clear as well. In the worst case, a malicious hypervisor could just run on entirely different hardware and simulate all the protection features that are supposedly preventing it from full access to the VMs, thereby getting that access. The best this technology could ever hope to achieve is to make it somewhat harder for the cloud provider to look at a full, decrypted VM state.
Seriously? Here is news for all that do not get how virtualization works: If the hypervisor is malicious, you are screwed. It just has far too much control, and it needs it. So this is basically a non-issue.
Indeed. I would like to know that too.
Well, if it was Windows (which has a somewhat unpredictable and randomized installation process), or you broke it yourself and forgot what you broke, sure. But otherwise no. You need to find the root-cause of the problem and fix that. Re-installation is not going to do that and is basically a system-administration "worst practice" (meaning you are a bloody amateur if that is your idea of fixing things).
As to "poser", as an AC, you have zero standing calling anybody anything.
From my experience with engineering screw-ups really large companies, I would say that it is likely that some people at Samsung did know the whole time what was wrong, but never were asked. Also take into account that some low-level design engineer would have to accuse somebody really high up of having screwed up badly. Even if that person has the integrity to do that, it is not going to be escalated up. Escalationg bad news is not a move that advances a career. Before I made those observations (fortunately all as an external expert), I had the same opinion as you just expressed. Not anymore. If anything, engineering screw-ups in large organizations are worse than in small ones.
Well, yes. But that is not what I get from the blog-post describing their conclusion. I do have personally observed the effect of LiPos getting thicker with use though. Hence I conclude that is a widely-known fact to battery experts and 10% spare space seems to be quite reasonable. I may be wrong on that one though, and I an not a battery expert.
One main reason for LTBS is that I could block these criminals in my firewall and not have updates all the time that invalidate the blocking and that I could download security updates that are really only security updates.
They did. But it was (I think) an optional update. With the new model we can expect a new attempt though, if they dare. After all, implementing opt-out telemetry is a criminal act in the EU for COTS software.
I agree. I really hope Vulcan will finally break the MS dominance for games. Android already made some inroads (game-developers familiar with OpenGL and not being on Windows), but not enough.
Jesus wept, this country is doomed.
More like the whole planet. The level of stupidity some people can reach is staggering...
The first I know as promoter of over-priced gaming hardware and gear. Is the second one a sellout fuckup too?
They very much are engineers. Takes one to know one though, and you do not qualify.
Looking at the findings and the rationales given, chances are they are 100% on the mark. It takes an actual engineer to see that though.
You do not understand statistics at all, do you? With the published numbers of fires, they would have had to buy 100'000 units or so and test them several months to even get one instance of a fire.
And fail. They would have had to admit that management (likely upper management) had massively screwed up by messing with the design-process. If they had people with that level of integrity and insight there, this would not have happened in the first place.
The problem here is that smartphones have gotten too similar. There is no actual value in making them thinner now, but it is something that the (let's face it, mostly stupid) customers can get excited about if primed right.