Please, if you insist on advocating a position that is, in the long term, costly and damaging to the world's infrastructure, at least know what you are talking about
No, the correct ruling is the just and logical one. Just because twelve people think you did something bad and you should be somehow punished, it doesn't make it right 'correct'.
Yeah, so we can go back to the early 1990s, when the vulnerabilities existed, US-CERT knew of them, a few hackers know of them, the system admins don't and the software devs do nothing to patch them
in this new world full connectivity is required not any more than a dedicated FedEx airplane from every city to every other city.
No.
You still need to be as "fully connected" as you'd ever be, with IPv6, or IPv4 with NAT. The connections STILL PHYSICALLY EXIST. The only difference is what kind of data is sent over those ports... there's no real reason for any scarcity, save for an arbitrary technical decision made in the early days of the TCP/IP Protocol
A better analogy would be, because humanity hypothetically ran out of unique postal addresses, everyone in the city shares the same address (name, address, everything), and the postman decides where to deliver the letter based on a the number of small cuts in the side. Wouldn't it make more sense to add more fields to the address, say, a ZIP code?
This is, in effect what IPv6 is doing. Adding more data to the address.
No.
The address is stored in the header in binary
00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010
nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn is just a representation of this.
An IPv6 Address it just a lot more binary
00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010
00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010
00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010
00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010
Because the IP is only data in the packet header, and it's scarity is artificial, purely as a result of a design decision made in the late 1970s?
And NAT breaks things.
Bullshit. In all the sparky-run data installs i've seen, even if the install was up to standard, the experience-only stuff has been a bit deficient (eg quoting a cheap wall frame when a cabinet would have really been a good idea).
Isn't slashdot awesome. No distinction at all between seasoned professionals in the entertainment industry, who have spent many years learning their craft as a sound engineer/promoter/distributor, and some idiot with a mac.
No.
This doesn't work. Pirating a game does not, in itself, diminish any quantity. If I pirate a game, sony makes nothing, and loses nothing. Just as if I never obtained it at all.
On the other hand, if I were intending to pay for it, but decided that I could get it for free instead, then it would be a loss to sony. But if you assume this is a given, you are mentally deficient.
New Zealand doesn't have a broad "fair use" doctrine, just specific exceptions to standard copyright law (currently including backing up computer software, and time shifitng TV shows). I'm not saying this is a good thing (beats having an indefinite "pay for a license or pay for a lawyer to argue fair use" thing though), but it's not surprising that this law has no broad fair use provisions.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Firstly, you seem to be misinformed about what a port scan is. A port scan will only tell you which ports are opened (or filtered or closed). While it's possible to guess which services are running by assuming any open ports are running their IANA assigned services, this isn't necessarily the case. It is possible for some port scanning software to guess which operating system you are running by comparing it's behavior with existing data, but this isn't necessarily accurate And knowing which operating system the target is running is only the beginning. Sure, that Windows server may be running exchange and IIS, but it may be running MDaemon and Apache instead.
Secondly, what I suspect you may be talking about is banner grabbing. Banners can be changed easily. Especially with open source software
Many people don't seem to understand that "There's no security through obscurity" is not a blanket rule for every situation. In certain situations, while obscurity shouldn't be totally relied upon, it can be beneficial. While an open source project may benefit from its openness, if many people examine the code, the same can not be said for, for example, the individual machine belonging to Martech IT Ltd. An individual server is just as likely (or even more so, as penetration testers risk prosecution when reported) to be examined by a black hat as a while hat.
While it would be unwise to run a web server with known exploits and change the banner in order to (hopefully) prevent attacks, if you run a web server with no known exploits, and change the banner so if a vulnerability is discovered, it will be less obvious to an outsider that the server is vulnerable.
I consider antivirus to be a scam. When badness is infinite and goodness is finite, which does it make more sense to enumerate? Certainly not the bad. And under previous versions of windows the user ran with administrator priveleges, meaning any program had total control of the computer, and hence total control of any antivirus software that happened to be running on the computer.
Security is not improved by adding trusted components (see the The Definition of Trust). This applies to any software you add.
The problem with that is, when I buy music, I am primarily looking for music. A larger case is not only more delicate (law of mechanical advantage), but requires more storage space. Jewel cases fulfill their primary function quite well. It's one thing to add functionality, but doing so in a way that inhibits the primary function is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Hint... Subnetting for one? many more out there..
Please, if you insist on advocating a position that is, in the long term, costly and damaging to the world's infrastructure, at least know what you are talking about
No, the correct ruling is the just and logical one. Just because twelve people think you did something bad and you should be somehow punished, it doesn't make it right 'correct'.
You could try 75ohm to 120ohm Baluns, then some kind of point to point DSL setup, eg the Zyxel P-841C.... you might have some luck with that
The problem is, wordpad does not contain enough of word's basic feature set... things like document columns... that it becomes annoying very quickly
They're still around here (in New Zealand)... Often in a configuration very similar to the above
...And added tints, lowered suspension, and fart can exhaust
No. Just no. Why the fuck was this modded informative?
Yeah, so we can go back to the early 1990s, when the vulnerabilities existed, US-CERT knew of them, a few hackers know of them, the system admins don't and the software devs do nothing to patch them
in this new world full connectivity is required not any more than a dedicated FedEx airplane from every city to every other city.
No.
You still need to be as "fully connected" as you'd ever be, with IPv6, or IPv4 with NAT. The connections STILL PHYSICALLY EXIST. The only difference is what kind of data is sent over those ports... there's no real reason for any scarcity, save for an arbitrary technical decision made in the early days of the TCP/IP Protocol
A better analogy would be, because humanity hypothetically ran out of unique postal addresses, everyone in the city shares the same address (name, address, everything), and the postman decides where to deliver the letter based on a the number of small cuts in the side. Wouldn't it make more sense to add more fields to the address, say, a ZIP code?
This is, in effect what IPv6 is doing. Adding more data to the address.
No. The address is stored in the header in binary 00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010 nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn is just a representation of this. An IPv6 Address it just a lot more binary 00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010 00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010 00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010 00010001 00110110 11110011 10101010
Because the IP is only data in the packet header, and it's scarity is artificial, purely as a result of a design decision made in the late 1970s? And NAT breaks things.
RTFA, as the document says, while yahoo must hand the information over, they are entitled to compensation for their time and expenses...
Bullshit. In all the sparky-run data installs i've seen, even if the install was up to standard, the experience-only stuff has been a bit deficient (eg quoting a cheap wall frame when a cabinet would have really been a good idea).
Isn't slashdot awesome. No distinction at all between seasoned professionals in the entertainment industry, who have spent many years learning their craft as a sound engineer/promoter/distributor, and some idiot with a mac.
Shut the fuck up. All of you. You're ruining a perfectly good comment page.
You mean, like, how IP is supposed to work?
-1, 13 years old
No. This doesn't work. Pirating a game does not, in itself, diminish any quantity. If I pirate a game, sony makes nothing, and loses nothing. Just as if I never obtained it at all. On the other hand, if I were intending to pay for it, but decided that I could get it for free instead, then it would be a loss to sony. But if you assume this is a given, you are mentally deficient.
And where in there is fair use protected?
New Zealand doesn't have a broad "fair use" doctrine, just specific exceptions to standard copyright law (currently including backing up computer software, and time shifitng TV shows). I'm not saying this is a good thing (beats having an indefinite "pay for a license or pay for a lawyer to argue fair use" thing though), but it's not surprising that this law has no broad fair use provisions.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
Firstly, you seem to be misinformed about what a port scan is. A port scan will only tell you which ports are opened (or filtered or closed). While it's possible to guess which services are running by assuming any open ports are running their IANA assigned services, this isn't necessarily the case. It is possible for some port scanning software to guess which operating system you are running by comparing it's behavior with existing data, but this isn't necessarily accurate And knowing which operating system the target is running is only the beginning. Sure, that Windows server may be running exchange and IIS, but it may be running MDaemon and Apache instead.
Secondly, what I suspect you may be talking about is banner grabbing. Banners can be changed easily. Especially with open source software
Many people don't seem to understand that "There's no security through obscurity" is not a blanket rule for every situation. In certain situations, while obscurity shouldn't be totally relied upon, it can be beneficial. While an open source project may benefit from its openness, if many people examine the code, the same can not be said for, for example, the individual machine belonging to Martech IT Ltd. An individual server is just as likely (or even more so, as penetration testers risk prosecution when reported) to be examined by a black hat as a while hat.
While it would be unwise to run a web server with known exploits and change the banner in order to (hopefully) prevent attacks, if you run a web server with no known exploits, and change the banner so if a vulnerability is discovered, it will be less obvious to an outsider that the server is vulnerable.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/9-c.html
No it's not. It's a satire. It's only a fair use if you use the work in question to parody the creator of said work.
I consider antivirus to be a scam. When badness is infinite and goodness is finite, which does it make more sense to enumerate? Certainly not the bad. And under previous versions of windows the user ran with administrator priveleges, meaning any program had total control of the computer, and hence total control of any antivirus software that happened to be running on the computer. Security is not improved by adding trusted components (see the The Definition of Trust). This applies to any software you add.
But without humans to maintain the computer systems, the windows ones would crash first...
The problem with that is, when I buy music, I am primarily looking for music. A larger case is not only more delicate (law of mechanical advantage), but requires more storage space. Jewel cases fulfill their primary function quite well. It's one thing to add functionality, but doing so in a way that inhibits the primary function is ridiculous.