I've been teaching the same thing to my students for years: "most security threats are internal threats". And hereis an article from 2002 that says it. And no doubt that if I kept digging, I would have found even older references to internal threats.
Maybe the news is that companies are beginning to realize it? If so, they also need to understand that there is a big difference between knowing that the threat exists and treating all your employees like potential criminals.
Here you will find a very interesting read about the subject. (quote: "This new trend is viewing one's colleagues as literally the enemy. I feel a need to rail against it because I believe it to be not only immoral, but destructive to business")
Let's assume no more than one of them is actually a gaming rig.
Let's assume 2 more are MPEG-4 decoding boxes.
Let's assume another two run office apps. All concurrently.
Just one question - how are you going to handle controlling those ("virtual") machines? That motherboard might have 8 outputs, but it only has one keyboard/mouse.
Even worse - so far, the OS (and 3rd-party software) support for multi-head displays is... far from complete. I've had difficulties persuading a movie to show on the correct display, and I only had 2 of them. With 8 screens (each showing a different output), you've got a very good recipe for chaos.
Not that wrong, actually. If a Cisco router was to forward everything in software, it would very quickly reach the processor limit (let's not forget that we're not talking about multi-GHz processors here - more like a few hundred MHz!). There are all kinds of caching and hardware-based packet forwarding that help the router reach high packet rates.
Try storming a cisco box with massive amounts of small UDP packets and see how well it copes. UDP is done in full software mode, you can't use CEF etc on UDP.
You just proved what I was saying above (and what the GP was saying in his post): it's not only the software. If you force the router to process everything in software (as in your example with UDP packets), it will quickly reach its limits.
I've seen that with many ISPs - and I still do not understand why. As long as I'm paying the ISP for the bandwidth, it should be my problem what I do with it. I can decide to use it all, or I can decide to share it with my friends - my call.
In the past, the FAA has found nothing to indicate that the use of passive devices like laptops or game-playing electronics poses a threat to the aircraft.
However, the CMU study concluded otherwise. While the researchers looked primarily at cell phone use, they also discovered that emissions from other portable devices proved "problematic."
They don't seem to elaborate on the topic. Can anyone explain to me how a device that gives off almost no EM emission could be "problematic"?
OK, I have a reason for asking - I never understood why I was once asked by a flight attendant to turn off my camera during the flight (and you can't really get much more passive than a digital camera).:P
If microwaves from a mobile phone can cause cancer, how is it that we can immerse ourselves in kilowatts of infrared radiation (at a much higher energy) and at the worst get simple burning (oxidation) of our skin?
Different depth of action. Infrared energy cannot get beyond the superficial layers of the skin - its energy is absorbed very quickly, so it can only produce superficial burns. On the other hand, microwave energy can penetrate to deeper layers, and (potentially) cause damage there. (I say "potentially" because AFAIK we still don't know whether microwaves actually do damage living tissue)
Superficial burns are temporary - those surface cells are continuously replaced. Damage the deep layers of the skin though, and you get an ugly scar in the best case, or cancer in the worst.
What if Pasteur had never created the vaccine ? lots of people would have died of course. But if he hadnt created the vaccine, our body wouldnt have learned to protect against those viruses and if the body hadnt learned to protect itself, the viruses wouldn't have mutated in even more virulent forms of viruses.
Not quite. If we haven't been able to learn to protect against those viruses in millions of years of evolution, I really doubt we would have learned in the 100 years since he created the vaccine.
Also, keep in mind that our body can protect itself with or without the vaccine (the vaccine only makes the response faster, and more efficient). So the pressure that causes the virus to mutate is always there. And always has been.
and also require home/business office users to install firewalls to protect personal info, even if their connection is encrypted
If I understood correctly, WPA is not enough any more - you will also need a firewall...
I still don't get one thing, though: how should a firewall that sits between my network and the Internet protect me from attacks originating in the wireless network? (considering that in most cases the firewall does not filter traffic between the local networks - only traffic to and from the Internet)
Most pages I've found that talk about halon only mention that it "displaces oxygen". However, I also found this page, that seems to have a different opinion: "The trick is that the bromine and chlorine atoms in the halon molecule--the very ones that are so damaging to the stratospheric ozone--are also incredibly aggressive scavengers of hydrogen atoms, which are key to maintaining a combustion chain reaction. Indeed, bromine and chlorine atoms are released as halons decompose in the heat of the fire, establishing a catalytic cycle involving HBr and HCl; the cycle converts active hydrogen atoms to stable H2 molecules, breaking the chain reaction."
Also, the reason why halon was discontinued is not related to people getting trapped and dying (if I understood correctly, halon should be efficient at very low concentrations). The problem was that it damages the ozone layer. (taken from the same page: "By international agreement, however, production of all types of halons ceased in 1994 because the bromine and chlorine atoms in the chemical were found to migrate over time to the stratosphere, where they react to deplete ozone in a very efficient catalytic cycle.")
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the news is that companies are beginning to realize it? If so, they also need to understand that there is a big difference between knowing that the threat exists and treating all your employees like potential criminals.
Here you will find a very interesting read about the subject. (quote: "This new trend is viewing one's colleagues as literally the enemy. I feel a need to rail against it because I believe it to be not only immoral, but destructive to business")
Just one question - how are you going to handle controlling those ("virtual") machines? That motherboard might have 8 outputs, but it only has one keyboard/mouse.
Even worse - so far, the OS (and 3rd-party software) support for multi-head displays is... far from complete. I've had difficulties persuading a movie to show on the correct display, and I only had 2 of them. With 8 screens (each showing a different output), you've got a very good recipe for chaos.
Try storming a cisco box with massive amounts of small UDP packets and see how well it copes. UDP is done in full software mode, you can't use CEF etc on UDP.
You just proved what I was saying above (and what the GP was saying in his post): it's not only the software. If you force the router to process everything in software (as in your example with UDP packets), it will quickly reach its limits.
Linksys has had this for quite a while now - they call it "SES" (Secure Easy Setup). Details here or here .
I've seen that with many ISPs - and I still do not understand why. As long as I'm paying the ISP for the bandwidth, it should be my problem what I do with it. I can decide to use it all, or I can decide to share it with my friends - my call.
However, the CMU study concluded otherwise. While the researchers looked primarily at cell phone use, they also discovered that emissions from other portable devices proved "problematic."
They don't seem to elaborate on the topic. Can anyone explain to me how a device that gives off almost no EM emission could be "problematic"?
OK, I have a reason for asking - I never understood why I was once asked by a flight attendant to turn off my camera during the flight (and you can't really get much more passive than a digital camera). :P
Different depth of action. Infrared energy cannot get beyond the superficial layers of the skin - its energy is absorbed very quickly, so it can only produce superficial burns. On the other hand, microwave energy can penetrate to deeper layers, and (potentially) cause damage there. (I say "potentially" because AFAIK we still don't know whether microwaves actually do damage living tissue)
Superficial burns are temporary - those surface cells are continuously replaced. Damage the deep layers of the skin though, and you get an ugly scar in the best case, or cancer in the worst.
Not quite. If we haven't been able to learn to protect against those viruses in millions of years of evolution, I really doubt we would have learned in the 100 years since he created the vaccine.
Also, keep in mind that our body can protect itself with or without the vaccine (the vaccine only makes the response faster, and more efficient). So the pressure that causes the virus to mutate is always there. And always has been.
Probably around the time when they started making more money than individuals?
Just another /. paradox... :P
If I understood correctly, WPA is not enough any more - you will also need a firewall...
I still don't get one thing, though: how should a firewall that sits between my network and the Internet protect me from attacks originating in the wireless network? (considering that in most cases the firewall does not filter traffic between the local networks - only traffic to and from the Internet)
Also, the reason why halon was discontinued is not related to people getting trapped and dying (if I understood correctly, halon should be efficient at very low concentrations). The problem was that it damages the ozone layer. (taken from the same page: "By international agreement, however, production of all types of halons ceased in 1994 because the bromine and chlorine atoms in the chemical were found to migrate over time to the stratosphere, where they react to deplete ozone in a very efficient catalytic cycle.")
You also came into this world without clothes. Are you planning on living (and leaving) the same way also?
At least I hope that our destinies will not be affected by the fact that a dead star is leaving our galaxy.
Some things never change...