i was curious when it arrived (as a free gift from wired mag), so i plugged it up. it caused immediate hardware problems. so i unplugged it, and i'll now be putting it in the trash after all this glorious news. i enjoy my privacy too much to put it in the hands of ppl who can't understand good crypto and network security...
So what you're sayin is, [law enforcement believes] law-abiding citizens should have nothing to hide and therefore only criminals use encryption. I agree that law enforcement believes this, I'm just restating...
In this case the method of execution is the same...
Not exactly. In the case of ILOVEYOU, Outlook would automagically execute the attachment when the user decided to view it (not always prompting for "Save or Open"). With this thing, the user actively thinks "I want that file", downloads it, and manually executes it.
Why not? Darwin is the core of Mac OS X, and if the core is responsible for any hardware dependencies, then it seems to me that the entire OS has the potential to be protable.
Why is the media suddenly on this? "Security" of ActiveX has been under scrutiny since microsludge introduced it. I seem to remember that a developer wrote and signed a control to do a clean shutdown of your Energy Star-compliant Windows 95 PC. Yes, the model is open to this kind of thing. Yes, VeriSign can probably tell you who is responsible for the signed code. Yes, you'll have headaches if you don't watch your butt on the 'net. I think someone above said that user education is tha answer...
Yep. You're right. Of course, this is a prime example of potential Internet-based masquerading...
One more thing: didn't anybody consider that it's just as easy to go to any free-mail site and creat a bogus account for masq-ing as anyone (or any organization???)
Slashdot Mirror
i was curious when it arrived (as a free gift from wired mag), so i plugged it up. it caused immediate hardware problems. so i unplugged it, and i'll now be putting it in the trash after all this glorious news. i enjoy my privacy too much to put it in the hands of ppl who can't understand good crypto and network security...
$lynx -head -dump http://lc5.law5.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bino
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:37:33 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b
Cache-Control: no-cache
Expires: Mon, 01 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Pragma: no-cache
Set-Cookie: BrowserTest=Success%3f; domain=.passport.com; path=/
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
$
Maybe you mean 1997/1998?
So what you're sayin is, [law enforcement believes] law-abiding citizens should have nothing to hide and therefore only criminals use encryption. I agree that law enforcement believes this, I'm just restating...
I'd say a *much* bigger key.
In this case the method of execution is the same...
Not exactly. In the case of ILOVEYOU, Outlook would automagically execute the attachment when the user decided to view it (not always prompting for "Save or Open"). With this thing, the user actively thinks "I want that file", downloads it, and manually executes it.
...it's still a Windows problem. You could also do this with FTP-- *ANY* FTP server could cough up a copy of this file...
WOO HOO!!
Why not? Darwin is the core of Mac OS X, and if the core is responsible for any hardware dependencies, then it seems to me that the entire OS has the potential to be protable.
Have you read the IPv6 spec at all? It has allowances for tracebacks. Now I don't know if they're any good, but they exist.
Thank you, Microsoft! Without your wonderfile innovation, this kid would still be an unknown...
An "instant-on" MP3 playing PC!!! Oh, they've got something already. Sorry.
Why is the media suddenly on this? "Security" of ActiveX has been under scrutiny since microsludge introduced it. I seem to remember that a developer wrote and signed a control to do a clean shutdown of your Energy Star-compliant Windows 95 PC. Yes, the model is open to this kind of thing. Yes, VeriSign can probably tell you who is responsible for the signed code. Yes, you'll have headaches if you don't watch your butt on the 'net. I think someone above said that user education is tha answer...
You don't get out much, do you?
Yep. You're right. Of course, this is a prime example of potential Internet-based masquerading...
One more thing: didn't anybody consider that it's just as easy to go to any free-mail site and creat a bogus account for masq-ing as anyone (or any organization???)