Whether or not Safari -- or any browser, really -- will attempt to render or download content depends on whether the remote server actually sends the proper content-type and/or content-disposition headers.
If you are seeing a bunch of boxes, chances are the server is sending the default content-type: text/html header for an unregistered mime type.
IE handles some native media streams appropriately despite the server error, but it will also try to render some non-text/non-html content.
Well, most DDOS traffic is on port 80 and consists of an interminable series of otherwise straightforward HTTP GET requests.
The headers are typically crafted to look identical to an average user hitting the site using Win IE
But, even if you could distinguish good from bad hits, IP filtering a botnet that includes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousand or a million plus nodes is, I promise you from experience, a hopeless endeavor.
One basic error made in the summary and repeated by a number of posters is the the government does *not* need 'probable cause' to obtain evidence under a subpoena.
A subpoena is not a warrant, and demanding production of evidence is not a 'search' or 'seizure'
That happens when the feds show up at your house and turn over all of the furniture looking for evidence.
Basically, all they need to show for a subpoena is that the information or evidence sought is relevant to ongoing investigation
The practical difference between a NSL and a traditional subpoena is that the NSL can be issued by the FBI without requiring judicial review. Further, an NSL includes a built-in gag order while the judge would again have to rule on the appropriateness of sealing order and gagging the recipient.
The point everyone seems to miss is that the works are *not* licensed to GuildWiki under the Creative Commons license. GuildWiki licenses the material to the general public under the CC license.
Under the TOS, contributers license GuildWiki the right to produce derivative works without -- as far as I can tell any restrictions except that GuildWiki's subsequent licensing of the material must under CC non-commercial.
Someone purchasing GuildWiki's rights would not be a sub-licensor. They would step into GuildWiki's shoes and as far as I can tell would even be able to sell CC-NC licenses if they wanted to.
Not new, but I would say that XUL support is probably part of the interest. But this wouldn't be just for developers. Generally speaking, getting the Safari Webkit on PCs would allow widgets that ran on an iPhone and on the desktop. Basically the trojan O/S that MS use to worry that NS was becoming
And I say Mod the parent up because he is right, and proposes a good solution.
I'd say the anonymice don't understand the context in which this exploit executes.
The *user's browser* initiates a requests for the file not the hacker's server.
The browser will make a request for JSON across domains.
The browser will not, however, make the request for XML across domains.
Whatever your sever would serve it won't serve if it never gets the request.
As the article noted Pennsylvania, like many states but unlike the Federal system (see Valerie Plame), has a "Reporter's Shield Law" that grants privilege to a reporter's confidential sources in a manner similar to the privilege enjoyed by Attorney-Client communications. This is a statutory rather than a constitutional privilege but has the same effect.
But note that not every document in a lawyer's filing cabinet is privileged and the government seizes (and/or compels production of) attorney files a lot more often than people might think. They are not allowed to introduce privileged information found in their search in court -- and an investigator exposed to the privileged portion of these files are typically barred from further work on the inestigation (or from passing tips to fellow colleagues)
Similarly, assuming the identity of confidential sources were stored on the computer, the government would be unable to make use of that particular information but could still access other non-privileged evidence of crime.
Also note that despite common belief there is no privilege for Doctor-Patient communications. They are confidential, meaning the Doctor cannot volunteer the information to third parties, but they can be subpoenaed by court.
This is completely a product of the fact that back when MS was facing white hot antitrust heat in the late 90s they made an agreement with Apple to create and support new versions of Office and IE for the Mac for a period of years.
Those years are now up.
They'll probably release new version of Office because there is still money in it. But supporting IE on Mac gaint them nothing that their overwhelming market dominance doesn't already give em.
It's been easy to hate on since MS stopped updating it in like 2001 anyway. But IE 5 for Mac was the best and most standards compliant browser on any platform the day it was released. Awesome work by the original team. Sad it came from MS. Sadder still that they basically abandoned it once their contractual obligations to Apple were up
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not Safari -- or any browser, really -- will attempt to render or download content depends on whether the remote server actually sends the proper content-type and/or content-disposition headers. If you are seeing a bunch of boxes, chances are the server is sending the default content-type: text/html header for an unregistered mime type. IE handles some native media streams appropriately despite the server error, but it will also try to render some non-text/non-html content.
Well, most DDOS traffic is on port 80 and consists of an interminable series of otherwise straightforward HTTP GET requests.
The headers are typically crafted to look identical to an average user hitting the site using Win IE
But, even if you could distinguish good from bad hits, IP filtering a botnet that includes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousand or a million plus nodes is, I promise you from experience, a hopeless endeavor.
A subpoena is not a warrant, and demanding production of evidence is not a 'search' or 'seizure'
That happens when the feds show up at your house and turn over all of the furniture looking for evidence.
Basically, all they need to show for a subpoena is that the information or evidence sought is relevant to ongoing investigation
The practical difference between a NSL and a traditional subpoena is that the NSL can be issued by the FBI without requiring judicial review. Further, an NSL includes a built-in gag order while the judge would again have to rule on the appropriateness of sealing order and gagging the recipient.
The point everyone seems to miss is that the works are *not* licensed to GuildWiki under the Creative Commons license. GuildWiki licenses the material to the general public under the CC license.
Under the TOS, contributers license GuildWiki the right to produce derivative works without -- as far as I can tell any restrictions except that GuildWiki's subsequent licensing of the material must under CC non-commercial.
Someone purchasing GuildWiki's rights would not be a sub-licensor. They would step into GuildWiki's shoes and as far as I can tell would even be able to sell CC-NC licenses if they wanted to.
Not new, but I would say that XUL support is probably part of the interest. But this wouldn't be just for developers. Generally speaking, getting the Safari Webkit on PCs would allow widgets that ran on an iPhone and on the desktop. Basically the trojan O/S that MS use to worry that NS was becoming
And I say Mod the parent up because he is right, and proposes a good solution. I'd say the anonymice don't understand the context in which this exploit executes. The *user's browser* initiates a requests for the file not the hacker's server. The browser will make a request for JSON across domains. The browser will not, however, make the request for XML across domains. Whatever your sever would serve it won't serve if it never gets the request.
But note that not every document in a lawyer's filing cabinet is privileged and the government seizes (and/or compels production of) attorney files a lot more often than people might think. They are not allowed to introduce privileged information found in their search in court -- and an investigator exposed to the privileged portion of these files are typically barred from further work on the inestigation (or from passing tips to fellow colleagues)
Similarly, assuming the identity of confidential sources were stored on the computer, the government would be unable to make use of that particular information but could still access other non-privileged evidence of crime.
Also note that despite common belief there is no privilege for Doctor-Patient communications. They are confidential, meaning the Doctor cannot volunteer the information to third parties, but they can be subpoenaed by court.
This is completely a product of the fact that back when MS was facing white hot antitrust heat in the late 90s they made an agreement with Apple to create and support new versions of Office and IE for the Mac for a period of years. Those years are now up. They'll probably release new version of Office because there is still money in it. But supporting IE on Mac gaint them nothing that their overwhelming market dominance doesn't already give em.
It's been easy to hate on since MS stopped updating it in like 2001 anyway. But IE 5 for Mac was the best and most standards compliant browser on any platform the day it was released. Awesome work by the original team. Sad it came from MS. Sadder still that they basically abandoned it once their contractual obligations to Apple were up