40% is worse than guessing only if you have only two choices (e.g. heads or tails). If you have more choices it is a bit better than guessing.
MS was predicting not just whether exploits would appear but the kinds of exploits that will appear. Depending on how specific (e.g. there will be a buffer overrun in module XYZ) or general (e.g. there will be an exploit in Windows *somewhere*) they were about the kinds of exploits, 40% could be either pretty good (i.e. they were insightful) or pretty bad (i.e. they chose the obvious things). In either case they would still be better off than pure random chance.
This was not a DDoS. They simply convinced their upstream providers to cut them off.
This is perfectly legal(*) and moral, but is most cases completely impractical (upstreamers don't want to loose the revenue stream, downstreamers can always find a new upstream, etc).
Of course it is also very susceptible to abuse as it is the digital age's equivalent of old-world shunning.
(*) There may be contractual obligations and penalties for such actions but perhaps the downstreamer's bad behavior might contractually dissolve those obligations (it depends on the contract).
Ok, so maybe we say "All your base are belong to us" and display I nice big red skull and cross bones along with the sound of a menacing laugh in the background. Like you say we don't want a "click here to fix", but all we need is to increase the visibility of the virus to the user. Once discovered viruses get removed (one way or another), the biggest problem is getting them noticed.
No need to zero the boot sector, just pop-up a window that says "you have been infected by the Storm worm" every two minutes. The machine is still functional so it is easier to fix, but recovery is easier and less likely to result in data loss.
(This all is based on the assumption that doing so would be ethical which I don't think it is, but thought experiments don't hurt.)
As you demonstrate, the MD5 technique does not work. However there are other image "hashing" techniques that do work. For example, take the first three statistical moments of the histogram of the R, G and B intensities. To compare two images take a simple L1 distance between those moments. If it's below some threshold they are the same.
Disclaimer: The above algorithm works best for detecting differences between two video streams even when those video streams are distorted by color shifts. (I have personal experience with using it on production software.) For detecting similarities of images you may have to use slightly different techniques.
The threats are different. With an ATM it's usually the man on the street attacking and the institution (i.e. bank) trying to stop the attack. With voting machines it's the institutions (i.e. political parties) that would be attacking and the man on the street that wants to see it stopped.
With different threat models, come different security methods. I'm sure ATM's are quite secure (at least up to the banks insurance amount). But the same techniques and assumptions don't work to secure a voting box.
Or try my nick. Is it "Mdm. Kolbe" or "M.D.M.Kolbe"?
Frankly I think this falls into the classic UI trap of the computer trying to guess at things it really doesn't have the data to make a good guess about. It's better to have the computer be honest and admit it doesn't know.
The serial number sign up is slashdotted even though the downloads come down just fine. The script keeps giving an error about being unable to get more serial numbers or it times out or resets. They know how to handle the bandwidth, but the GCI requests are killing them.
Since they are giving away the unlocked versions, I guess you only need a serial number if you want support.
Yes, but it's not so important whether other languages use (1) or (3) as much as whether they are used by PHP. Actually it more whether they are used by PHP in a potentially conflicting way. That is, if regex's and pipelines can't in the context as a namespace then "/" and "|" should still be just fine.
Anything you can do in ANY scripting language... you can build faster, smaller and better programs in C.
And anything you can build in C, I can more quickly build smaller, better and more reliable in Haskell. I guess by your logic the pansy type system of C/C++ is only for those of weak mind and poor technical skills.
(*) I know C++ people like to think they have a strong type system. And relative to some languages it is, but compared to the full Hindley-Milner, System-F Glory of the Haskell type system C++ doesn't stand a chance. Of course even Haskell is weak compared to systems like Agda.
The "\" is also an escape character in just about every language out there including PHP. Thus as one of the articles notes the following is misleading: spl_autoload_register(array("Foo\tBar", "loader")). The "\t" is a tab and not a module separation. There are plenty of other characters they could have chosen (e.g. maybe "/" or "::" or even "|" (*)) so in the absence of a really good explanation why those others are worse than "\", it sounds like a crazy design choice. Generally speaking overloading your escape character is a bad idea (**).
(*) I do not know PHP so those characters may have their own problems.
(**) The first person to put "ESC" on the keyboard royally messed up terminal encodings for ever after.
The actual simplest way would be a good solid fence...
What makes you think they won't just climb over it or cut through it?
I really am curious because without guards stationed close enough together to have line-of-sight on the entire fence, it just doesn't seem effective. Chain-link is easy to cut. So is wood. Cement just requires a good ladder and razor wire can be defeated with a solid blanket.
What you say is true. I've run a Windows box for years with nothing more than a firewall and a smart user (me) that doesn't install every smiley face or kitten cursor that comes down the pike. I've never once had an infection.
At least in the Catholic Church public excommunication(*) is generally has to serve a constructive purpose and not just punish.
For example, with Fidel Castro it was a political statement to the world against communism and with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre it was a signal to his followers that they should not follow him anymore as he was acting and teaching well outside the Church (**).
Excommunicating some "rabid antitheist" wouldn't serve any such purpose. Besides bishops are busy people and often have better things to do. If you really want to get excommunicated, the best way is to become a bishop and start a schism.
(*) By public excommunication I mean by public declaration as opposed to some acts that incur an automatic excommunication (e.g. a priest violating the seal (i.e. secrecy) of confession).
(**)Technically this was also an automatic excommunication for ordaining bishops without papal mandate, but it was also a very publicly announced excommunication.
How do you turn it into something useful to get a nerd out of his basement and laid?
Well the first thing is to quit trying to get laid. First because focusing on that will get in the way of understanding the female personality. Second because understanding the female personality will help you have deep, fruitful and meaningful relationships with the other half of the species. However, these very skills exclude you from the "one-night-stand" territory that most people mean by "getting laid" because they move you to the deeper territory of friend/confidant. Of course, if you get all the way to spouse territory then these skills might help you spend fewer nights sleeping on the couch.;-)
With all that said, it really just takes observation, practice and a bit of theory to get you pointed in the right direction.
You need to spend time around women that are interacting with other women at a non-superficial level (i.e. sorority girls at a party don't count). Listen to how they talk and try to follow their conversation. At first their conversation may sound disconnected or even irrational, but if they jump topics all over the place, don't write it off as being irrational. Try to recognize the second and third degree connections that are occurring. (Sometimes directly asking them how they made that connection may prove enlightening, but it is very risky as you may break the flow and annoy them thus ruining your chance to observe. Just keep quiet, smile, nod and keep listening intently for more clues.)
Think of it like watching a grandmaster chess match where you don't know the rules or even the objective yet (even if you think you do, you probably don't) and the players are working three or more moves ahead. Don't look for just direct connections, try to see how the current trend is connected to something that happened three or four exchanges ago.
It also helps to listen to females talk to each other about a third party that either offended them or who they don't like. This is because in the process of expressing their dislike for the person they will indirectly be explaining part of their thought process. To take the chess match example, it is like listening to one chess player bragging to another chess player about the moves he made in his last game.
Unfortunately I can't list out the rules for you, because the rules are an implicit intuitive form that I don't know how to formalize. What I can tell you is that the primary focus of these rules are people, emotions and personal relationships as an end in themselves. (Men tend to focus more on things or actions as ends than people.) Also, these rules are the sort of rules that a massively parallel instinctual mind prefers. (Men tend to prefer one-track analytical rules.)
I'm afraid what I've said so far may not be much help so consider the example of a teenage girl who complains to her (male) friend about life. If he points out ways to fix her life, depending on the dynamics involved she may get mad at him. Why? Because by pointing out how to fix her life, he is criticizing how she runs her life. By criticizing how she runs her life, he is criticizing her as a person. This is compounded by the fact that the reason she shared her problems isn't to get them fixed but to vent and get affirmation. Naturally she gets offended when the reply is the opposite of affirmation. This doesn't mean she won't fix her life but that isn't the purpose of the current interaction. (WARNING: Distinguishing which interactions are which is very important, but for the beginner it is more important to recognize just the existence of these affirmation interactions. Until you get some experience, always assume it is an affirmation interaction; it's safer.)
I really don't know if that will be any help to anyone and there are probably books out there that explain it better, but I offer it for what it's worth.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a cell-phone/camera sort of person, so I was quire surprised to find out there is already an app for doing this.
40% is worse than guessing only if you have only two choices (e.g. heads or tails). If you have more choices it is a bit better than guessing.
MS was predicting not just whether exploits would appear but the kinds of exploits that will appear. Depending on how specific (e.g. there will be a buffer overrun in module XYZ) or general (e.g. there will be an exploit in Windows *somewhere*) they were about the kinds of exploits, 40% could be either pretty good (i.e. they were insightful) or pretty bad (i.e. they chose the obvious things). In either case they would still be better off than pure random chance.
This was not a DDoS. They simply convinced their upstream providers to cut them off.
This is perfectly legal(*) and moral, but is most cases completely impractical (upstreamers don't want to loose the revenue stream, downstreamers can always find a new upstream, etc).
Of course it is also very susceptible to abuse as it is the digital age's equivalent of old-world shunning.
(*) There may be contractual obligations and penalties for such actions but perhaps the downstreamer's bad behavior might contractually dissolve those obligations (it depends on the contract).
Is there any way this can turn out well for the consumer?
Ok, so maybe we say "All your base are belong to us" and display I nice big red skull and cross bones along with the sound of a menacing laugh in the background. Like you say we don't want a "click here to fix", but all we need is to increase the visibility of the virus to the user. Once discovered viruses get removed (one way or another), the biggest problem is getting them noticed.
No need to zero the boot sector, just pop-up a window that says "you have been infected by the Storm worm" every two minutes. The machine is still functional so it is easier to fix, but recovery is easier and less likely to result in data loss.
(This all is based on the assumption that doing so would be ethical which I don't think it is, but thought experiments don't hurt.)
As you demonstrate, the MD5 technique does not work. However there are other image "hashing" techniques that do work. For example, take the first three statistical moments of the histogram of the R, G and B intensities. To compare two images take a simple L1 distance between those moments. If it's below some threshold they are the same.
Disclaimer: The above algorithm works best for detecting differences between two video streams even when those video streams are distorted by color shifts. (I have personal experience with using it on production software.) For detecting similarities of images you may have to use slightly different techniques.
I could imagine how that would be so under equivalent conditions, but lighting varies so much I would think there would still be a problem.
Answer: "If you have no reason to suspect I have something to hide, why do you insist on prying?"
The threats are different. With an ATM it's usually the man on the street attacking and the institution (i.e. bank) trying to stop the attack. With voting machines it's the institutions (i.e. political parties) that would be attacking and the man on the street that wants to see it stopped.
With different threat models, come different security methods. I'm sure ATM's are quite secure (at least up to the banks insurance amount). But the same techniques and assumptions don't work to secure a voting box.
Or try my nick. Is it "Mdm. Kolbe" or "M.D.M.Kolbe"?
Frankly I think this falls into the classic UI trap of the computer trying to guess at things it really doesn't have the data to make a good guess about. It's better to have the computer be honest and admit it doesn't know.
What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)
Laugh all you want, you're still using moving particles (e.g. electrons and photons). How quaint.
The serial number sign up is slashdotted even though the downloads come down just fine. The script keeps giving an error about being unable to get more serial numbers or it times out or resets. They know how to handle the bandwidth, but the GCI requests are killing them.
Since they are giving away the unlocked versions, I guess you only need a serial number if you want support.
Yes, but it's not so important whether other languages use (1) or (3) as much as whether they are used by PHP. Actually it more whether they are used by PHP in a potentially conflicting way. That is, if regex's and pipelines can't in the context as a namespace then "/" and "|" should still be just fine.
In other words, by next spring it will be "by insurgent, they mean Republican".
Anything you can do in ANY scripting language ... you can build faster, smaller and better programs in C.
And anything you can build in C, I can more quickly build smaller, better and more reliable in Haskell. I guess by your logic the pansy type system of C/C++ is only for those of weak mind and poor technical skills.
(*) I know C++ people like to think they have a strong type system. And relative to some languages it is, but compared to the full Hindley-Milner, System-F Glory of the Haskell type system C++ doesn't stand a chance. Of course even Haskell is weak compared to systems like Agda.
The "\" is also an escape character in just about every language out there including PHP. Thus as one of the articles notes the following is misleading: spl_autoload_register(array("Foo\tBar", "loader")). The "\t" is a tab and not a module separation. There are plenty of other characters they could have chosen (e.g. maybe "/" or "::" or even "|" (*)) so in the absence of a really good explanation why those others are worse than "\", it sounds like a crazy design choice. Generally speaking overloading your escape character is a bad idea (**).
(*) I do not know PHP so those characters may have their own problems.
(**) The first person to put "ESC" on the keyboard royally messed up terminal encodings for ever after.
I speak an subject-object-verb language you insensitive clod. RPN is the One True Way.
The actual simplest way would be a good solid fence...
What makes you think they won't just climb over it or cut through it?
I really am curious because without guards stationed close enough together to have line-of-sight on the entire fence, it just doesn't seem effective. Chain-link is easy to cut. So is wood. Cement just requires a good ladder and razor wire can be defeated with a solid blanket.
What you say is true. I've run a Windows box for years with nothing more than a firewall and a smart user (me) that doesn't install every smiley face or kitten cursor that comes down the pike. I've never once had an infection.
At least in the Catholic Church public excommunication(*) is generally has to serve a constructive purpose and not just punish.
For example, with Fidel Castro it was a political statement to the world against communism and with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre it was a signal to his followers that they should not follow him anymore as he was acting and teaching well outside the Church (**).
Excommunicating some "rabid antitheist" wouldn't serve any such purpose. Besides bishops are busy people and often have better things to do. If you really want to get excommunicated, the best way is to become a bishop and start a schism.
(*) By public excommunication I mean by public declaration as opposed to some acts that incur an automatic excommunication (e.g. a priest violating the seal (i.e. secrecy) of confession).
(**)Technically this was also an automatic excommunication for ordaining bishops without papal mandate, but it was also a very publicly announced excommunication.
How do you turn it into something useful to get a nerd out of his basement and laid?
Well the first thing is to quit trying to get laid. First because focusing on that will get in the way of understanding the female personality. Second because understanding the female personality will help you have deep, fruitful and meaningful relationships with the other half of the species. However, these very skills exclude you from the "one-night-stand" territory that most people mean by "getting laid" because they move you to the deeper territory of friend/confidant. Of course, if you get all the way to spouse territory then these skills might help you spend fewer nights sleeping on the couch. ;-)
With all that said, it really just takes observation, practice and a bit of theory to get you pointed in the right direction.
You need to spend time around women that are interacting with other women at a non-superficial level (i.e. sorority girls at a party don't count). Listen to how they talk and try to follow their conversation. At first their conversation may sound disconnected or even irrational, but if they jump topics all over the place, don't write it off as being irrational. Try to recognize the second and third degree connections that are occurring. (Sometimes directly asking them how they made that connection may prove enlightening, but it is very risky as you may break the flow and annoy them thus ruining your chance to observe. Just keep quiet, smile, nod and keep listening intently for more clues.)
Think of it like watching a grandmaster chess match where you don't know the rules or even the objective yet (even if you think you do, you probably don't) and the players are working three or more moves ahead. Don't look for just direct connections, try to see how the current trend is connected to something that happened three or four exchanges ago.
It also helps to listen to females talk to each other about a third party that either offended them or who they don't like. This is because in the process of expressing their dislike for the person they will indirectly be explaining part of their thought process. To take the chess match example, it is like listening to one chess player bragging to another chess player about the moves he made in his last game.
Unfortunately I can't list out the rules for you, because the rules are an implicit intuitive form that I don't know how to formalize. What I can tell you is that the primary focus of these rules are people, emotions and personal relationships as an end in themselves. (Men tend to focus more on things or actions as ends than people.) Also, these rules are the sort of rules that a massively parallel instinctual mind prefers. (Men tend to prefer one-track analytical rules.)
I'm afraid what I've said so far may not be much help so consider the example of a teenage girl who complains to her (male) friend about life. If he points out ways to fix her life, depending on the dynamics involved she may get mad at him. Why? Because by pointing out how to fix her life, he is criticizing how she runs her life. By criticizing how she runs her life, he is criticizing her as a person. This is compounded by the fact that the reason she shared her problems isn't to get them fixed but to vent and get affirmation. Naturally she gets offended when the reply is the opposite of affirmation. This doesn't mean she won't fix her life but that isn't the purpose of the current interaction. (WARNING: Distinguishing which interactions are which is very important, but for the beginner it is more important to recognize just the existence of these affirmation interactions. Until you get some experience, always assume it is an affirmation interaction; it's safer.)
I really don't know if that will be any help to anyone and there are probably books out there that explain it better, but I offer it for what it's worth.
Which of course won't stop the Alphabet Agencies from kidnapping you
Um ... I think they're a bit too busy installing dictators to worry about your P2P network.
J: Everything is uncertain except for five facts.
Gah! Now I have to figure out what those five facts are. Help me out here /.; we can't let the robots get ahead of us.