As mentioned by LordLimecat, XP64 isn't really 64-bit XP, but Server 2003 relabeled. This creates all kinds of problems. Add to that the miniscule market share and you get a recipe for terrible driver support.
You can also get a rootkit by just visiting a website with ads from a compromised server. Or even doing a Google Image Search. It's not like you have to go to porn or warez sites to become compromised, so it has nothing to do with being careless.
Running a 32-bit OS or running without UAC in this day and age is asking for your PC to be compromised. It is less "if" and more "when". And the fact that there is only one or two rootkits in the wild that can infect 64-bit Vista/7 is a sign that the job of malware authors is getting harder, and preventing these rootkits from exploiting the OS is becoming easier. There are a million ways for 32-bit OS or non-UAC to become compromised, compared to one or two ways for 64-bit with UAC.
Oh, and by the way...if you have UAC enabled and/or limited account privileges, the dropper for that rootkit will not run at all.
In the end, a 64-bit OS with UAC is practically immune to drive-by rootkits.
Well, the driver support is pretty terrible for 64-bit XP.
Aside from that, 64-bit Vista/7 support the Kernel Mode Code Signing Policy. This means that it is practically impossible to get a rootkit, because kernel-mode binaries must have strong signatures embedded directly inside them to prevent tampering.
You should see the hoops that malware authors must jump through in order to circumvent KMCSP. It's insane, there's only two rootkits that I know of which get around it, neither of which directly attack KMCSP but instead try to work around it by e.g. infecting the MBR with malware that hooks the boot process and loads the infected driver before KMCSP is in effect.
Even if you don't need >4GB memory...even if you don't need 64-bit application support...the KMCSP is a Good Thing that makes infecting your system much more difficult.
I agree that there are two types of cheating, and I also agree with the broad outlines that you've drawn. However, I see things a bit differently, as I'm one of the people who actively creates hacks for the games I play. Here are the two types of cheaters that I see.
1) The "white hat" cheater. This is the gamer who would usually cheat at single player or LAN games. This gamer wants to have fun, and cheats enable gamers to calibrate the difficulty of their games to their own taste, "tuning the engine" for maximum efficiency of fun.
2) The "black hat" cheater. This is the gamer who derives pleasure from ruining the experience of other people. They are griefers and their idea of "fun" is pissing people off.
I'm in the first category. I play a LOT of L4D2 (500-ish hours in about 15 months). I don't think I could have played this game for so long if I had to deal with the bugs and the glitches and the design decisions that I don't agree with (the "itches"). Pretty much every game has itches, but what makes L4D2 unique for me is the ability to download a server for free, and the capability to modify the game engine with plugins so that I can scratch those itches.
So I run my own private server, and I can play with friends and they know that my server has been extremely modded. And from some perspective, what I am doing is tantamount to cheating (some of the commands, in fact, begin with "sm_cheat"). But I don't care, because I'm still having fun playing this game after hundreds of hours (total cost so far: 1 cent per hour). And if people join my server and have a problem with it they are free to leave. But for the friends who play on my server with me, are they cheaters?
however a large portion of it had no possible political purpose other than to try to hurt the US
Ahh, that's why he intentionally wanted it to be delivered into the public domain, instead of selling it to US enemies. Because he wanted to hurt the US. >.>
Even if the goal had been to see what they saw as atrocities stopped, it was not the correct forum to do so by and even if the correct forums had been taken
Like when he was told to investigate some Iraqis who were arrested by the Iraqi police, and after investigation determined that the "crime" committed was a scholarly critique of the Iraqi PM titled "where did the money go?", told his commanding officer about it, and his commanding officer told him "STFU and help the Iraqi police detain more Iraqis". When your CO tells you to piss off, what do you do? "Oh well, they're just innocent people being imprisoned, fuck 'em"? >.>
What possible whistle is being blown by exposing that many neighbors and "allies" of Iran are secretly terrified of them getting nukes and begging for it to be stopped.
What possible whistle is being blown when he releases the Collateral Murder video? What possible whistle is being blown when he releases cables that detail the extravagant lifestyle of the former ruler of Tunisia?
Whoever leaked the documents however, did so from the US and is an enemy of the US and in fact world peace, whether intentionally or not and should be prosecuted as such
Whoever improperly classified the documents is an enemy of the citizens of the United States and in fact world peace, by virtue of enabling such travesties as Tunisia to continue unabated. And yet there is no prosecution for those who improperly classify documents.
For that matter, NONE of what Manning allegedly leaked was Top Secret; zip, zilch, nada. What happens when the President has actual Top Secret material leaked to the press (e.g. bin Laden raid details)? That leaker should be punished just the same (or worse) as the leaker of the cables, because the information had not been declassified yet. The President does not have carte blanche to leak material that is still classified, it must first be declassified.
By taking down content, it proves that they are actively scanning such content.
Safe harbor relies on them not knowing about infringing content. i.e. if they are scanning content, then they ought to recognize infringement. Hence the "mere conduit" - if there is anything more than an automated system for handling the user content, then they are choosing to be responsible for such content.
1) Analyze absolute signal power 2) Analyze SNR 3) Profile the noise. The noise at the receiver is probably not white noise; the circuits inside the drone itself likely color the noise. In fact, circuits could be designed into the drone that intentionally color the noise a certain way, and that wouldn't be detectable unless you had the circuit in hand, and the coloring circuit could be individualized per drone to further resist hacking attempts. Any effort to emulate and ramp up terrestrial noise to preserve SNR at the receiver would fail to properly account for the color of the noise.
I'm no expert on Iran, but I thought "the holocaust never happened" was more properly understood as "why should a holocaust in Europe allow the West to transplant the entire Jewish population onto lands that are currently occupied by Arabs"
Taking down content at will which does not infringe on copyright means they could lose safe harbor protections because they are no longer a mere conduit for user-generated content.
Pretend that there's an abortion doctor. You hate abortions. You start posting the doctor's personal information. You post the time she drops her kid off at school. You post pictures of her house, her car, and her family. You post the kind of security system that she has.
Creepy. Potentially deserving a restraining order of some sort. But on its face this is not necessarily illegal, especially if the information is all public or can be obtained publicly.
You post that she wears a bulletproof vest so you should aim for the head.
I believe this is illegal. Now you are suggesting specific violent acts against a specific person.
Her friends and family are on the HRO? I thought it was just her.
What the judge SHOULD have done was expand the HRO to apply to all of her family and friends.
If he wants to blog some stupid shit that's not false, I believe he should be allowed. The problem is him forwarding this blog to other people as a form of harassment.
It's not so much that the nearby frequencies need to be silent. I believe it was actually the case that those frequencies were originally licensed for low-power signals. So when the hardware engineer was designing his GPS receiver circuit, he would use the expected max power that could be licensed for that band in his calculation for determining how many -dB/Octave his filter needs. Now LS comes in and wants to relicense that spectrum for signals of many orders of magnitude more power; the circuits were simply not designed to handle this because such signals were illegal at the time of manufacture.
It's not the hardware engineer's fault that the adjacent bands were "zoned" to be residential and now LS wants to come in and build an airport.
LOL, for what it's worth, most of my salary comes from small business research grants. But I still don't see what you're trying to get at. I'm not the salesman, because I can't tell people they need something when they don't.
I actually worked at a brick-and-mortar retail store for a while, and my managers hated me, because even though I had a great deal of knowledge about all of the products, I would only ever sell the customer exactly what they asked me for nothing more. My hours were eventually reduced to one day per week, in effect forcing me to quit as there was no way I could make what I needed to make.
Perhaps you're claiming that my soul is compromised anyway, because I might collect paychecks that are somehow derived from soul-less sales associates? That still seems like a red herring, though. My job is to make things that people might want. Sales' job is to get those products into customers' hands. And I don't care if someone in sales makes more than me, because I don't have to treat people like they aren't human beings in order to do my job.
A good salesman has no concern for your wants or needs. His only concern is convincing you that you need something which he has for sale, often something that you never even knew you "needed" before the salesman began talking to you. They exploit weaknesses of the human condition in order to benefit themselves.
That is quite different from my paycheck. My employer has a need, and had that need before I was hired. I do not exploit my employer's weaknesses to convince them that they need to pay me.
Don't get me wrong, I have a long-term monogamous partner and we never use condoms anymore, so I always get that last 10% of enjoyment. Sex is without a doubt better when there is no condom. But if I wasn't long-term and monogamous, I would rather lose 10% of the pleasure to ensure that I don't get a disease.
That said, my point was that there is so much focus on "penis in vagina" that it seems like that's all there is to sex, for some people. To me, penis in vagina is about maybe 30% of sex (hence, the condom reduces raw sexual pleasure by a third). The other 70% involves other body parts and different acts and even the clothes that she's wearing and role playing and bondage and sex toys and so on.
condoms substantially reduce the pleasure men feel while having sex (and I even know some women who do not like the feeling of a condom).
I never understood why so many people believe this. Sex is so much more than "penis in vagina"; there's a lot more to kiss, touch, grope, and caress. With a condom it's like 90% as good as without a condom. 90% of awesome is still pretty awesome.
I'm curious though. In your example, you kill the gene therapy with antibiotics, like a permanent off switch.
Would it be possible to create gene therapy that is only active in the presence of some external chemical? Forgive my bad example, but could you make it so the gene therapy only activates in the presence of, say, aspirin? That way, after the gene therapy nothing happens, but once you begin an aspirin regimen it would activate, and if there was some allergic reaction you could just stop taking aspirin. Aspirin may be a bad choice for a variety of reasons, but any chemical not normally present in the human body should work, as long as it gets into all the cells...right?
One day, I was browsing Google Image Search, looking to identify an ambiguous connector. (it ended up being a connector from JST)
Suddenly, I'm greeted with a UAC prompt. Having done nothing to instigate a UAC prompt, I immediately killed firefox. Nonetheless, there was a rogue process on my machine that was attempting to gain root access by desperately popping up anti-virus messages. Being an intelligent user, I discovered what process was responsible and promptly killed and deleted the offending binary from my machine.
re-read OP. He was asking if lossy format conversions could fool this technique. I was pointing out that lossy format conversion actually assists with detecting photoshop jobs.
The gist is that every time you save an e.g. JPEG, the quality will get worse. However, the worsening of quality decreases each time it is saved, eventually asymptotically approaching the worst level. Therefore, if you're working on a photoshopped picture, each time you save it the quality of the various parts of the photo will decrease by different amounts. This can be used to identify which pieces of the photo have been modified more recently than others, since they will have a different error level than the pieces that were modified first.
Slashdot Mirror
As mentioned by LordLimecat, XP64 isn't really 64-bit XP, but Server 2003 relabeled. This creates all kinds of problems. Add to that the miniscule market share and you get a recipe for terrible driver support.
You can also get a rootkit by just visiting a website with ads from a compromised server. Or even doing a Google Image Search. It's not like you have to go to porn or warez sites to become compromised, so it has nothing to do with being careless.
Running a 32-bit OS or running without UAC in this day and age is asking for your PC to be compromised. It is less "if" and more "when". And the fact that there is only one or two rootkits in the wild that can infect 64-bit Vista/7 is a sign that the job of malware authors is getting harder, and preventing these rootkits from exploiting the OS is becoming easier. There are a million ways for 32-bit OS or non-UAC to become compromised, compared to one or two ways for 64-bit with UAC.
Oh, and by the way...if you have UAC enabled and/or limited account privileges, the dropper for that rootkit will not run at all.
In the end, a 64-bit OS with UAC is practically immune to drive-by rootkits.
Well, the driver support is pretty terrible for 64-bit XP.
Aside from that, 64-bit Vista/7 support the Kernel Mode Code Signing Policy. This means that it is practically impossible to get a rootkit, because kernel-mode binaries must have strong signatures embedded directly inside them to prevent tampering.
You should see the hoops that malware authors must jump through in order to circumvent KMCSP. It's insane, there's only two rootkits that I know of which get around it, neither of which directly attack KMCSP but instead try to work around it by e.g. infecting the MBR with malware that hooks the boot process and loads the infected driver before KMCSP is in effect.
Even if you don't need >4GB memory...even if you don't need 64-bit application support...the KMCSP is a Good Thing that makes infecting your system much more difficult.
I agree that there are two types of cheating, and I also agree with the broad outlines that you've drawn. However, I see things a bit differently, as I'm one of the people who actively creates hacks for the games I play. Here are the two types of cheaters that I see.
1) The "white hat" cheater. This is the gamer who would usually cheat at single player or LAN games. This gamer wants to have fun, and cheats enable gamers to calibrate the difficulty of their games to their own taste, "tuning the engine" for maximum efficiency of fun.
2) The "black hat" cheater. This is the gamer who derives pleasure from ruining the experience of other people. They are griefers and their idea of "fun" is pissing people off.
I'm in the first category. I play a LOT of L4D2 (500-ish hours in about 15 months). I don't think I could have played this game for so long if I had to deal with the bugs and the glitches and the design decisions that I don't agree with (the "itches"). Pretty much every game has itches, but what makes L4D2 unique for me is the ability to download a server for free, and the capability to modify the game engine with plugins so that I can scratch those itches.
So I run my own private server, and I can play with friends and they know that my server has been extremely modded. And from some perspective, what I am doing is tantamount to cheating (some of the commands, in fact, begin with "sm_cheat"). But I don't care, because I'm still having fun playing this game after hundreds of hours (total cost so far: 1 cent per hour). And if people join my server and have a problem with it they are free to leave. But for the friends who play on my server with me, are they cheaters?
Ahh, that's why he intentionally wanted it to be delivered into the public domain, instead of selling it to US enemies. Because he wanted to hurt the US. >.>
Like when he was told to investigate some Iraqis who were arrested by the Iraqi police, and after investigation determined that the "crime" committed was a scholarly critique of the Iraqi PM titled "where did the money go?", told his commanding officer about it, and his commanding officer told him "STFU and help the Iraqi police detain more Iraqis". When your CO tells you to piss off, what do you do? "Oh well, they're just innocent people being imprisoned, fuck 'em"? >.>
What possible whistle is being blown when he releases the Collateral Murder video? What possible whistle is being blown when he releases cables that detail the extravagant lifestyle of the former ruler of Tunisia?
Whoever improperly classified the documents is an enemy of the citizens of the United States and in fact world peace, by virtue of enabling such travesties as Tunisia to continue unabated. And yet there is no prosecution for those who improperly classify documents.
For that matter, NONE of what Manning allegedly leaked was Top Secret; zip, zilch, nada. What happens when the President has actual Top Secret material leaked to the press (e.g. bin Laden raid details)? That leaker should be punished just the same (or worse) as the leaker of the cables, because the information had not been declassified yet. The President does not have carte blanche to leak material that is still classified, it must first be declassified.
By taking down content, it proves that they are actively scanning such content.
Safe harbor relies on them not knowing about infringing content. i.e. if they are scanning content, then they ought to recognize infringement. Hence the "mere conduit" - if there is anything more than an automated system for handling the user content, then they are choosing to be responsible for such content.
EDIT:
4) Analyze noise floor. Attempts to ramp up the noise with signal to maintain SNR would pretty obviously include ramping up the noise floor.
Perhaps a combination of approaches?
1) Analyze absolute signal power
2) Analyze SNR
3) Profile the noise. The noise at the receiver is probably not white noise; the circuits inside the drone itself likely color the noise. In fact, circuits could be designed into the drone that intentionally color the noise a certain way, and that wouldn't be detectable unless you had the circuit in hand, and the coloring circuit could be individualized per drone to further resist hacking attempts. Any effort to emulate and ramp up terrestrial noise to preserve SNR at the receiver would fail to properly account for the color of the noise.
I'm no expert on Iran, but I thought "the holocaust never happened" was more properly understood as "why should a holocaust in Europe allow the West to transplant the entire Jewish population onto lands that are currently occupied by Arabs"
Taking down content at will which does not infringe on copyright means they could lose safe harbor protections because they are no longer a mere conduit for user-generated content.
Pretend that there's an abortion doctor. You hate abortions. You start posting the doctor's personal information. You post the time she drops her kid off at school. You post pictures of her house, her car, and her family. You post the kind of security system that she has.
Creepy. Potentially deserving a restraining order of some sort. But on its face this is not necessarily illegal, especially if the information is all public or can be obtained publicly.
You post that she wears a bulletproof vest so you should aim for the head.
I believe this is illegal. Now you are suggesting specific violent acts against a specific person.
Her friends and family are on the HRO? I thought it was just her.
What the judge SHOULD have done was expand the HRO to apply to all of her family and friends.
If he wants to blog some stupid shit that's not false, I believe he should be allowed. The problem is him forwarding this blog to other people as a form of harassment.
Within the area, the head of household is under contract with the ISP to use WPA2 with a strong password.
Ah, so that's why my Verizon FIOS router straight from my ISP came pre-programmed with a WEP key...
It's not so much that the nearby frequencies need to be silent. I believe it was actually the case that those frequencies were originally licensed for low-power signals. So when the hardware engineer was designing his GPS receiver circuit, he would use the expected max power that could be licensed for that band in his calculation for determining how many -dB/Octave his filter needs. Now LS comes in and wants to relicense that spectrum for signals of many orders of magnitude more power; the circuits were simply not designed to handle this because such signals were illegal at the time of manufacture.
It's not the hardware engineer's fault that the adjacent bands were "zoned" to be residential and now LS wants to come in and build an airport.
You mean like the SD card that plugs into the front of the Wii?
LOL, for what it's worth, most of my salary comes from small business research grants. But I still don't see what you're trying to get at. I'm not the salesman, because I can't tell people they need something when they don't.
I actually worked at a brick-and-mortar retail store for a while, and my managers hated me, because even though I had a great deal of knowledge about all of the products, I would only ever sell the customer exactly what they asked me for nothing more. My hours were eventually reduced to one day per week, in effect forcing me to quit as there was no way I could make what I needed to make.
Perhaps you're claiming that my soul is compromised anyway, because I might collect paychecks that are somehow derived from soul-less sales associates? That still seems like a red herring, though. My job is to make things that people might want. Sales' job is to get those products into customers' hands. And I don't care if someone in sales makes more than me, because I don't have to treat people like they aren't human beings in order to do my job.
Oh come on, you know what I meant.
A good salesman has no concern for your wants or needs. His only concern is convincing you that you need something which he has for sale, often something that you never even knew you "needed" before the salesman began talking to you. They exploit weaknesses of the human condition in order to benefit themselves.
That is quite different from my paycheck. My employer has a need, and had that need before I was hired. I do not exploit my employer's weaknesses to convince them that they need to pay me.
If sales is so easy why don't you do it? The answer to that question is the reason why he makes more than you.
Because I have a soul that I'm not willing to compromise in order to treat other human beings as a source of revenue?
Don't get me wrong, I have a long-term monogamous partner and we never use condoms anymore, so I always get that last 10% of enjoyment. Sex is without a doubt better when there is no condom. But if I wasn't long-term and monogamous, I would rather lose 10% of the pleasure to ensure that I don't get a disease.
That said, my point was that there is so much focus on "penis in vagina" that it seems like that's all there is to sex, for some people. To me, penis in vagina is about maybe 30% of sex (hence, the condom reduces raw sexual pleasure by a third). The other 70% involves other body parts and different acts and even the clothes that she's wearing and role playing and bondage and sex toys and so on.
condoms substantially reduce the pleasure men feel while having sex (and I even know some women who do not like the feeling of a condom).
I never understood why so many people believe this. Sex is so much more than "penis in vagina"; there's a lot more to kiss, touch, grope, and caress. With a condom it's like 90% as good as without a condom. 90% of awesome is still pretty awesome.
Damn, you seem to be a smart mother fucker.
I'm curious though. In your example, you kill the gene therapy with antibiotics, like a permanent off switch.
Would it be possible to create gene therapy that is only active in the presence of some external chemical? Forgive my bad example, but could you make it so the gene therapy only activates in the presence of, say, aspirin? That way, after the gene therapy nothing happens, but once you begin an aspirin regimen it would activate, and if there was some allergic reaction you could just stop taking aspirin. Aspirin may be a bad choice for a variety of reasons, but any chemical not normally present in the human body should work, as long as it gets into all the cells...right?
One day, I was browsing Google Image Search, looking to identify an ambiguous connector. (it ended up being a connector from JST)
Suddenly, I'm greeted with a UAC prompt. Having done nothing to instigate a UAC prompt, I immediately killed firefox. Nonetheless, there was a rogue process on my machine that was attempting to gain root access by desperately popping up anti-virus messages. Being an intelligent user, I discovered what process was responsible and promptly killed and deleted the offending binary from my machine.
I never even clicked anything.
Thanks, I'm well aware that TIFF is not lossy and JPEG is.
Still has absolutely nothing to do with my reply to OP.
One more time...
OP asked if lossy conversions could interfere with this technique. I pointed out that lossy conversions leave tell-tale signs that can be detected.
re-read OP. He was asking if lossy format conversions could fool this technique. I was pointing out that lossy format conversion actually assists with detecting photoshop jobs.
Actually, conversion is one method of detecting photoshop changes. It's called Image Error Level Analysis.
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/
The gist is that every time you save an e.g. JPEG, the quality will get worse. However, the worsening of quality decreases each time it is saved, eventually asymptotically approaching the worst level. Therefore, if you're working on a photoshopped picture, each time you save it the quality of the various parts of the photo will decrease by different amounts. This can be used to identify which pieces of the photo have been modified more recently than others, since they will have a different error level than the pieces that were modified first.
Can I point you at one?
No.
Does this create a potential market for such a business?
Yes!