Actually, reading the manual and help system is NOT "mad computer skillzz", it's common fucking sense and if you don't have the ability or wherewithal to bother to do that I'd say it reflects pretty badly on your intelligence.
I have been using noscript http://noscript.net/ for years. Paste from thier page, ---------------------- The NoScript Firefox extension provides extra protection for Firefox, Seamonkey and other mozilla-based browsers: this free, open source add-on allows JavaScript, Java and Flash and other plugins to be executed only by trusted web sites of your choice (e.g. your online bank), and provides the most powerful Anti-XSS protection available in a browser.
NoScript's unique whitelist based pre-emptive script blocking approach prevents exploitation of security vulnerabilities (known and even not known yet!) with no loss of functionality...
You can enable JavaScript, Java and plugin execution for sites you trust with a simple left-click on the NoScript status bar icon (look at the picture), or using the contextual menu, for easier operation in popup statusbar-less windows. ----------------------
I have always thought that a white list approach was the best for anything as powerful as java & javascript, either one is essentially running someone else's unknown programs on your machine there may be a "sandbox" now but I really don't know how secure that is either
------------------- Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures
While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.
Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:
The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.
On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.
As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.
The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances ar
First off it shows a STUNNING lack of of any sort of thought on the part of the people in charge of security and system design, connecting ANY command and control system of any kind to the real internet is something that should never, ever, be done, peroid.
I don't care HOW convenient it is or how useful it is, it's painting a giant soft target on your system and anyone who does it should be fired.
Furthermore, anyone who takes a usb stick or other media and plugs it into a secure C&C system needs to be fired also, as a matter of fact such systems should probably be designed with little to no access to external media and any actually required access points should be as secured as possible.
As far as the systems go, designing a system in such a way that it is possible for software to actually destroy or even damage hardware is just fucking lazy, hardware should be (and traditionally is) designed to not exceed it's limits.
And yes, you can make the argument that a motherboard can be set to overclock till it destroys the CPU, but that's not a supposedly secure command & control system now is it? Those are different things for a reason.
Using your real identity anywhere on the internet for any reason is just begging for complications.
Frankly, I think it's stupid, I've never done it and I won't ever do it. hell, I don't even associate my profiles between the different websites I visit digg dosen't need to know that i'm bob on slashdot and ralph on stumble and neither does any other site. If I want a friend to know I tell them myself
Then how do sd cards handle the write protect switch they have and by the way, all my sd to usb adapters handle the write protect switch just fine (so there's your protected media) It's obviously not impossible or not done before, I even have an old 128m pny stick with a wp switch built right in.
We have gps guided missiles that can hit the window in a building from 70 miles (or more) away and someone dosen't think that if there WAS something that presented a risk of exposure that that wreckage wouldn't have been blown to literal flinders shortly after the strike force took off? Really?
Garry's mod has spawned at least three different games with very different gameplay from regular HL/CS, a find the spy before he kills you type game, racing games some where you build the track first Co-op building is fun too.
I don't think the sun would notice if we threw the entire planet in to it, From that page "the radius of the Sun is about 109 times that of the Earth, which implies that the volume of the Sun would hold approximately 1.3 million Earths"
Slashdot Mirror
It dosen't disturb anyone that an mp3 can be used to crash this thing and run arbitrary code on it?
It seems like the fact that everyone "knows" that mp3's are safe and can not give you a virus is not at all true for this device.
Do you have any idea how far away these "possible threats" actually are?
Really, it's a serious question.
Actually, reading the manual and help system is NOT "mad computer skillzz", it's common fucking sense and if you don't have the ability or wherewithal to bother to do that I'd say it reflects pretty badly on your intelligence.
Ok, that actually made me laugh out loud, then I had to try to explain notes to my wife.
I have been using noscript http://noscript.net/ for years. Paste from thier page,
----------------------
The NoScript Firefox extension provides extra protection for Firefox, Seamonkey and other mozilla-based browsers: this free, open source add-on allows JavaScript, Java and Flash and other plugins to be executed only by trusted web sites of your choice (e.g. your online bank), and provides the most powerful Anti-XSS protection available in a browser.
NoScript's unique whitelist based pre-emptive script blocking approach prevents exploitation of security vulnerabilities (known and even not known yet!) with no loss of functionality...
You can enable JavaScript, Java and plugin execution for sites you trust with a simple left-click on the NoScript status bar icon (look at the picture), or using the contextual menu, for easier operation in popup statusbar-less windows.
----------------------
I have always thought that a white list approach was the best for anything as powerful as java & javascript, either one is essentially running someone else's unknown programs on your machine there may be a "sandbox" now but I really don't know how secure that is either
You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.
Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80
From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml
-------------------
Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures
While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.
Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:
The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.
On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.
As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.
The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances ar
"In my 30+ years in the computer industry,"
You sir are not a part of the set titled "the unwashed masses"
SHHHH!
What the wifi-allergic don't know, literally wont hurt them! Leave them believe they are happy and safe and they will be.
It's called the dancing bunnies problem
http://www.google.com/search?q=dancing+bunnies+problem
First off it shows a STUNNING lack of of any sort of thought on the part of the people in charge of security and system design, connecting ANY command and control system of any kind to the real internet is something that should never, ever, be done, peroid.
I don't care HOW convenient it is or how useful it is, it's painting a giant soft target on your system and anyone who does it should be fired.
Furthermore, anyone who takes a usb stick or other media and plugs it into a secure C&C system needs to be fired also, as a matter of fact such systems should probably be designed with little to no access to external media and any actually required access points should be as secured as possible.
As far as the systems go, designing a system in such a way that it is possible for software to actually destroy or even damage hardware is just fucking lazy, hardware should be (and traditionally is) designed to not exceed it's limits.
And yes, you can make the argument that a motherboard can be set to overclock till it destroys the CPU, but that's not a supposedly secure command & control system now is it? Those are different things for a reason.
If that gets implemented anyone can pretty much get anyone they want banned from email.
a single email from 200 or 300 of the machines in a botnet could get you banned in an instant and the mail-cops would never figure it out.
And before you say it will stop the botnets, they would just get bigger and post fewer emails per zombie so it wouldn't affect them either.
umm,
What makes you think that the publisher gets a cut of in-game sales?
How about a don't show me posts from this IP address option? Don't tell me what it is, just don't show me its posts.
fuck, if only I had mod points!
Using your real identity anywhere on the internet for any reason is just begging for complications.
Frankly, I think it's stupid, I've never done it and I won't ever do it. hell, I don't even associate my profiles between the different websites I visit
digg dosen't need to know that i'm bob on slashdot and ralph on stumble and neither does any other site.
If I want a friend to know I tell them myself
it's like a new age swatting!
Not so long as tape or towels exist it won't.
Then how do sd cards handle the write protect switch they have and by the way, all my sd to usb adapters handle the write protect switch just fine (so there's your protected media)
It's obviously not impossible or not done before, I even have an old 128m pny stick with a wp switch built right in.
We have gps guided missiles that can hit the window in a building from 70 miles (or more) away and someone dosen't think that if there WAS something that presented a risk of exposure that that wreckage wouldn't have been blown to literal flinders shortly after the strike force took off? Really?
Mono is the worst thing that I have ever had to deal with on linux, hands down, ever.
My only concern now is that a project I have clients depending on (iFolder) uses mono (and it's pretty damn brittle because of it).
Time to start researching alternatives.
Garry's mod has spawned at least three different games with very different gameplay from regular HL/CS, a find the spy before he kills you type game, racing games some where you build the track first Co-op building is fun too.
Just like the internet was a fad and CD-ROMS were the wave of the future right?
Hmm,
here's a graphic with the sun and planets drawn to scale, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/interior.html
I don't think the sun would notice if we threw the entire planet in to it, From that page
"the radius of the Sun is about 109 times that of the Earth, which implies that the volume of the Sun would hold approximately 1.3 million Earths"
So you'd rather they spent their time on /. ?
Are you entirely deranged?
And his number of posts has exactly what to do with the question at hand?
Seriously, Either find something valid to criticize or keep your yap shut. Don't make yourself look foolish over trivia.