He has certainly helped China to boost it's defenses.
I think there is a strong case to be made that just the opposite would occur. By moving away from Cisco the NSA may very well find it easier to compromise more Chinese infrastructure.
It turns out you don't need backdoor conspiracies to have a little fun with Chinese telcom gear.
As if there have never been expliots allowing the guest to compromise its host. Even booting a live CD on metal you run risk of rouge software overwriting firmware of the system or any number of subsystems. Spinning platters are not much different than spinning centrifuges when you think about it.
I don't mean to defend the program, but what makes you so certain it does not (and cannot) detect terrorist plots? That would be the stated purpose, anyway, and when a plot is detected and pre-empted,
Who cares if it stops a few "terrorists"? normal criminals have proven to be just as capable of killing people and in far far greater and predictable numbers than any terrorist boogieman your state can conjur to scare you into submission.
they wouldn't publicize how they did it, as doing so would give other terrorists information on how to avoid detection.
Law enforcement often gets on TV and brags about how they were able to defeat threats. Entire documentary series give away LEA tactics and methods tought with no classification attached.
When criminals are arrested and tried in courts everything about the case is not kept secret to prevent tactics and methods from being erroded are they? Couldn't criminals use knowledge of "the system" to defeat it so shouldn't everything be secret?
Binary thinking is an oversimplification -- it's perfectly possible for a program to be both an Orwellian privacy nightmare AND an effective tool for catching terrorists.
Meanwhile all the time those billions are being shovled into the military industrial boiler real crimes are being committed and real people are being killed. The binary thinking occurs when you fail to consider the opportunity cost of having a terrorism freakout.
you know, I'm really upset and concerned about spying on me because I feel it violates my 4th amendment rights and is a slippery slope, but I'm relatively indifferent to spying on foreigners.
What if you take a tripod with a camera screwed into the top and fold all of the legs together, add a little bit of duct tape to construct a walking stick. Would you have to pay royalities to google for using their "invention"?
If I put the same components in a pogo stick or bowling ball do I deserve a patent for that too?
UPDATE: Vodafone has told TechWeek why it believes its users are safe: âoeThe embedded configuration that is applied for our iOS devices â1WiFiVodafone1xâ(TM) and âAuto-BTWiFiâ(TM) are locked to âEAP-SIMâ(TM) authentication which is a bi-directional authentication protocol.
Other news articles cite that he demanded the Washington Post and The Guardian publish the whole thing.
At this point Snowden should have been implementing a plan to publish the whole document.
I have been trying to understand this because if you listen to Greenwalds reporting especially his Q&A with Chris Hayes the two accounts appear to be are irreconcilable.
Snowden either has a multiple personality disorder, Glenn Greenwald or the washington post is lying.
Greenwald said that Snowden limited the data he pulled and instructed Greenwald to think carefully and not to publish anything he thought might hurt national security.
How do you go from demanding publication in full from one reporter to a much more measured position with another?
1. I don't understand why XSS and Injection are listed as separate items. XSS attacks are by definition injection attacks. I think separating this out de-emphasizes an important conceptual understanding applicable to a lot more domains than databases and html. To their credit they say as much.
Referer checking should not have been kept out of the mitigation section for CSRF.
"Using components with known vulnerabilities" (A9) appears to be a subset of "Security misconfiguration" (A5)
The Detectibility scale is screwed up in my opinion. Every single item is either average or easy except Difficult designation of 'Using components with known vulnerabilities' (A9)... How hard can it be to check current versions of libraries your system is using? What makes A5 easy and A9 hard?
"Sensitive data exposure" (A6) I don't think belongs in the list. It is a political item... yea encrypting sounds good but at some point you need to store a decryption key to decrypt what is encrypted - management of keys and physical systems security and infrastructure is important but I'm not sure it fits within the context of the other items which are about preventing specific attacks not about how to make being owned less bad.
What I think is missing is focus on huge problem of tricking users via phishing / "homographic" attacks. First and foremost the whole concept of typing a password into a web form to login is fundementally fucked up. Its right up there with fake padlock icons displayed on web sites and "two-factor" banking site picturegram logins. The industry needs to fix this shit because they are making things worse by manipulating their users into thinking they are safe with totally irrelevant security assertions which phishers are more than happy to leverage to maximum effect.
Users should be trained to ONLY type passwords into special dialouges within their browsers. We deseperatly need a web authentication scheme with channel bindings that don't suck ass (e.g. sent in clear or offline brute force attacks). The closest thing to deployed that fits the bill I know of is TLS-SRP.
Every month like clockwork 1300 people are killed in this country. No "terror" fearing talking heads seem to give two shits about that.
A 9/11 every 3 months and still endless shit about us being "less safe" cuz of something that happened 12 years ago.
The actual tragedy are politicians who waste countless billions on militiary industrial complex with statistically irrelevant results while that money stands a much better chance of saving real lives if used for other purposes...assuming that is actually what they care soo much about.
Heck you can save lives to unecessary car accidents and save money in the process just by reigning in the TSA.
I heard on the news that Saddam Hussain was working with the terrorists. Year after year our officials make shit up and lie to us, start wars based on knowingly dubious and false information and none of them go to jail not a single goddamn one of them. Sell weapons to Iranians to raise money to fight wars in Nicaragua and everyone gets pardoned. Lie after lie, abuse after abuse, secret courts, secret laws.
The government does not deserve our trust. No government on earth deserves the trust of its people.
Having watched the cybersecurity senate hearing earlier today some amusing highlights.
Senator asks what law permits collection of everyones phone records without any suspicion... Answer our secret interpretation of law is classified.
Senator sounds defcon 1 citing hundreds of thousands of "cyber attacks" against the US government systems every hour.
Boston mentioned in context of justification for a program.
Head of NSA says we collect all data so that we can reference it later if we need to...there is no other way to do it.. Like telcoms don't retain CDRs for years and couldn't provide them to a spooky TLA with a proper warrant.
We are less safe because our elected officials fail us.
There's a little more to it than that. It actually says they define all military age males in a strike zone as militants, which is a little bit different.
"little more" no exaggeration.
Yes, it's very brutal, but I still think it's too early to tell whether the drone strikes are a policy that works.
When you say "policy that works" would you mind enumerating what this means?
But whether or not it minimizes civilian casualties compared to carpet-bombing followed by an all-out invasion still remains to be determined
Or glass parking lots even.. Did you know that tanks have more firepower and can kill more people than squirt guns?
When James R Clapper opens his mouth I have no reason to believe or trust anything he says. He lied in testimony in front of congress and he won't even say what is wrong about the reports because "classified".
When technology companies like Microsoft tell us they safeguard our data or don't put backdoors into their shit and then lie about participation in spying programs are paying customers expected to do something other than switch to linux?
What about their foreign customers how are they supposed to trust an american company with perception of an out of control lawless state?
Secret interpretation of law is corrosive to state legitimacy. Which translates to non-academic consequences in the real world.
Foreign companies will think twice (US = next Huawei) before trusting US based firms for anything. People will increase their use of information security technology and the result will be negative effects on actual lawful non-puppet judge issued warrants.
Aggregation of power always leads to corruption. They are inseparable laws of human nature.
The critical factor for IPv4 exhaustion was the lack of "/24" addres spaces for businesses and buildings.
Keyword "was" due to registry pressure and documentation requirements. Runout is quite different. Runout will occur within the next year in the US.
This has been impressively ameliorated by the use of NAT, which shares numerous intenral and protected IP addresses behind a single or pair of public addresses and should be the _default_ configuraiton in most businesses and organizaitons, simply to reduce the constant external vulnerability scanning of any host directly connected to the Internet.
SPI is more secure than NAT. Lack of disambiguating context within ALGs leads to increased complexity and remotely exploitable assumptions.
They _do no tneed_ a different IP address for their email server, their FTP server, their web server, their phone server, their chat server, and their IRC server. The services are being easily funneled through a single exposed router or firewall, far more efficiently than before.
What does this matter when there are not enough IPv4 resources to go around? Lets assume for a moment each person can live with a single IPv4 address for all of their shit.. There are still more people than IPv4 addresses.
The result has been that the great need for IPv6 simply has not yet occurred, and is unlikely to occur for another 10 years.
Its called planning ahead. In business this is how you get ahead.
The foundation of the need for IPv6 is basically that of ubiquitous comuputing: the idea that every single device scattered around the home or around the workplace will have its own IP
The great need is in doing what is necessary to continue to make sure the Internet remains a network of peers. Nobody cares about IPv6 poster stickers expelling the virtues of slapping numbers on toasters and lightbulbs.
address for remote communications, and they _should not have_ public IP addresses. Providing public, routable IP addresses puts them at risk of attack at all times
You confuse public addressibility with public reachability. SPI is more secure than NAT.
putting them in the unroutable, easily tracked and maintained IPv4 address space handles almost all internal network needs quie effectively and is a signigicant security advantage and eases scanning and tracking of local resources
Dependance on one to many NAT associations is a security disadvantage.
What constructive actions can be taken, and how can the people be encouraged to support these actions?
You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you know to do the same.
My one idea: If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office.
If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.
(And no, replies of "you won't accomplish anything because of this reason" are not constructive.)
A second track is to offer technical solutions to deny or imede government access to our private information.
Either way consensus building is critically important to a successful outcome.
See Rolling Code for why you are under the wrong impression. There might be a recent vulnerability, but for the vast extent of their history these kinds of systems have been safe against amateur tactics like simple radio tricks, and if there is a "Backdoor" code it has been a pretty well guarded secret.
Simple radio tricks can still work quite easily with rolling codes. Consider the following scenario:
1. Jamming signal/recorder applied to victim arrival area.
2. Victim arrives using key fob to open doors. Jaming signal prevents automatic door open or close from registering. Victim opens and closes doors manually before walking off to their destination.
3. Attacker subtracts recorded fob signal from jamming signal and recovers unused open command.
4. Attacker replays unused command while vicitim is away.
This is nonsense. It's true that HTTP 1.1 is a bit resource starved (PATCH, and arguably MOVE and COPY, should be included as well), but you can express a huge range of behaviors using just the standard GET/POST/PUT/DELETE verbs as long as you design your application as a state machine,
This is where academia and reality depart. Design your own state machine? Seriously? No thanks I'll pass. This is a great way to unecessarily increase implementation complexity and maximize round trip delay.
If I want to project a layer of dataset in a different datum what do you suggest I do? GET it, project it myself and PUT the result into a new resource on the server? Or better still COPY and then "PATCH" it? Not going to happen. What if I want my transform to be a view and not a separate resource?
If I want to tell the server to perform a domain specific verb I should be able to do so. Telling me to shoehorn a custom transform into a bunch of CRUD operations for purely semantical reasons is what is nonsense.
where behaviors are automatically triggered upon particular state changes instead of in response to explicit custom messages. That's the whole point of HTTP/REST: it's a state-centric, not message-centric, interaction model.
Again this only works in the real world for trivial cases and turns to shit otherwise. HTTP is a simple as shit protocol for serving up web content. There are no usable concurrency, transaction semantics, no usable bulk operations or established contexts. It is way too simple for effective machine to machine communications. In otherwords it lacks the necessary infustructure to be used for anything but "message passing".
This is essentially the same SOA shit all over again. All great obvious ideas but using HTTP to implement them turns them to shit.
The problem is that most OO-trained developers today can't think outside the message-passing box, so instead of using HTTP how it's meant to be used (i.e. RESTfully) they constantly fight against it, then blame it for 'sucking' when it's not the one at fault.
What does one win when they implement REST "properly" using HTTP? A clusterfuck of state machines? I'm tired of people playing semantical games or saying you should do this or do that without explaining why. The only justification for REST I have ever seen is horiztonal integration which sure as heck aint happening anywhere in any meaningful way.
This encapsulates my hatred for "RESTful" APIs. In the real world the "everything is an object" hierarchy breaks down you often find yourself wanting to address shit that does not fall into a simple hierarchical scheme. This leads to ridiculous API specifications with no possibility of pratical horizontal reuse...which is the whole point of REST.
The whole/object and/object/{id} paradigm is missing. And that's just about GET.
The other classic reason REST fails is constraining verbs to the use of available HTTP verbs... No really WTF? This is wholly insufficient to address anything but non trivial 'CRUD' use and does not lend itself to any meaningful level of reuse as definitions are streched to encapsulate a handful of static verbs...so normally someone will just add a modifier to a URL to bypass the whole issue.
And that's just about GET. Regardless 800-lbs gorilla arguments against this "standard," I'd be more inclined to
Another problem with RESTful APIs is the reuse of HTTP status codes to convey operational status is misguided and dangerous. There are any number of middleboxes and even unrelated layers in the HTTP stack that can generate overlapping responses. Hey I got an XXX error from this web service so I will do y... but really that error was caused by something totally unrelated in the server stack while it was initializing.
reject it due to its lack of adherence to standards.
REST is an *IDEA* it is **NOT** a standard. When implemented using HTTP it ususally amounts to a shitty implementation of an otherwise reasonable idea.
With all the surveillance going on, emails of journalists being read, that big database in Utah, and ex CIA men telling you everything you do is logged, 6 month old emails considered fair game, SWIFT data being selectively leaked by the US etc. etc. etc., I quite like being behind my ISP's big NAT server.
IP6 would remove any anonymity NAT gives me, and I'm not really sure I'll gain any benefit from it.
Email problems can be alleviated by more companies and people being responsible for their own systems again instead of using gmail and placing too much trust in third parties.
If ad companies have no problem tracking individual systems behind nats using a number of technologies.. cookies, environment fingerprinting, cache fingerprinting, dns fingerprinting, flash cookies...etc I'm less certain of realizable practical benefits.
Finally my understanding with CGN deployment there are mapping protocols which allocate determinstic blocks of source ports to each user such that when you connect to a remote site even though the IP Address is the same your source port is always within a range that uniquely identifies you anyway.
I'm not saying there are not advantages to ducking behind a NAT or you don't have a point but I think if you take the longer view and weigh the cost/benefits to freedom that comes with possibility of restoring the Internet to a network of peers then it becomes possible for people to bypass central systems and communicate directly which far outweighs any negative component.
Slashdot Mirror
He has certainly helped China to boost it's defenses.
I think there is a strong case to be made that just the opposite would occur. By moving away from Cisco the NSA may very well find it easier to compromise more Chinese infrastructure.
It turns out you don't need backdoor conspiracies to have a little fun with Chinese telcom gear.
http://phenoelit.org/stuff/Huawei_DEFCON_XX.pdf
Not if you did it in a VM running a LiveCD...
As if there have never been expliots allowing the guest to compromise its host. Even booting a live CD on metal you run risk of rouge software overwriting firmware of the system or any number of subsystems. Spinning platters are not much different than spinning centrifuges when you think about it.
I don't mean to defend the program, but what makes you so certain it does not (and cannot) detect terrorist plots? That would be the stated purpose, anyway, and when a plot is detected and pre-empted,
Who cares if it stops a few "terrorists"? normal criminals have proven to be just as capable of killing people and in far far greater and predictable numbers than any terrorist boogieman your state can conjur to scare you into submission.
they wouldn't publicize how they did it, as doing so would give other terrorists information on how to avoid detection.
Law enforcement often gets on TV and brags about how they were able to defeat threats. Entire documentary series give away LEA tactics and methods tought with no classification attached.
When criminals are arrested and tried in courts everything about the case is not kept secret to prevent tactics and methods from being erroded are they? Couldn't criminals use knowledge of "the system" to defeat it so shouldn't everything be secret?
Binary thinking is an oversimplification -- it's perfectly possible for a program to be both an Orwellian privacy nightmare AND an effective tool for catching terrorists.
Meanwhile all the time those billions are being shovled into the military industrial boiler real crimes are being committed and real people are being killed. The binary thinking occurs when you fail to consider the opportunity cost of having a terrorism freakout.
you know, I'm really upset and concerned about spying on me because I feel it violates my 4th amendment rights and is a slippery slope, but I'm relatively indifferent to spying on foreigners.
This is because your a hypocrite.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
What difference does it make?
Do you think your smart enough to detect tampering by reading source code?
To detect tampering run strings on the binary and pipe it to grep. If the following string appears 1.3.6.1.4.1.981 you are fucked.
What if you take a tripod with a camera screwed into the top and fold all of the legs together, add a little bit of duct tape to construct a walking stick. Would you have to pay royalities to google for using their "invention"?
If I put the same components in a pogo stick or bowling ball do I deserve a patent for that too?
"I wish to assert my 5th amendment privledge"
"I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me"
"I invoke my 5th amendment privilege"
Don't just pick one - switch it up a little during questioning so you don't sound like such a broken record.
You're an idiot if you're complaining about this.
I'm an idiot.
From the mid-90s into the late 2000's there was concern that the "traditional" methods of activation would be come less and less effective.
Denial of end-user to disable messaging they do not wish to receive is my problem with this scheme.
UPDATE: Vodafone has told TechWeek why it believes its users are safe: âoeThe embedded configuration that is applied for our iOS devices â1WiFiVodafone1xâ(TM) and âAuto-BTWiFiâ(TM) are locked to âEAP-SIMâ(TM) authentication which is a bi-directional authentication protocol.
EAP-SIM is broken.
Other news articles cite that he demanded the Washington Post and The Guardian publish the whole thing.
At this point Snowden should have been implementing a plan to publish the whole document.
I have been trying to understand this because if you listen to Greenwalds reporting especially his Q&A with Chris Hayes the two accounts appear to be are irreconcilable.
Snowden either has a multiple personality disorder, Glenn Greenwald or the washington post is lying.
Greenwald said that Snowden limited the data he pulled and instructed Greenwald to think carefully and not to publish anything he thought might hurt national security.
How do you go from demanding publication in full from one reporter to a much more measured position with another?
1. I don't understand why XSS and Injection are listed as separate items. XSS attacks are by definition injection attacks. I think separating this out de-emphasizes an important conceptual understanding applicable to a lot more domains than databases and html. To their credit they say as much.
Referer checking should not have been kept out of the mitigation section for CSRF.
"Using components with known vulnerabilities" (A9) appears to be a subset of "Security misconfiguration" (A5)
The Detectibility scale is screwed up in my opinion. Every single item is either average or easy except Difficult designation of 'Using components with known vulnerabilities' (A9)... How hard can it be to check current versions of libraries your system is using? What makes A5 easy and A9 hard?
"Sensitive data exposure" (A6) I don't think belongs in the list. It is a political item... yea encrypting sounds good but at some point you need to store a decryption key to decrypt what is encrypted - management of keys and physical systems security and infrastructure is important but I'm not sure it fits within the context of the other items which are about preventing specific attacks not about how to make being owned less bad.
What I think is missing is focus on huge problem of tricking users via phishing / "homographic" attacks. First and foremost the whole concept of typing a password into a web form to login is fundementally fucked up. Its right up there with fake padlock icons displayed on web sites and "two-factor" banking site picturegram logins. The industry needs to fix this shit because they are making things worse by manipulating their users into thinking they are safe with totally irrelevant security assertions which phishers are more than happy to leverage to maximum effect.
Users should be trained to ONLY type passwords into special dialouges within their browsers. We deseperatly need a web authentication scheme with channel bindings that don't suck ass (e.g. sent in clear or offline brute force attacks). The closest thing to deployed that fits the bill I know of is TLS-SRP.
Every month like clockwork 1300 people are killed in this country. No "terror" fearing talking heads seem to give two shits about that.
A 9/11 every 3 months and still endless shit about us being "less safe" cuz of something that happened 12 years ago.
The actual tragedy are politicians who waste countless billions on militiary industrial complex with statistically irrelevant results while that money stands a much better chance of saving real lives if used for other purposes...assuming that is actually what they care soo much about.
Heck you can save lives to unecessary car accidents and save money in the process just by reigning in the TSA.
I heard on the news that Saddam Hussain was working with the terrorists. Year after year our officials make shit up and lie to us, start wars based on knowingly dubious and false information and none of them go to jail not a single goddamn one of them. Sell weapons to Iranians to raise money to fight wars in Nicaragua and everyone gets pardoned. Lie after lie, abuse after abuse, secret courts, secret laws.
The government does not deserve our trust. No government on earth deserves the trust of its people.
Having watched the cybersecurity senate hearing earlier today some amusing highlights.
Senator asks what law permits collection of everyones phone records without any suspicion... Answer our secret interpretation of law is classified.
Senator sounds defcon 1 citing hundreds of thousands of "cyber attacks" against the US government systems every hour.
Boston mentioned in context of justification for a program.
Head of NSA says we collect all data so that we can reference it later if we need to...there is no other way to do it.. Like telcoms don't retain CDRs for years and couldn't provide them to a spooky TLA with a proper warrant.
We are less safe because our elected officials fail us.
Clapping as Mr Clapper hauled off to jail for repeated lies and contempt for congress.
There's a little more to it than that. It actually says they define all military age males in a strike zone as militants, which is a little bit different.
"little more" no exaggeration.
Yes, it's very brutal, but I still think it's too early to tell whether the drone strikes are a policy that works.
When you say "policy that works" would you mind enumerating what this means?
But whether or not it minimizes civilian casualties compared to carpet-bombing followed by an all-out invasion still remains to be determined
Or glass parking lots even.. Did you know that tanks have more firepower and can kill more people than squirt guns?
When James R Clapper opens his mouth I have no reason to believe or trust anything he says. He lied in testimony in front of congress and he won't even say what is wrong about the reports because "classified".
When technology companies like Microsoft tell us they safeguard our data or don't put backdoors into their shit and then lie about participation in spying programs are paying customers expected to do something other than switch to linux?
What about their foreign customers how are they supposed to trust an american company with perception of an out of control lawless state?
Secret interpretation of law is corrosive to state legitimacy. Which translates to non-academic consequences in the real world.
Foreign companies will think twice (US = next Huawei) before trusting US based firms for anything. People will increase their use of information security technology and the result will be negative effects on actual lawful non-puppet judge issued warrants.
Aggregation of power always leads to corruption. They are inseparable laws of human nature.
The critical factor for IPv4 exhaustion was the lack of "/24" addres spaces for businesses and buildings.
Keyword "was" due to registry pressure and documentation requirements. Runout is quite different. Runout will occur within the next year in the US.
This has been impressively ameliorated by the use of NAT, which shares numerous intenral and protected IP addresses behind a single or pair of public addresses and should be the _default_ configuraiton in most businesses and organizaitons, simply to reduce the constant external vulnerability scanning of any host directly connected to the Internet.
SPI is more secure than NAT. Lack of disambiguating context within ALGs leads to increased complexity and remotely exploitable assumptions.
They _do no tneed_ a different IP address for their email server, their FTP server, their web server, their phone server, their chat server, and their IRC server. The services are being easily funneled through a single exposed router or firewall, far more efficiently than before.
What does this matter when there are not enough IPv4 resources to go around? Lets assume for a moment each person can live with a single IPv4 address for all of their shit.. There are still more people than IPv4 addresses.
The result has been that the great need for IPv6 simply has not yet occurred, and is unlikely to occur for another 10 years.
Its called planning ahead. In business this is how you get ahead.
The foundation of the need for IPv6 is basically that of ubiquitous comuputing: the idea that every single device scattered around the home or around the workplace will have its own IP
The great need is in doing what is necessary to continue to make sure the Internet remains a network of peers. Nobody cares about IPv6 poster stickers expelling the virtues of slapping numbers on toasters and lightbulbs.
address for remote communications, and they _should not have_ public IP addresses.
Providing public, routable IP addresses puts them at risk of attack at all times
You confuse public addressibility with public reachability. SPI is more secure than NAT.
putting them in the unroutable, easily tracked and maintained IPv4 address space handles almost all internal network needs quie effectively and is a signigicant security advantage and eases scanning and tracking of local resources
Dependance on one to many NAT associations is a security disadvantage.
Once upon a time.... now if you'll excuse me I have some accounts to close and windows boxes to reformat.
What constructive actions can be taken, and how can the people be encouraged to support these actions?
You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you know to do the same.
My one idea: If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office.
If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.
(And no, replies of "you won't accomplish anything because of this reason" are not constructive.)
A second track is to offer technical solutions to deny or imede government access to our private information.
Either way consensus building is critically important to a successful outcome.
See Rolling Code for why you are under the wrong impression. There might be a recent vulnerability, but for the vast extent of their history these kinds of systems have been safe against amateur tactics like simple radio tricks, and if there is a "Backdoor" code it has been a pretty well guarded secret.
Simple radio tricks can still work quite easily with rolling codes. Consider the following scenario:
1. Jamming signal/recorder applied to victim arrival area.
2. Victim arrives using key fob to open doors. Jaming signal prevents automatic door open or close from registering. Victim opens and closes doors manually before walking off to their destination.
3. Attacker subtracts recorded fob signal from jamming signal and recovers unused open command.
4. Attacker replays unused command while vicitim is away.
This is nonsense. It's true that HTTP 1.1 is a bit resource starved (PATCH, and arguably MOVE and COPY, should be included as well), but you can express a huge range of behaviors using just the standard GET/POST/PUT/DELETE verbs as long as you design your application as a state machine,
This is where academia and reality depart. Design your own state machine? Seriously? No thanks I'll pass. This is a great way to unecessarily increase implementation complexity and maximize round trip delay.
If I want to project a layer of dataset in a different datum what do you suggest I do? GET it, project it myself and PUT the result into a new resource on the server? Or better still COPY and then "PATCH" it? Not going to happen. What if I want my transform to be a view and not a separate resource?
If I want to tell the server to perform a domain specific verb I should be able to do so. Telling me to shoehorn a custom transform into a bunch of CRUD operations for purely semantical reasons is what is nonsense.
where behaviors are automatically triggered upon particular state changes instead of in response to explicit custom messages. That's the whole point of HTTP/REST: it's a state-centric, not message-centric, interaction model.
Again this only works in the real world for trivial cases and turns to shit otherwise. HTTP is a simple as shit protocol for serving up web content. There are no usable concurrency, transaction semantics, no usable bulk operations or established contexts. It is way too simple for effective machine to machine communications. In otherwords it lacks the necessary infustructure to be used for anything but "message passing".
This is essentially the same SOA shit all over again. All great obvious ideas but using HTTP to implement them turns them to shit.
The problem is that most OO-trained developers today can't think outside the message-passing box, so instead of using HTTP how it's meant to
be used (i.e. RESTfully) they constantly fight against it, then blame it for 'sucking' when it's not the one at fault.
What does one win when they implement REST "properly" using HTTP? A clusterfuck of state machines? I'm tired of people playing semantical games or saying you should do this or do that without explaining why. The only justification for REST I have ever seen is horiztonal integration which sure as heck aint happening anywhere in any meaningful way.
In taking a quick look a the standard, it doesn't even look RESTful. For example:
http:////layers
Returns deep copies of all layers and tables as opposed to a list of IDs. Then:
http:////
Returns a deep copy of a particular layer/table.
This encapsulates my hatred for "RESTful" APIs. In the real world the "everything is an object" hierarchy breaks down you often find yourself wanting to address shit that does not fall into a simple hierarchical scheme. This leads to ridiculous API specifications with no possibility of pratical horizontal reuse...which is the whole point of REST.
The whole /object and /object/{id} paradigm is missing. And that's just about GET.
The other classic reason REST fails is constraining verbs to the use of available HTTP verbs... No really WTF? This is wholly insufficient to address anything but non trivial 'CRUD' use and does not lend itself to any meaningful level of reuse as definitions are streched to encapsulate a handful of static verbs...so normally someone will just add a modifier to a URL to bypass the whole issue.
And that's just about GET. Regardless 800-lbs gorilla arguments against this "standard," I'd be more inclined to
Another problem with RESTful APIs is the reuse of HTTP status codes to convey operational status is misguided and dangerous. There are any number of middleboxes and even unrelated layers in the HTTP stack that can generate overlapping responses. Hey I got an XXX error from this web service so I will do y... but really that error was caused by something totally unrelated in the server stack while it was initializing.
reject it due to its lack of adherence to standards.
REST is an *IDEA* it is **NOT** a standard. When implemented using HTTP it ususally amounts to a shitty implementation of an otherwise reasonable idea.
With all the surveillance going on, emails of journalists being read, that big database in Utah, and ex CIA men telling you everything you do is logged, 6 month old emails considered fair game, SWIFT data being selectively leaked by the US etc. etc. etc., I quite like being behind my ISP's big NAT server.
IP6 would remove any anonymity NAT gives me, and I'm not really sure I'll gain any benefit from it.
Email problems can be alleviated by more companies and people being responsible for their own systems again instead of using gmail and placing too much trust in third parties.
If ad companies have no problem tracking individual systems behind nats using a number of technologies.. cookies, environment fingerprinting, cache fingerprinting, dns fingerprinting, flash cookies...etc I'm less certain of realizable practical benefits.
Finally my understanding with CGN deployment there are mapping protocols which allocate determinstic blocks of source ports to each user such that when you connect to a remote site even though the IP Address is the same your source port is always within a range that uniquely identifies you anyway.
I'm not saying there are not advantages to ducking behind a NAT or you don't have a point but I think if you take the longer view and weigh the cost/benefits to freedom that comes with possibility of restoring the Internet to a network of peers then it becomes possible for people to bypass central systems and communicate directly which far outweighs any negative component.
Brings a whole new meaning to the man in the middle attack.