To the best of my knowledge, web apps are only able to communicate using http/https -- the port might change, but the HTTP protocol will still be used. Hence, a packet sniffer will show what appears to be HTTP traffic, possibly on a nonstandard port.
Actually, XOR is frequently used for encryption, and very strong ciphers can be built by XORing the plaintext with carefully chosen bits. These are known as "stream ciphers," and the idea is to use a random number generator; the secret key is the seed you give the generator. As you note, the encryption and decryption functions are the same, which is one of the advantages (another, more important advantage is that you can create provably secure stream ciphers based on standard assumptions, such as the difficulty of the RSA problem).
Perhaps if all instant messaging was being done using AJAX? Gchat, Facebook's IM feature, etc. This would not show up as "instant messaging," just more HTTP traffic, unless I am missing something.
"Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms, faster than the older generations are comfortable with."
Older generations? I do not consider myself to be part of the "older generation," having gone to elementary school in the 90s, and I am not comfortable with the effect Facebook has had on privacy.
I am not entirely sure that this counts as a bill of attainder, since the person being imprisoned had already stood trial and was found guilty. Likewise with the 5th and 6th amendments. It reeks of ex post facto law though, but in the current "think of the children we must protect them from these perverts" climate, such laws are apparently not considered to be a problem.
As I recall it, he did not really hack into anything. There was no security system in place that prevented him from gaining access, he did not have to write any sort of code, he was just browsing around a network that was supposed to be internal.
Personally, I wonder why the people who failed to secure that network, which supposedly contains sensitive information, are not on trial.
Please see the history of NLS, the mouse, and the GUI. Yes, the mouse was invented prior to the research at PARC, but the GUI -- Graphical User Interface -- was a PARC invention. No, a text mode hypertext browser does not count.
The only technology that Apple invented for those products are the cases they are enclosed in. All Apple does is spot technologies that look marketable, repackage them and slap an Apple logo on, and then it is in the hands of their admittedly brilliant marketers.
We could not have a democracy if the only people who analyzed or criticized an issue were people who had done great things with their life, or only people who were involved in whatever matter they were criticizing. I have never fought in a war, but I have no problem criticizing soldiers who torture prisoners. I am not a banker, but I still criticize what the tactics banks employed during the 90s; likewise, I am not a congressman, but I still criticize congress for encouraging the banks.
Why should Apple be any different? So Tate never created an Earth shattering product; why does that mean that he cannot criticize Apple for its practices and tactics? His points are relevant. Apple is limiting the freedom that iPad users have. Porn is not something people need to be protected from. Steve Jobs' is not the messiah, and Apple is not some kind of technological mecca; there are valid concerns and criticisms, and people should be voicing their opinions.
"It's pretty obvious that you've never actually seen video of a Xerox Alto in action, or you wouldn't claim the Mac interface was a copy of the Alto. The two are very different."
The interfaces were different yes, but the fact is that GUI was invented at Xerox PARC, and written in an object oriented programming language, and that Apple's engineers were permitted to review the work there. Then they went back to Apple and created Lisa, using a GUI written in an object oriented programming language. Do you think Apple's engineers completely forgot what they saw at Xerox, then recreated all of it from scratch?
What a wonderful law -- I now need to prove that I am innocent, or else I am assuming to be a terrorist, if I happen to possess unusual books.
On my bookshelf at this very moment are several textbooks on RADAR system design. I do not do any sort of work related to RADAR; I am a computer scientist. If I lived in the UK, I guess I would have to be afraid to be in possession of those EE books, which could be used by terrorists (to disrupt airport RADAR, perhaps), since I do not have any excuse to be in possession of them, and they do not detail "common knowledge."
This "assume guilt" strategy is dangerous for the citizens of any country.
So, I guess now the German people are being expected to work for the benefit of the copyright lobby. This sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- first the government works for the industry's benefit, and then it starts to require the people it is supposed to represent to do the same.
What if the compiler was hacked, the way Ken Thomson described in Reflections on Trusting Trust? You could have a perfect codebase that the compiler inserts backdoors into.
No, the highest security systems must be based on a codebase that is controlled by the government from the ground up, and implemented in languages that are not as susceptible to bugs and mistakes as C++ is.
Really though, the absence of glaring backdoors does not imply the absence of deliberate and major security flaws. Even very subtle changes could potentially have serious security implications -- even a change as subtle as the way memory is aligned (this may, for example, amplify side channels).
General purpose commercial software packages raise a yellow flag for security as far as I am concerned. They are not necessarily a problem, but there are risks. The general purpose nature is itself a problem; a system that is intended to be used to schedule appointments should not have the capability to execute a shell, nor should it even have a shell installed. The problem with general purpose systems is that they ship with a lot of code that is never needed for a specific installation, but which an attacker could potentially make use of. This is the basic concept behind a "return to libc" attack, or more generally "arc injection."
Take a look at Reflections on Trusting Trust, where Ken Thomson basically admitted to introducing a backdoor into a commercial operating system by hacking the compiler. The conclusion of the paper, in his own words, was not to trust commercial software to be secure -- the only secure code is code you control from the ground up. That paper was published in 1983.
My guess is that the society would look something like America did, back when it was used as an ingredient in over-the-counter cough syrups -- basically between the discovery of heroin in 1874 and the beginning of its regulation in 1914. That is a 40 year period in which America not only did not collapse, but saw huge expansions of technology and a general increase in the standard of living.
Wow, you really think heroin is a worse threat to our freedom than totalitarianism? You really think that we are better off when we have run out of room in our prisons and when we have armed forces patrolling for even more people to arrest, because it might be stopping people from using heroin?
"as an american, someone who fights for and loves freedom"
How exactly do you love and fight for freedom by encouraging our government to put people in prison? How is it "loving freedom" when we are busy arresting and enslaving people for possession of drugs? Perhaps you did not notice, but here in America, we have a constitution that is supposed to protect us from that sort of government.
"you argue form a position of ignorance"
Ignorance of what, exactly? I was born and raised in America, where I exercised my right to read history books and scientific articles. I am very much familiar with the science and medicine relating to drug dependence and abuse, and there is no research that supports what you are saying about heroin or any other drug. All of the research, in fact, indicates that people with a substance abuse problem are best helped by doctors, who can help them safely overcome withdrawal symptoms and can help develop a plan to prevent continuing the cycle of abuse and dependence. You do not seem to be aware of that research, so it is hilarious that you are accusing me of being ignorant.
I am also very well informed on the history and current realities of the drug prohibition and the war on drugs, from its racist origins to its current arrest-imprison-enslave mode of operation. You do not seem to care about any of that, which is really unfortunate.
You are, of course, entitled to be as uneducated as you are comfortable being.
Mandriva forked from Red Hat many years ago, and has really been independent since then. They employ something like 70 people, and they do actually sell shrink wrapped packages (last I checked), and they have servers and advertising to pay for. The real problem is that they never had a firm grip on their market (the desktop Linux market, which is admittedly a difficult market to really get a firm grip on) and they could not compete with Canonical's magic money supply.
What happened is that Mandriva could not out-compete Ubuntu when it came to user-friendliness, probably because Canonical has a magical supply of money that Mandriva does not. Mandriva also seemed to be targeting the wrong markets: they should have gone after the enterprise server market, where the money is, rather than the desktop Linux market, where there really is not that much money to go around. With so many no-cost Linux distros around, and with those distros becoming easier and easier for people to use, trying to sell a "power pack" is really not the best strategy, especially not in tough economic times.
Oh well, one business goes bankrupt, another comes to be. This is not the end of the Linux business, it is just the end of one of the well known players.
No, you misunderstand the meaning of the term "regulation" -- alcohol is regulated, tobacco is regulated, and other drugs should be regulated. We should not be sending a paramilitary force like the DEA after people who have some heroin, which is exactly what you are in favor of.
Consider yourself un-American, since you think our government should be in the business of imprisoning mass numbers of its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
To the best of my knowledge, web apps are only able to communicate using http/https -- the port might change, but the HTTP protocol will still be used. Hence, a packet sniffer will show what appears to be HTTP traffic, possibly on a nonstandard port.
Actually, XOR is frequently used for encryption, and very strong ciphers can be built by XORing the plaintext with carefully chosen bits. These are known as "stream ciphers," and the idea is to use a random number generator; the secret key is the seed you give the generator. As you note, the encryption and decryption functions are the same, which is one of the advantages (another, more important advantage is that you can create provably secure stream ciphers based on standard assumptions, such as the difficulty of the RSA problem).
Perhaps if all instant messaging was being done using AJAX? Gchat, Facebook's IM feature, etc. This would not show up as "instant messaging," just more HTTP traffic, unless I am missing something.
Hm...I did not notice any creeper or reaper references in that paper...
"Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms, faster than the older generations are comfortable with."
Older generations? I do not consider myself to be part of the "older generation," having gone to elementary school in the 90s, and I am not comfortable with the effect Facebook has had on privacy.
Wow, I have not heard about Wave in a while...I thought it had been lost in the bin of Forgotten Google Projects (FGPs).
I am not entirely sure that this counts as a bill of attainder, since the person being imprisoned had already stood trial and was found guilty. Likewise with the 5th and 6th amendments. It reeks of ex post facto law though, but in the current "think of the children we must protect them from these perverts" climate, such laws are apparently not considered to be a problem.
As I recall it, he did not really hack into anything. There was no security system in place that prevented him from gaining access, he did not have to write any sort of code, he was just browsing around a network that was supposed to be internal.
Personally, I wonder why the people who failed to secure that network, which supposedly contains sensitive information, are not on trial.
Please see the history of NLS, the mouse, and the GUI. Yes, the mouse was invented prior to the research at PARC, but the GUI -- Graphical User Interface -- was a PARC invention. No, a text mode hypertext browser does not count.
The only technology that Apple invented for those products are the cases they are enclosed in. All Apple does is spot technologies that look marketable, repackage them and slap an Apple logo on, and then it is in the hands of their admittedly brilliant marketers.
We could not have a democracy if the only people who analyzed or criticized an issue were people who had done great things with their life, or only people who were involved in whatever matter they were criticizing. I have never fought in a war, but I have no problem criticizing soldiers who torture prisoners. I am not a banker, but I still criticize what the tactics banks employed during the 90s; likewise, I am not a congressman, but I still criticize congress for encouraging the banks.
Why should Apple be any different? So Tate never created an Earth shattering product; why does that mean that he cannot criticize Apple for its practices and tactics? His points are relevant. Apple is limiting the freedom that iPad users have. Porn is not something people need to be protected from. Steve Jobs' is not the messiah, and Apple is not some kind of technological mecca; there are valid concerns and criticisms, and people should be voicing their opinions.
"It's pretty obvious that you've never actually seen video of a Xerox Alto in action, or you wouldn't claim the Mac interface was a copy of the Alto. The two are very different."
The interfaces were different yes, but the fact is that GUI was invented at Xerox PARC, and written in an object oriented programming language, and that Apple's engineers were permitted to review the work there. Then they went back to Apple and created Lisa, using a GUI written in an object oriented programming language. Do you think Apple's engineers completely forgot what they saw at Xerox, then recreated all of it from scratch?
What a wonderful law -- I now need to prove that I am innocent, or else I am assuming to be a terrorist, if I happen to possess unusual books.
On my bookshelf at this very moment are several textbooks on RADAR system design. I do not do any sort of work related to RADAR; I am a computer scientist. If I lived in the UK, I guess I would have to be afraid to be in possession of those EE books, which could be used by terrorists (to disrupt airport RADAR, perhaps), since I do not have any excuse to be in possession of them, and they do not detail "common knowledge."
This "assume guilt" strategy is dangerous for the citizens of any country.
"instead of relying on geocities people register their own .com easily and affordably"
.com at no cost.
There was a time when you could register a
So, I guess now the German people are being expected to work for the benefit of the copyright lobby. This sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- first the government works for the industry's benefit, and then it starts to require the people it is supposed to represent to do the same.
That sounds like the old arguments for slavery...
What if the compiler was hacked, the way Ken Thomson described in Reflections on Trusting Trust? You could have a perfect codebase that the compiler inserts backdoors into.
No, the highest security systems must be based on a codebase that is controlled by the government from the ground up, and implemented in languages that are not as susceptible to bugs and mistakes as C++ is.
Really though, the absence of glaring backdoors does not imply the absence of deliberate and major security flaws. Even very subtle changes could potentially have serious security implications -- even a change as subtle as the way memory is aligned (this may, for example, amplify side channels).
General purpose commercial software packages raise a yellow flag for security as far as I am concerned. They are not necessarily a problem, but there are risks. The general purpose nature is itself a problem; a system that is intended to be used to schedule appointments should not have the capability to execute a shell, nor should it even have a shell installed. The problem with general purpose systems is that they ship with a lot of code that is never needed for a specific installation, but which an attacker could potentially make use of. This is the basic concept behind a "return to libc" attack, or more generally "arc injection."
Take a look at Reflections on Trusting Trust, where Ken Thomson basically admitted to introducing a backdoor into a commercial operating system by hacking the compiler. The conclusion of the paper, in his own words, was not to trust commercial software to be secure -- the only secure code is code you control from the ground up. That paper was published in 1983.
You do not have to join the Amish to escape proprietary software or proprietary music.
My guess is that the society would look something like America did, back when it was used as an ingredient in over-the-counter cough syrups -- basically between the discovery of heroin in 1874 and the beginning of its regulation in 1914. That is a 40 year period in which America not only did not collapse, but saw huge expansions of technology and a general increase in the standard of living.
You are welcome.
Wow, you really think heroin is a worse threat to our freedom than totalitarianism? You really think that we are better off when we have run out of room in our prisons and when we have armed forces patrolling for even more people to arrest, because it might be stopping people from using heroin?
"as an american, someone who fights for and loves freedom"
How exactly do you love and fight for freedom by encouraging our government to put people in prison? How is it "loving freedom" when we are busy arresting and enslaving people for possession of drugs? Perhaps you did not notice, but here in America, we have a constitution that is supposed to protect us from that sort of government.
"you argue form a position of ignorance"
Ignorance of what, exactly? I was born and raised in America, where I exercised my right to read history books and scientific articles. I am very much familiar with the science and medicine relating to drug dependence and abuse, and there is no research that supports what you are saying about heroin or any other drug. All of the research, in fact, indicates that people with a substance abuse problem are best helped by doctors, who can help them safely overcome withdrawal symptoms and can help develop a plan to prevent continuing the cycle of abuse and dependence. You do not seem to be aware of that research, so it is hilarious that you are accusing me of being ignorant.
I am also very well informed on the history and current realities of the drug prohibition and the war on drugs, from its racist origins to its current arrest-imprison-enslave mode of operation. You do not seem to care about any of that, which is really unfortunate.
You are, of course, entitled to be as uneducated as you are comfortable being.
Mandriva forked from Red Hat many years ago, and has really been independent since then. They employ something like 70 people, and they do actually sell shrink wrapped packages (last I checked), and they have servers and advertising to pay for. The real problem is that they never had a firm grip on their market (the desktop Linux market, which is admittedly a difficult market to really get a firm grip on) and they could not compete with Canonical's magic money supply.
What happened is that Mandriva could not out-compete Ubuntu when it came to user-friendliness, probably because Canonical has a magical supply of money that Mandriva does not. Mandriva also seemed to be targeting the wrong markets: they should have gone after the enterprise server market, where the money is, rather than the desktop Linux market, where there really is not that much money to go around. With so many no-cost Linux distros around, and with those distros becoming easier and easier for people to use, trying to sell a "power pack" is really not the best strategy, especially not in tough economic times.
Oh well, one business goes bankrupt, another comes to be. This is not the end of the Linux business, it is just the end of one of the well known players.
No, you misunderstand the meaning of the term "regulation" -- alcohol is regulated, tobacco is regulated, and other drugs should be regulated. We should not be sending a paramilitary force like the DEA after people who have some heroin, which is exactly what you are in favor of.
Consider yourself un-American, since you think our government should be in the business of imprisoning mass numbers of its citizens.