New Top Gear presenter ?
Surely he has now demonstrated some of the talents needed for the BBC show ... do you think that they will give him an interview ?
2650 publicly visible posts • joined 29 May 2007
It is one thing to have something that is labeled ''source code to the product'' and to be sure that this is exactly what was used, eg no little extra ''tweak'' hidden in a system macro that leaves a security back door. If they are serious about this they will insist on compiling the source on one of their machines and check that it matches the binary that is shipped with the product.
All of this is a lot of work and will take a lot of time, who is going to pay for it ?
If they don't recompile it then the suspicion must be that they are more interested in getting/ripping-off the technology that doing a security audit.
The point is that it is not owned by any one person, so it cannot be bought or whatever. This is deliberate.
What could happen is that the in USA it becomes impossible to use Linux without payment to microsoft; but that will just damage the USA economy - the rest of the world where we do not have s/ware patents could happily continue.
The EU might stop it if Jobs killed ARM, but he can do much the same thing by starving the high end Cortex line from R&D funds, so it slowly looses ground to Intel. This would be much harder for the EU to police ... Jobs just says that limited funds go to the smaller chips aimed at embedded systems that don't complete with Apple's range.
In spite of the stupid disclaimer - you can do what you want with the email, its contents, address list, etc. There is no contract implied by you receiving email and so you have not agreed to and terms & conditions and are thus not bound by them. Stupid disclaimer notices might be cheaper than properly training your staff (or employing people with functioning grey matter in the first place), but it is not really effective.
You are, of course, under privacy constraints although I am not sure what the *legal* ones are exactly, but I would conceal 3rd party addresses -- just as El Reg has done.
"su and sudo may be world executable but they are only writable by root so they can't be replaced."
What he means is for the malware to execute the command ''sudo something evil'', ie use ''sudo'' in the executed command not ''su''. This may work because sudo can be configured to remember that someone authenticated recently and so not ask for a password.
I think that what this is talking about is the special case of someone *renting* out a machine running MS s/ware, be that by the week or by the hour. I suppose that this sort of like Blockbuster renting out DVDs of the latest film and (I suppose) having to make some payment to the studio.
However: with a film, once you have seen it you are unlikely to want to see it again - so some fee back to the studio is reasonable (since they won't go to the cinema). I don't see the same analogy with s/ware.
''The Police Federation said it was surprised the figures were so high''
What about those who were not caught ? I would be surprised if many times more got away with snooping on those who they should not have -- but the police will pretend that they don't exist.
What a stupid way to do this. Have 3 groups go into a secret huddle and try to invent something that meets very difficult to achieve objectives. The muppets probably also believe that by keeping the details of their new protocols secret that no one will be able to reverse engineer it. What is needed is a public competition along the lines of the ones that resulted in the DES and AES encryption standards.
This is assuming that their aims can't be met with IPv6, possibly with some additions.
See this to learn about AES:
http://www.moserware.com/2009/09/stick-figure-guide-to-advanced.html
Look at the numbers: Linux users tend to not be prone to the problems that plague MS users.
That is all that matters. Why is not important. Move to a Linux desktop and enjoy not having to always worry about infection.
Many have said that when more desktops run Linux that it will fall prey to malware. I agree that there will be more attempts; however the whole design is inherently more secure. But to you it should not matter - you should be concerned about your security today and the best way of achieving that is to move to a Linux desktop. What will happen in the future is another thing.
Don't get me wrong: I do keep my machines patched & up to date, that is easy under Linux.
There is too much an emphasis on prosecuting people who drive too fast and as a result other things seem to be ignored, eg: people who drive too close to the car in front, or: people who undertake (overtake on the inside). I am not saying that speed is not dangerous, but so are other things.
this is something that would stifle innovation, large companies would sue small ones to oblivion, small & large would be attacked by patent trolls - society in general looses.
While they are looking at it, why not reduce the copyright term on things like books: life of author + 70 years is absurd; also Disney's Puff Boat Willie should be in the public domain by now.
to an extent they were trying to answer the wrong question. They were asking ''What about moving the desktop to Linux ?''
There is a much more interesting one: ''What about using more Open Source applications ?''
This is much easier. People move over to Firefox, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, .... under MS Windows, that can happen gradually, an application at a time when appropriate. When their PC comes up for renewal -- you look at what apps they are running; if they are all available under Linux - replace their box with a Linux one.
For some people - this won't work; they need proprietary apps (that can't be virtualised, run as thin client, ...); maybe they really need MS Office (because of macros, ...) - you leave them with MS Vista or whatever.
The point is that you go for the low hanging fruit - do the easy stuff first; do the applications first. You may not get 100%, so what ?
More to the point: a swab should NOT be taken until someone has been TRIED and found guilty. Current police practice is to take a swab when someone is arrested, way long before to court, often when the police know that they are going to release them anyway.
If the police continue to take swabs: then surely they are guilty of breaking the law and all of their DNA should end up on the police database ?
as usual. Reduce the costs of litigation and suing someone who has really infringed a patent would be affordable.
Large companies employ expensive lawyers to scare off smaller rivals. The lawyers deliberately wind up costs and the small rival (who may well be in the right) will back off rather than face the risk of losing and having to pay ruinous legal fees.
The result is that he who has the deeper pocket wins - not he who is right.
Not much different from school playground bullying is it ?
who report breaches in security ? I fully expect that AT&T will just tell them that it is their fault and that they must have given their account details to someone else.
The loss of customer security is not really paid by AT&T so they don't care. MK's crime was probably to try to hold them accountable.