Re: But...
"there is a REASON they have gone no-where over the last 40+ years."
Yes, Microsoft's leaning on major PC manufacturers to ship them all with Windows.
40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"you could just nip to the Post Office and buy a stamp."
There are at least 3 options for TPTB to deal with that:
1. In some cases a spray* can render the envelope temporarily clear enough to photograph the contents. That's why a good envelope has a pattern printed on the inside.
2. Steam it open and reseal.
3. Rip it open and fake a replacement envelope.
* Possibly something nasty like a halogenated hydrocarbon - it's a long time since I saw it so I've forgotten the details.
"The key to the system is to take legitimate-looking code and change just a few tiny parts of it to convert the software into attack code. Even changing small details can fool AV engines, he said"
There's something self-contradictory here.
Start with something legitimate. Make small changes. Small changes can fool AV engines. But if the AV engine were white-listing the legitimate code than those small changes should fool the white-listing. And if you weren't counting on white-listing why bother to start with legitimate-looking code in the first place?
I've no problem with any company making money from releasing FLOSS who, after all, are the largest contributors. In fact, a commercial vendor is more likely to respond to users than an independent developer who has nothing to lose or gain from the responses to their work.
In Red Hat's case, however, I can't avoid the thought that, as things have worked out, they are now (AFAIK) the only resort for those who need a commercial vendor-supported distro and want it to be systemd-free. Is that irony or a clever ploy?
"comparing what they make with anything honest work might conceivably get them is nothing short of delusional."
Although my OP might have been somewhat tongue in cheek it does reflect the point of the article: in order to make ransomware work the operators need to be professionally business-like in their approach. As such they could probably equally well operate a legitimate business so that the comparison with employment isn't really justified.
Of course they wouldn't make the same returns from a legitimate business. However the NSA will be trying to track them and will probably succeed in at least some cases. The consequence is that if they try to spend the proceeds or maybe lured by a sting operation somewhere where they can be made amenable to the US authorities - and that seems to be a rather large slice of the world - then they could end up looking at multi-decade prison sentence.
I should add that at one stage (early 80s) I used a network which was designed to be wired up with 75 Ohm TV coax. It consisted of small boxes, allegedly each contained a Z80 with an RS232 connector, a TV connector & a small stub of TV coax with another connector on it. These were daisy-chained with more TV coax. I can't remember what the head end was like but it must have broken out a batch of RS232s to connect to the host, a Z8000 box.
A few years later, and another job not a million miles from Euston, I came across a very much grown up version, again strung together with coax but definitely not TV coax, doing much the same job. In that case the head end had a room to itself but still fed the serial lines through to a server. And that gig also had some of the original hose-pipe sized Ethernet as well.
"Kellogs run a TV commercial, do you change to Kellogs?"
If I watch anything on a commercial channel I'll fast forward through the adds so I wouldn't see it. If that wasn't the case and I did see the ad it would have no effect unless I was already buying Kellogs in which case I'd get pissed off with the ad so quickly I'd change to BrandX.
Next question.
"Worse yet, the device communicates via cleartext, so attackers would be able to falsify readings, disable alarms, or perform any other originally supported operation."
This gains it the highest approval rating from both our house-trained Home Secs (I'm counting the one currently installed in number 10).
@Jonathan 27
Back in the '80s when we first used RCS I checked after a few months & discovered we'd been releasing changes on average of every 2 weeks for our in-house application system so I'm not impressed by your idea of every 2 months as continuous release*. This was for adding functionality for business reasons (mostly requests from the beancounters which was handy because it kept them from complaining that we were a cost centre). OTOH we did expect a much slower rate of churn on the underlying platform, OS & RDBMS.
*We also had the same team as developers, DBAdmin & Unix Admin so I'm not impressed with the idea of DevOps as the latest shiny. Everything old is new again.
"Monitor status of safety systems, yes. Change them remotely, no."
Basic rule: just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. And the converse also applies: just because it's not a good idea it doesn't mean you can't do it.
"I remember a time when HP test gear was comparable to tektronix."
That sells HP short. HP of old made a lot more than test gear. I don't recall Tektronix making spectrophotometers, for instance.
All of which goes to show that the wrecking of HP was even worse than you thought.
" we are the best programmers and therefore we know best. Nothing you old people know is relevant to us anymore." From the comments it looks like they have continued on with their cavalier attitude.
That attitude is reminiscent of something else that keeps cropping up here. Maybe someone else needs to reflect on the reasons for Firefox's decline.
"Remember that outside of IT a large percentage of the population works in retail, marketing, or sales, and even tradespeople are generally aware that their own employers and their own jobs depend on advertising."
I think we're into irregular verb country here:
I send out valuable marketing messages
You nag
He, she or it spams.
I wonder just how many people in the advertising industry itself use adblockers because other peoples' ads are so annoying. Not their own, of course - a serious lack of self-awareness would see to that.
"Putting you in a vice: break your machine or get pwned."
Simple solution there. Split feature updates and security updates. Unless you were actually relying on a bug which is patched in the security update you can apply the security update irrespective of it being out of band without breaking functionality. (Assuming the update itself isn't broken.)