Posts by Doctor Syntax 42029 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"it should always go to domains@bigcompany.com which is aliased at the main server to whoever's employed to handle it."
1. Assumes that company policy allows names to be set up in this way.
2. Assumes someone is (still) employed to handle it.
BigCos, especially BigCos intent on becoming LittleCos (tto many of them these days) can be their own worst enemies.
"May I suggest Debian GNU/kFreeBSD https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ ?"
Unfortunately see also: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00005.html
"We discussed kfreebsd at length, but are not satisfied that a release with Jessie will be of sufficient quality. We are dropping it as an official release architecture, though we do hope that the porters will be able to make a simultaneous unofficial release."
Kaspersky AV acted just like malware detection systems are intended to. This wasn't just malware, it was NSA malware. It sounds like a pretty good recommendation for anyone in the market.
If, like the NSA, you're in the business of producing malware you should expect malware detection businesses to be looking out for your work.
"An NSA employee with access to highly classified information is STUPID enough to run a crack? And disabled his AV to enable it to run?"
It's a conspiracy versus cock-up moment. Was he really that stupid or was this a sting operation with some chickenfeed to justify blacklisting Kaspersky?
"yes, regularly, aside from the above examples the police regularly do it to red light jumping twats at regent's park"
Good. What I'd like round here would be prosecutions for causing obstruction.
However things might be improving; I actually saw one yesterday keeping to the cycle lane.
Not everything - there is a "legitimate interest" exception.
Nevertheless it raises a number of issues. If, under legitimate interest a data subject's bank passes data to a CRA who then gets breached what are the responsibilities of the bank? If it were they and not the CRA who had been breached then clearly they could expect to be fined under GDPR. But they decided they had a legitimate interest in passing on the data. Should they not still be liable?
The data subject-facing business should remain liable under both civil and criminal law for any breaches further along the line, irrespective of how far the data gets passed. Apart from anything else it's the only way that the likes of Safe Harbour and Privacy Figleaf can be made to work. They should have to make judgements about the reliability of those to whom they pass data. It's not sufficient for data subjects to have to go to law in some other jurisdiction against a company with whom they have had no dealings although that should not preclude action under GDPR against all businesses in the chain.
"we welcome this opportunity to learn the lessons from this criminal cyber-attack in order for all businesses to better protect consumers in the future."
There seems to be an implicit message that this was a big mystery. How on Earth did such a thing happen?
They know perfectly well. They left themselves unsecured. They shouldn't have needed to learn anything. They should have kept on top of securing things. The only way they'll really learn anything is to be handled penalties by every regulator in sight to the point where they can't pay management salaries let alone bonuses.
"The extra capacity can be (automatically) switched off and forgotten about as soon as they are no longer needed."
And when that's done what happens to the sensitive personal financial data left on the storage devices? Is it left for the next customer to pick up of they do an od over their newly spun up devices or is it completely overwritten with junk? And if it's supposed to be overwritten who verifies this?
It's a choice. You either obtain access to data which might or might not carry forward a number of investigations which might or might not be carried forward anyway without that data. Alternatively you grant access to anyone who comes into possession of a lost or stolen phone to data belonging to the owner of that phone and who might or might not be damaged by that access. Which, in terms of the public interest, is the more harmful choice.
At last it seems to be that at least some of TPTB are starting to grasp that they're having to choose between two harmful choices and that they actually have to weigh them up.
"anti-particles are [or are suspected to be] particles moving backwards in time."
I think this was one of Feynman's notions, possibly in conjunction with Wheeler. It's in one of his books. The suggestion was that there was only a single electron zipping forwards & backwards (as a positron). It explained why all electrons looked alike - they were the same electron. I don't think they took the idea very far.
"whatever they would need to grow"
Growing stuff requires hydrogen in the form of water, oxygen in the form of water and carbon dioxide, carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and nitrogen in the form of nitrates or ammonium compounds as the main components of your biomass. Unless these are available on the target planet (I'll assume that minerals such as potassium, phosphorus etc. are) then every gram of biomass that you want to ever have in your colony has to be ferried there. It's not like colonising a new land on Earth where you can expect to tap into the existing stuff that's already in circulation.
"Requirements change,features added = new product."
Based on the assumption that a full product is bigger than an update - and bigger than the original as it contains new features, then this presents the customer with at least the same risks and possibly more than updates.
"My code has never been exploited and has never needed any updates, this simply because it was bespoke i.e. different for each customer."
Been there, done that. But neither you nor I have had the problems inherent in supplying product to a mass market. I don't think we'd have been in business very long if we insisted on selling new products for every new feature, at least, not without the Stockholm syndrome of Windows users.
This post by Piloti is the perfect example of why there is no one ideal desktop for everyone. Clearly what Unity was just what Piloti wanted. Because I want the desktop primarily as a place to put files and directories it's as unsuited to me as KDE would be to him. However, we can both have the style of desktop we want, so no problem.
