Surely anyone who's using RAID0 doesn't really care about the integrity of their data in the first place?
510 posts • joined 12 Mar 2007
Surely anyone who's using RAID0 doesn't really care about the integrity of their data in the first place?
It looks at the file header to determine what it is... Executables for all modern operating systems have standard headers that include information like what architecture the binary is for, what shared libraries it requires etc. Most data file types also include similar headers, and on unix you have a command called "file" which will query this information and determine what a file is based on its contents, entirely independent of its name.
On windows icons can be embedded into executables, but this is not the case on linux. Unless an executable has been explicitly assigned an icon (which wont be the case for something you just downloaded) it will have a generic executable icon. Real documents will also have the standard icon assigned to documents of that type, so you won't be able to download an executable that has a pdf icon and open it by accident.
Another feature on unix is file permissions, where freshly downloaded files won't have the executable permission by default. Windows has file permissions too, but seems to default to giving the execute permission to everything. You can also mount drives with the noexec flag so that execute permissions will be totally ignored (useful for removable media).
The government's requirements are generally unique, there is only one government per country as opposed to thousands of companies...
Besides that, "building inhouse" is not a bad thing as it ensures the platform is wholly owned and controlled by the government, and not beholden to a third party.
As for the extent to which they build things themselves, it's not like they're building everything from scratch - they will take a collection of existing technologies, integrate them together and apply whatever unique customisations are required for the task at hand.
If they had gone to one of the traditional outsourcing companies they would still have ended up with a bespoke system, but one which they don't own or control and are beholden to the supplier for, plus it would probably build from much more expensive base components and still have very significant customisations on top.
My cable was down for a couple of hours in the evening, because i work from home and internet access is very important for that i also have an adsl line which remained up so i simply switched to that...
I did however check the virgin status page, which claimed there was no problem with broadband in my area, so the problem here is one of miscommunication. Most people upon seeing there is no problem with the service will assume their own equipment is at fault and waste time trying to troubleshoot it.
What they should have done is updated the status page, and changed the recorded message to indicate there is a problem.
Outages happen, we're not paying for five nines of uptime so most users will understand and wait for it to come back up, and not waste the time of the helpdesk staff who can't actually do anything about it anyway.
If the content is of no interest to someone outside of the local country then it doesn't matter if it's available in those other countries, since noone will buy it anyway.
Polish content is a niche item outside of poland for instance, but what this will do is make it easier for those people who do want niche content to get it, for instance there are many polish in the uk who would want to access polish content.
The idea of artificially limiting distribution is ridiculous, and is just pure greed/arrogance on the part of the distributors. Modern technology makes it trivially easy to distribute content worldwide and i'm glad the EU is making a stand against artificial distribution restrictions.
Basically if you can afford the rent to setup your business in such an area, you should be probably be paying for a business class internet service too and that means dedicated fibre leased lines, not home user oriented FTTC.
There will be very few residential properties in such areas, hence why it's not viable to connect up home user services.
If you want to cheap out on internet access, get a cheaper office too... Infact, if your business is tech oriented you will probably be better off getting a very cheap office and spending the savings on good connectivity.
524 days uptime is nothing, 4 figures is not uncommon for non windows boxes (unix, vms, netware, routers etc) and its quite telling that you used a linux box to protect the windows box from attack... your linux box probably had the same or higher uptime than the windows box behind it.
We use IPv6 at work, and VPN is one of the biggest reasons...
Quite often our internal IPv4 space overlaps with that of customers, peoples home networks or things like public wifi, which can cause quite severe problems when your running VPN links.
Physical line yes, telephone service over that physical line no... Split that out too and let us choose not to have it. "line rental" currently covers not only the physical line.
The ADSL service isn't free, and neither is the POTS service. Separate out the costs of physical line, POTS and ADSL and let users choose which of them they want. I have POTS service with ADSL but i never use it, never have anything connected to it and don't even know what the number is.
Pretty easy actually, ipv6 will allocate a /64 block (or larger) to each customer, so any address within that range is assumed to be that customer...
Tracking home user NAT with v4 works the same way, one ip - many physical users behind it but all assumed to be the same customer.
Higher level NAT on the other hand is harder, you could have hundreds if not thousands of users behind the same ip, which becomes extremely problematic. The ISP now needs to log every single connection in order to track a user back, and third parties have to log both the source and destination ports in an attempt to correlate with the ISPs logs, and all of this requires that the ISP actually does logging and actually co-operates with you. If you've just running a small time service and you want to block abusive users, your pretty screwed and you have no choice but to block the entire isp.
Just require the ISPs to provide a dual stack by default service (which is already the case in most of the US), and for any isp supplied hardware to have it supported and enabled by default.
Wether users choose to make use of the ipv6 portion is up to them, if they are typical home users connecting their recent versions of windows/osx/ilnux/whatever to the isp suplied router then v6 will just work by default.
Support for other devices is down to the vendors of those devices, assuming those devices even need to communicate with the outside world (no reason you cant still use ipv4 on a lan long after the rest of the internet has moved on).
Depends what you mean by gross neglect...
Many places do follow best practices, and yet are still highly vulnerable. Quite often the technology they are using is fundamentally flawed, and securing it is either not possible or horribly impractical.
Most companies have horrendously insecure internal networks, which are hidden from the outside world behind firewalls... But once you get a foothold inside, and there are many ways to do that (eg lure them to a website to exploit their browser, the firewall may block inbound connections but it will usually allow some form of outbound) the whole network is wide open for attack.
People frequently seem to lose their common sense when it comes to computers, and lose the ability to solve problems that they would solve easily if there was not a computer involved...
This is generally down to fear of technology, a fear that is perpetrated by systems that are excessively complex and more importantly, filled with warnings which scare users...
People who started out on systems which encouraged experimentation and were hard to break like the C64 or Spectrum are generally not afraid of technology and can use common sense to troubleshoot, those who start with windows which is filled with "dont look here, these are system files and you can break everything" warnings generally become paranoid of breaking something.
So what we need, is systems for end users which aren't horribly fragile and full of scary warnings.
"In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit such websites."
What about compromised sites?
What about sites with flaws like cross site scripting that allow insertion of code or redirects to other sites etc?
There's plenty of ways an attacker can get their exploit code to your browser...
A windows version for arm will be just like windows for alpha, ppc, mips and ia64... Absolutely useless because there will be little or no native software for it.
Most applications for windows are closed source and will be compiled for x86, so you won't get them running on arm.
You would probably be able to get open source server software running on windows/arm without too much difficulty, but virtually all such software also runs on linux and has already been built for linux/arm.
Linux/arm is also tried and tested, whereas windows/arm is new, and you also have no guarantee it wont suffer the same fate as the other non x86 versions of windows and get abandoned in short order.
But what are the percentages for amazon and google? I would imagine most people intending to deploy linux based servers would specifically avoid azure, so it should have a much lower percentage than other providers.
The windows brand and the false idea of a "unified platform" was poisonous for the old windows mobile (and windows ce)... I knew many people who bought them under the false belief they would be able to run the same programs as their windows desktop as thats what much of the advertising implied. Needless to say they were severely disappointed.
Well if everything is in the cloud, it doesn't matter what your client device is... Thus a cheaper client device running Linux is a no brainer.
Aside from that, many hosting providers charge per port so having lights out on a separate nic would increase hosting costs.
Most IPMI controllers let you tag the traffic to put it on another VLAN, but again that depends on the hosting provider to configure their switches accordingly and in that case the host itself can still access the VLAN in question so if you compromise one box you can start attacking all the other IPMI devices (which are likely to be even more badly configured on the assumption they cant be directly reached from the internet).
Also if you have a box hosted far away from your physical location, having lights out is absolutely essential incase anything goes wrong... Most hosting providers offer a remote hands service but they are expensive and often not very capable.
The problem is that a complex permissions system means that many people don't know how to use it, and most of those that do can't be bothered to do so.
For most use cases the standard unix permissions are not only more than adequate, they are also easy to understand and easy to manage. There's a reason that very few people enable the more advanced ACLs.
Even if you remove the "gui", your just removing the frontend management programs, the actual graphics stack is all still there and used to display a command prompt in a movable resizable window. Your not truly running without a gui, your just running with a crippled one. It would be like running X11 on linux with a basic window manager and then only using it to run xterm.
Another example of where licence enforcement code causes a denial of service to paying customers... All of this licence enforcement crap is basically companies distrusting and screwing their own customers, these functions provide no benefit whatsoever to the actual customers and they don't harm the pirates who will simply apply a crack to remove them.
The fact that companies will go to significant extra effort to implement functions purely for their own benefit and to the detriment of their paying customers is ridiculous. If only they spent that time fixing bugs instead.
It's the so called "victims" that need to toughen up...
What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me". We were always taught to ignore verbal/written taunting in school as it was harmless, and the same with anything said online - someone insults you, insult them back or ignore them. It's not worth expending any effort, if the most someone can do is write something offensive about you from behind a computer screen then they really are utterly harmless.
For most people, the "windows" branding is toxic, it brings up associations with an unfashionable, boring and unreliable product that is only really tolerated because most people are unaware that anything else exists in its core market.
This is mostly what's happening, gradually...
Most new applications are browser (or at least java) based these days, and will usually run on linux even if they don't officially support doing so.
Once you have cross platform apps, the client lock-in is gone and you can choose the client devices which provide the best value on a level playing field - there is very little if any reason to choose windows in this situation.
Phones are reported stolen more quickly because they are used more frequently... You only look at your card when you come to use it, which could be several days apart depending on how busy you are.
And ofcourse with a system like this, the thieves can just steal your phone and wallet at the same time (which many probably do already if they can).
Account lockouts are a bad thing, if you implement them then you open yourself up to malicious parties who will intentionally try to get all your users locked out - causing an absolute nightmare for support.
And account lockouts will be ineffective at stopping account compromises... As pointed out, lots of users have very common passwords like "password", so rather than try thousands of passwords against 1 account a hacker is going to try "password" against thousands of accounts and in doing so won't trigger any account lockouts because he only makes 1 attempt per account.
BT were one of the pioneers of ipv6, they even used to run a free ipv6 tunnel service a few years ago... I wonder what's happened since those days.
"no Google staff would be able to access the data"
WTF? of course they would! how naive are people?
Just because no member of google staff would have an account on the frontend application that's typically used to access the data, doesn't mean they don't have administrative access to the underlying server on which the data is stored or even physical access to the servers/drives its stored on.
It is obvious that any number of google staff could gain access to the data if they wanted to, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Any gains he made might have occurred in the most recent tax year for which he hasn't filed yet... And even if he does, he would also be able to offset the losses against anything he made, so he might even be down overall and thus not liable to pay any tax.
Because MS always seem to get a free pass...
Any other vendor with such onerous licensing terms, poor security and dangerous level of lock-in would be excluded from any remotely sensible tendering process.
Various security standards have over the years been relaxed to accommodate MS, and in some cases actually require non-ms systems to comply with a much higher standard.
Kids will learn better when they are motivated, and are learning about something they are genuinely interested in...
That said, learning the basics of coding is really just an extension of maths and language.. And while the majority of people will never use these skills once they leave school, the same is true of many other subjects.
On the other hand IT related teaching is badly in need of reform... Teaching kids how to use specific versions of mundane applications is extremely counter productive. By the time they leave school the software they have learnt will no longer be in use having been replaced by newer versions or even by something else entirely (when i was in school we were taught wordperfect for dos).
What's needed is to teach general concepts in a multitude of different applications, so that people can easily adapt to different applications.
Simple tasks like writing an occasional letter is all 99% of people ever do, why would they waste 300 for msoffice when libreoffice does the job for free?
Most organisations are like this, they use the firewall as their one and only line of defence against external attack, and do absolutely nothing about internal threats. Once you're behind the firewall at 99% of organisations you can rip through the network trivially.
And this is EXACTLY why these documents should be preserved in fully documented file formats. Storing them in proprietary formats is extremely dangerous, as you have no control and no way to properly diagnose any corruption that might (And does) occur.
The idea of using PDF isn't for making content impossible to edit, in fact that's an impossible and therefore pointless goal, as there will always be ways to edit data.
The purpose of PDF is for data that isn't intended to be edited, and thus the format doesn't include metadata that is unnecessary for simply viewing and is only useful if you want to edit. A similar analogy would be providing the document on paper, or providing a program in precompiled form.
The postal system is also unreliable, and i have had various things not turn up over the years...
But the fact is you know your bill is due every month, so if you don't receive a statement you should have noticed this and contacted the bank to find out why.
// The real question is how secure is the authentication DB on an AD server...
Not very... and windows passwords don't even need to be cracked, you can authenticate using the encrypted hash without ever knowing the plaintext.
You have it backwards, only geeks need a full OS...
For the average user, a minimal system controlled by someone else (ie someone actually technically literate to manage a computer) is what they need. End users don't want the complexity or risks involved with a full blown OS, they just want to get stuff done. This is also why ipads and games consoles are popular.
What we do need however, are alternatives to chromebooks which aren't controlled by google (but are still controlled by someone, since most end users are not capable of managing their own internet connected computers).
Several memorable words strung together is relatively easy for a password cracking tool with a dictionary, have a look at the -rules option of john the ripper for instance.
Nothing is safe...
Open source has a better change of being safer than closed source.
Nothing is perfect, but i'll take the best available option.
I still use 'xv', which was written in 1994... Because it comes with sourcecode i've been able to compile it on everything from ARM or SPARC based linux to x86-64 based MacOS...
It does what its supposed to do, and is fast and stable. The only patches i have on it are patches to support newer image formats which didnt exist in 1994.
There isn't much availability of ARM in the server market, believe me i've been looking...
I can buy a proper 1U x86 box with a quad core cpu and lights out management for a few hundred, for ARM i have a choice between phones, dev boards and expensive boxes with lots of cpus from the likes of calxeda. Where are the sub £1000 1u ARM rackmount servers?
IA64 had pretty good Linux support, and if your workload was entirely based on open source software then there was no technical reason you couldn't run it on IA64... If you depended on any closed source software then IA64 was typically not an option, as most closed source vendors would typically not port their stuff to IA64.
The problem boiled down to price, all of the IA64 hardware that was available cost more and consumed more power than comparably performing x86 and x86-64. I would have seriously considered IA64 for my workloads had it been price competitive with x86.
For ARM this doesn't need to be a problem, if they can make servers which are competitively priced then they should sell just fine.
X11 only has any use if you're using a unix system as a workstation, which is actually pretty rare... Most unix systems are used as embedded devices or servers, and are unlikely to be running X11.
Also, how would an unprivileged user introduce an arbitrary BDF font to the X11 server?
Regularly changing the password can often be detrimental...
Chances are the root password for suse and mysql cannot be directly used externally, SSH is likely configured to disallow root logons and mysql is often configured not to allow remote connections, making the root password only useful if you have physical access to the console or access to an unprivileged account that is able to run 'su'...
Similarly if using modern hashing its unlikely a 12 character password will be cracked unless its dictionary based, and thats assuming you can get a copy of the hashes.. If you can get the hashes you usually already have root, but people reuse passwords across multiple systems and hashes can sometimes be lifted from backups or installation images.
If your password is complex and rarely changed, people who need it can remember it...
If your password has to be changed regularly, then people are unlikely to keep remembering new random passwords, instead they will cheat - either using simplistic passwords (dictionary words, formulaic and predictable passwords etc), or write their passwords down. Most companies require users to change their passwords monthly, and huge numbers of those users use a dictionary word as their password with a number on the end that either relates to the month/year in which the password was set, or simply increments with each change.
Personally i never change the root passwords on my servers either. To use them you need physical access, all remote access is via SSH with keys.
It was Microsoft who placed restrictions on netbook specs, not Intel... If your hardware was above a certain spec you were charged full price for windows instead of the cheaper netbook version.
Intel would quite happily sell you any spec hardware you wanted, and would prefer to sell the higher spec components.
Only they don't plant tracking devices into their pockets, they make tracking devices available which people then choose to put in their pockets.
For every google product available, there is one or more viable alternatives. I don't like their information gathering business model either, but i know that i can avoid their products and suffer no ill effects.
What's more i can even use some of their products while explicitly avoiding the information gathering aspects, e.g. third party builds of android and chromium to name but a few.