Easy to circumvent if their only encryption is the https link...
Just install a https decoding/recoding proxy like 'mitmproxy' which let you view/alter data streams (even https) on the fly...
1773 posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Just install a https decoding/recoding proxy like 'mitmproxy' which let you view/alter data streams (even https) on the fly...
Th silly thing with DRM is that it simply does not stop copies being made available, as those who upload copies of things know how to circumvent it.
Put it this way. If someone wants a copy of some film/song/book/program etc. without paying, their first port of call will be the internet.
I don't think anyone thinks anymore: "I want to copy this, I'll buy it, copy it, and return it", or "I'll copy this off my mates", so they are never affected by DRM. The only people that are affected are the ones who have to put up with needless restrictions on stuff they've paid for.
DRM is ultimately, therefore, bad for the content producers themselves, and they will do themselves a big favour by finally getting this.
Currently typing this on a tablet costing similar, but:
Ampe A78 3G 7.0" Tablet PC Capacitive Retina Touch Screen 1920x1200 Android 4.2.2 Egiht Core MTK6592 1.7GHz 3G Phablet with Built-in 3G/2G Calling, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, GPS (16GB) (White):
Just needs all the preinstalled crap removed.....
"All I can say is thank goodness for the Bayesian spam filter that we use here. In the last three years there has been only one legitimate e-mail that got caught in with the several hundred a day spams we get."
But how do you know?
Poor trolling, Mr. coward.
This malware is dodgy stuff installed by users directly, if unwittingly.
It's nothing to do with hacking vulnerabilities, so even if your comment was true, it would just mean that malware writers haven't bothered with those platforms.
"I doubt if posh boy gives two figs for those living in Swansea. You have to go back over 90 years for the last time they voted for any other than Labour, and then it was for a Liberal."
I'm actually born and bred and live in Swansea, and I agree with you totally.
But government departments are generally well protected, as if one goes down, they all protest, and there is a political effect. It's why there are so many bloated departments out there.
Also, departments are generally run by their mates. Jobs for the boys, cronieism etc
It's obviously a much saner and logical solution, would be far cheaper, and would also then include foreign drivers, and not penalise those that have cars only for emergencies.
It would also encourage 'green' use, as currently people may be more inclined to use their cars due to having 'paid anyway'.
But, government jobs down in Swansea would be affected, and that means votes.
When the government talks about efficiency and savings in spending, they really mean focus on the disabled and ill.
Matts posts are also annoying due to his crappy paragraph-less punctuation.
" Yes, you are. No sensible distribution has used bash for anything but interactive shells for as long as I can remember. That's what bash is, sh/ash/dash + interactive features. Only an idiot would use it for batch (non-interactive) processing. This whole thing is just natural selection at work."
Very much this.
From what I gather from the story, bash isn't a requirement of openvpn, it's just that some stupid scripts/system configurations use it.
You can hardly put the blame onto them.
That's like saying Openvpn is vulnerable on systems which use the password 'password'.
Even forgetting security, bash shouldn't be used in scripting because of portability and efficiency/bloat reasons.
Despite your somewhat provocative tone, it's shocking to see you get all these downvotes on a technical forum. No wonder software today is bloated, unportable security-less shit, and these days the Linux fanatics are just as bad and insular as they accused Microsoft of being.
Ahhh, those wonderful days before the internet, and smartphones, when child abuse and terrorism didn't exist...
" I am not a network engineer, but I'll take my best shot."
Well, you speak like one! A perfect response on the state of things, IMHO.
....which is a shame, as a number of years ago, BT were at the forefront of IPv6 utilisation.
It was through a free BT tunnelbroker (I believe the only one at the time) that I first got into IPv6.
I've been using IPv6 for more years than I can remember.
The problem then was that with overloaded tunnelbrokers, and numerous 6in4 and 6to4 hops between most long links, the link was always slower and less reliable than IPv4, so not a desirable preference.
Now I find long-distance links particularly (UK to NJ and UK to LA specifically) are always faster with IPv6, and so I mainly use that now.(*)
Indeed, over the last year, I've switched all my servers to use IPv6 in preference to IPv4 (although admittedly this basically affects outgoing initiated connections rather than incoming ones) - the majority using native IPv6 and the remainder using the very fast and reliable free Hurricane Electric broker. (http://www.tunnelbroker.net/)
So, the thing is, we've finally reached the point where IPv6 is better (or at least, not worse) than IPv4 which should be the tipping point in speedier takeup.
(*) I realise there is nothing inherent in IPv6 to make it faster - I'm guessing that my IPv6 connections are simply tending to use more modern and less congested links.
When it was suggested they spend this money in a place with overflowing traffic problems, expensive land, and somewhere which already gets a disproportionate amount of *UK* tax spending, did the government miss the sarcasm?
" "might not even have been aware of the backups’ existence, since they are created automatically in the background on many phones"
Sounds like stupidity to me whether they were male or female."
Typical geek response.
On what planet inhabited by other than the typical Reg Reader would that be considered stupid?
Seriously, there's nothing stupid for someone not into tech to not know that their phone sends copies of the photos they take over the internet. I struggle to understand the mindset of someone who really thinks that is a common-sense obviousness.
CGI is nothing like flash/java etc.
Chalk and cheese.
As the 'G' suggests, it's a gateway API, and a rather simple one at that.
Any half-competent web site is already setup to be 'sanitized' as you suggest as a matter of course.. It should run under it's own id, with executable scripts owned by a different user (and therefore not writable), should be chrooted/jailed if practical, and generally be sandboxed from any functionality that it would never need.
P.S. I didn't downvote you
Bash isn't useful for startup wrappers etc. That's what the bourne shell is for.
Bash should only be used as an interactive shell. Period.
Everything else is a lazy Linuxism
If you replace every mention in your post of 'bash' with '[generic] shell' you are bang on point.. Maybe that's what you meant? (Especially as you mention its use in a size critical boot floppy)
bash is large, and some would say bloated.
It has it's use as an interactive shell, but it shouldn't be used as a programming shell - especially for potentially vulberable network facing tasks unless there is a VERY GOOD REASON to do so.
Even worse, are those Linux morons that #! scripts to /bin/bash even when /bin/sh will do.....
The same sort of insular people who will happily type a long bunch of privileged commands prefixing everyline with 'sudo'.
The same idiots whose solution to a bugged api implementation is not to fix their inplementation, but instead write a new 'standard' from scratch.
The sort of people who used to moan about Microsoft software being unportable, chanting 'software should be open' when they really meant 'software should run on Linux'.
The same people causing the same unnecessary portability problems to the community that they used to criticise MS for.
If someone produced scripted code for me that was dependant on bash (or zsh/tcsh/mksh/ etc.) for no good reason, I'd seriously question their ability.
This isn't a rant against Linux itself, or indeed a lot of the users, but if you are the sort of Linux user mentioned above, feel free to downvote!
I'm left-handed, and whilst it's true many things favour right-handed use, I've never once thought of myself as belonging to a persecuted minority!
FFS That's what people mean when they say 'PC gone mad'... It's seems just about everyone is a victim these days!
P.s. Any downvoters are intolerant handist scum, who should be jailed forthwith!
If that's what goes for practical and good design these days, we're all screwed.
Please tell me the whole event is a belated April-Fools joke by a bunch of jokers popping acid..
I think he is so warped to his sense of entitlement that he honestly believes the hypocritical bullshit he spews.
In his eyes, what he does is just, and what others do isn't, and the big injustices are against him.
But....but... the dots are in the wrong place!
Only the middle finger should be showing a fingernail - the others should be dotless i's!
....bu perfectly acceptable if false?
" I've been in the pools and containment building at the Shearon Harris facility outside of Raleigh, NC. I've actually been all over that place in many areas that humans rarely see."
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die."
"Power is NOT the problem 100Billion GeV is only 16 Joules. I can do that by lighting a fart."
Well, don't light your farts then!
Googles argument (which I consider weak - and wouldn't be an issue with properly written software) is that it makes support harder for the developer, as he/she has to then debug/support many more possible configurations.
In my opinion, it would mean programmers being more specific in what permissions they require (and besides, coding for unexpected failures is a basic requirement of reliable software)
I don't know about WP or Apple, but one thing that causes this in Android is backwards compatibility:
All apps are coded to an API level based usually on the release at the time.
If a future android version now requires permissions for something it didn't need before, to retain backwards compatibility, when the app is installed, it's assumed that it requires this new permission.
So some older apps don't just request permissions that they don't need, but also request some the author never intended to request!
I know it's not ideal, but on android at least, there are many third party apps that allow you to retrospectively remove events and permissions.
I find event abuse the most obnoxious - apps can request to be run on startup, when switching to mains power, when switching to battery, when another app is installed/removed, any many more.
It's impossible to fart without loads of apps starting in the background. In my opinion, Googles own apps are the worst culprits.
@Trevor, fair enough, I concede there are many ways it's been unsuccesful too, but I would still maintain it's an overall success story. (We've managed to disagree without insulting each others mothers..... that's an internet first!)
Trevor, I totally agree with you about privacy/anonymity/civil liberties.
I was just pointing out that whichever way you cut it, TCP/IP has been a success story (and I didn't say 'commercial' success, although it's probably implied somewhat, in that the internet companies wouldn't exist if there was nothing in it for them)
"American developed "standards" are what got us here in the first place. Anything that is approved by the US Gov should be shunned by the rest of the world. We need to look at the stuff the yanks disapprove of."
Huh? Are you saying that TCP/IP isn't a success story? From its humble beginnings to where it is now, used on a scale unimaginable at it's inception, designed for a totally different user environment?
Their blog spins it as a feature to make viewing videos easier.
1) How is pressing 'play' considered difficult? Especially as you apparently need to click it somewhere to get audio, which is less intuitive than before!
2) If you do want to watch the video, by the time you get to it, you'll probably have to hit 'restart'.
3) As 'heyrick' mentions above, does this mean multiple videos playing at the same time?
I'm not one of those hate-facebook-whatever-they-do commentards, but I struggle to see how even their most loyal fanboi could say this is a good idea.
And amore general rant: As with 'Only me!', I use my tablet with mi-fi, and although the 15GB/month cap is generally adequate, I'm fed up of all the sites/apps that assume cellular == cost, wi-fi == free
However, the difference here is that he did what he did because he was paid to do it, not because it was some sort of hobby or general interest of his!
I know nothing about Wheeler, but to say he isn't appropriate for the position based on his past occupation is implying he's corrupt.
Indeed, as the metaphorical 'poacher turned gamekeeper' he should be an ideal person for the job.
""The surest way to stifle further competition and investment in the broadband marketplace is to impose public utility Title II regulation on Internet access. The cable industry is committed to meeting consumer demand for a world class Internet experience and competing in the marketplace with all wired and wireless Internet providers.""
Despite being a load of bollocks, why would we expect them to say anthing that would benefit the consumer, to the detriment of their members profits?
Seriously, *anything* they support is going to favour the telcos - that's their job!, so why bother trying to spin it?
"Well no, not really. I'm not a complete twat who'd even contemplate posting anything as moronic as a naked picture of myself in a public place!"
I wish you'd told me that before I wasted all those days looking..
"Facebook has the same issue - when you delete something it's not really gone, it's just the pointer to it that has been deleted - but anyone with the direct URL can still load it."
Not true. The raw URL can be used to get around permissions, but when a photo on facebook is deleted, the request is batched out to the CDNs. Obviously it's not as instant as the apparent deletion on the HTML side of things (and facebook did once get into a bit of hot water for not flushing the CSN's in a timely manner), but it is done.
Apart from the legal ramifications, why on earth would they want to waste storage on a photo that will never be shown again on a 'proper' page with commercials and sponsored links?
"If they want control of something, then they are more than welcome to make their own network."
The network is already autonomous - it's the DNS that the US control - though if they did something really mad, a split could be made - the infrastructure is already in place [non-US run root servers all over the world] - the sticking point would be to get everyone to stop using the US root-servers, which you may argue is a virtual administrative impossibility.
"I already got rid of whatever clickbait used to be on the left hand side of MORE FROM THE REGISTER."
Ah yes, the 'outbrain' stuff.
I mentioned before that these sort of 'headlines' are really annoying, patronising, and dumbed down, but got mostly downvoted
Those Paris Hilton digs were never funny either
"I thought this was going to be an article about how it sucks to be "a woman in a male dominated field" and focused on the alpha male traits you normally see in the likes of the banking and hedge fund world, but this was just...wow."
I had exactly the same initial thought, and the exact same reaction when reading the article...
Wow.... I suppose alcohol is the underlying theme, but being drunk just stops you being able to control your natural urges, effectively making you show your true colours.
Someone who's an arsehole when drunk, but appears ok sober is simply an arsehole that covers it up.
It seems that a lot of techie blokes are even worse than the stereotypical builder :-(
"In bright clear weather, if you're driving in a wooded lane, a car in shadow may be nearly invisible until it emerges from the shade. Addiitionally your eyes take a couple of second to adjust when going from bright to shaded areas."
Indeed, and therefore a good reason to use your lights.
I also didn't mention tunnels, or times when there is a total solar eclipse, but I assumed I'd made the point that a responsible driver would use their lights when appropriate.
"Hard to get it, is it. A car with headlights on is easier to detect. For similar reasons aeroplans, ships, emergency vehiles and similar use lights too in daylight."
Well, I don't see that many aeroplanes and ships on my local roads, and as for the emergency services, you've basically proved my point, (as admitedly articulated elsewhere by others) -- emergency services often need to break the speed limit, and go through red lights etc. They also need to be seen by the sort of drivers who typically wouldn't notice their presence unless they drove into them (you sound just like one of these)
So, how does this help the emergency services if *all* vehicles have their lights on?
This seems hard for you to get, old chap.
"You did however mention the "morons who don't think to use their lights", also that problem dissapears in Nordic countries as the lights go on when you start the engine."
Do you realise, yet again, you are supporting my argument here? Hard to tell.
"Trust me James I know more about this than you do, did you have prooblems with the logic behind safety belts too."
Condesending twatty comnent of the week right there, but so 'full of fail' as to be comically tragic.
1) My name, as on my birth certificate, and as clearly stated on this forum, is Jamie. I've never been called 'James' in any shape or form, so that smug assumption backfired.
2) You know fuck-all about my knowledge on the matter, although you yourself have demostrated that any knowledge you do have is due to being one of the aforementioned 'dumb motorists'
3) Enter strawman. Since when do seatbelts make emergency services less visible, along with cyclusts, and other road users? Since when does universal seatbelt adoption totally negate any possible advantage of gaving them? Since when do seatbelts waste energy and have the potential to incorrectly give somoene a false sense of security?
As "Adrian 4" and "John Arthur" mention above, far more eloquently than I could put it, the more this is rolled out, the more vulnerable other users get, and as it get's even more ubiquitous, it's effectively an arms race to remain effective.
And all this because apparently we allow people to drive when their eyesight isn't up to the job.
*smiley face back at ya! Have a nice day!*
Well done AC, you managed to paste a quote from a completely different article! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/25/police_lie_to_public_about_law_on_terrorism_videos/
Oh! I was wondering why I'm seeing more cars wasting energy like this these days.... I thought we'd been invaded by Sweden or something.
In bright, clear weather (which admittedly is often not the case here in the UK) I don't need to see lights to know if a vehicle is moving, I errr, just see that it's moving.
I suppose this is yet another driving dumbing down for those morons who don't think to use their lights in heavy rain, or, duuur, at night
"Perhaps amanfrommars will come back and El Reg can decipher him for us,,,"
"Im not so bothered about online gaming, but none of the Playstation Plus titles run without phoning into the mothership... and that is pretty much all my collection!"
But that's to stop the pirates! I.e. those that probably have a cracked version with such restrictions removed....
"Why is it a security hole? Can I pwn an Android system if I insert a FAT formatted SD card into it?"
Android leverages the Unix security underneath in that every installed app runs as a unique and seperate user. But of course, FAT32 doesn't have the concept of file owners and permissions, so, yes,
A dodgy app with sdcard access has access to your photos etc., or manipulate their data files if they are residing on the sdcard. i'm not saying Google is innocent here for allowing this to occur, but as I said, the root cause has bern down to MS using their monopoly to force the crappy FAT.
Now, you could be forgiven for not knowing that, which is why I briefly explained why in my original post, assuming it was enough for a techie to grok. My apologies for not dumbing down enough for you.
"Your whole rhetoric is complete garbage anyway because Windows has supported UDF for a long time. Just like all the other Operating Systems."
So, tell me why all flash media uses FAT instead of UDF? Errr, maybe because Flash isn't a frigging optical disk, where even R/W disks can't have sectors changed as easily as on flash or a hard drive.
I hope you are trolling this shit. It would be scary if you were being sincere.
Anyway, I'm slowly removing FAT32 from everything. USB drives and flash cards are now UFS2+SU partitioned with the bsdlabel. (No MBR bollocks or GPT over-engineering who's purpose will come into effect the exact ZERO times I use them in a Windows machine)
For convenience, the android cards will be ext3 or 4, but there are still some apps that don't play well.
"Umm... because FAT doesn't support ownership or security of files?
Until recently, apps can read the files created by other apps. For example, any app is able to access your naughty photos, passwords, etc. from your SD card."
Nice one, AC! I thought the point was clear, but apparently not. Thanks for spelling it out for them :-)
"Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further."
Well get practicing, because you may have to!