Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - WPA2 vulnerable to key reinstallation attacks. (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A serious weaknesses in WPA2 is discovered, a protocol that secures all modern protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can exploit these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs). Concretely, attackers can use this novel attack technique to read information that was previously assumed to be safely encrypted. This can be abused to steal sensitive information such as credit card numbers, passwords, chat messages, emails, photos, and so on. The attack works against all modern protected Wi-Fi networks. Depending on the network configuration, it is also possible to inject and manipulate data. For example, an attacker might be able to inject ransomware or other malware into websites.

The weaknesses are in the Wi-Fi standard itself, and not in individual products or implementations. Therefore, any correct implementation of WPA2 is likely affected. To prevent the attack, users must update affected products as soon as security updates become available. Note that if your device supports Wi-Fi, it is most likely affected. During our initial research, we discovered ourselves that Android, Linux, Apple, Windows, OpenBSD, MediaTek, Linksys, and others, are all affected by some variant of the attacks. For more information about specific products, consult the database of CERT/CC, or contact your vendor.

The research behind the attack will be presented at the Computer and Communications Security (CCS) conference, and at the Black Hat Europe conference. Our detailed research paper can already be downloaded.

Submission + - Elsevier Wants $15 Million 'Piracy' Damages From Sci-Hub and Libgen (torrentfreak.com)

lbalbalba writes: Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, is demanding $15 million in damages from Sci-Hub and LibGen, who make paywalled scientific research papers freely available to the public. A good chunk of these papers are copyrighted, many by Elsevier. Elsevier has requested a default judgment of $15 million against the defendants for their "truly egregious conduct" and "staggering" infringement. Sci-Hub’s efforts are backed by many prominent scholars, who argue that tax-funded research should be accessible to everyone. Others counter that the site doesn’t necessarily help the Open Access movement forward. Sci-Hub’s founder Alexandra Elbakyan defends her position and believes that what she does is helping millions of less privileged researchers to do their work properly by providing free access to research results.

Comment Re:Good: The Way Forward. (Score 1) 135

Well then why not sue the country responsible for setting up the conditions that enabled ISIS to be formed in the first place?

Well that would actually be a good idea. The only problem with it is that there is no *single* country responsible here. The entire world (including but not limited to the 'western' and 'islamic' country's) just stood by and let this happen. When the civil war broke out in Syria ~6-ish years ago, it should have been stopped right there and then. Instead, *everyone* had this 'not my problem' attitude, decided to turn away, and let it foster. In fact, the 'western' country's didn't even start caring about the issue whatsoever until the problem literally landed on their doorsteps, with refugees and terrorist attacks. Oh, *now* they want to solve it. And even now the proposed solution isn't even stopping the warfare in Syria and returning the country to a stable state: It is sought in stopping the refugees and terrorists from entering the 'western' country's; who gives a fuck what they do in Syria. 'Not my problem'.

Submission + - Filmmakers Take Dutch State to Court Over Lost Piracy Revenue (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A coalition of Dutch film and TV producers is following through on their threat to file a lawsuit against the local Government. The filmmakers hold the authorities responsible for the country's high piracy rates. They claim the government tolerated and even encouraged unauthorized downloading for years and want to see compensation as a result. Last year the Dutch Government denied these allegations, noting that the filmmakers could go after downloaders directly if they want to recoup their losses. However, they are not backing down.

Comment Re:New Scamming Technique (Score 1) 206

Can't they trace the money to the bank account? Find out who's bank account it is, etc?

Well I am not familiar with the details in this specific case, but judging by past scams I assume that they are using multiple bank accounts, and setting up other people in vulnerable groups (drug addicts, homeless people, etc.) to use their accounts for them. Then when you 'follow the money', you end up at the people that have been used by the scammers, and not the scammers themselves.

Comment New Scamming Technique (Score 5, Informative) 206

Slightly off-topic, but: Over here in Holland, the latest scamming technique is for criminals to send generic 'illegal download copyright infringement notices' (without specifying any particular download) letters to people via snail mail, claiming to be from 'DutchFilmWorks (DFW)', which clearly is not the sender of the letters. However, the company does exist, and is one of the largest (independent) movie distributors in Holland, which helps to make it seem like legitimate notice. The letters claim the fine is 100,- euro per illegally downloaded movie, but that the fine can be prevented by paying 50,- euro within eight days to the bank account number of the criminals. How many people have fallen for the scam is currently unclear.

Comment Studies may not include all influential factors. (Score 1) 331

If you are unable to reproduce the results of a certain study, it appears to me that there may just not be enough knowledge of all the factors that affect the end result. For example, if you study something believing the main factors that determine the outcome are 'A', 'B', and 'C', but do not have the insight (yet) that factor 'D' is also very influential, then factor 'D' may have value '1' for the original study but value '2' for the reproduction study, influencing the end result and resulting in the different outcomes. This does not mean that the 'scientific method' is incorrect, or that the research was 'fake' or 'sloppy'. It just means that more research is needed, to determine those missing factors that determine the results, leading to (more) accurate and reproducible studies.

Slashdot Top Deals

egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0

Working...