If the codes were generated by an algorithm, it would be possible to discover the algorithm and generate valid codes.
You know the algorithm. You don't know the private key.
Not even necessarily that. They may securely, randomly generate codes and store them in their database for validation. No key, no derivation, the code is a completely random value.
In such a case, the only possible attack would be against their database.
"take a while to crack"? How do you exactly imagine performing cracking in this context? Cracking a code in the way you imply (brute force?) involves lots of attempts.
When faced with interactive network login, this is feasible - the attempts are cheap, you can automatically perform millions of login attempts at practically no cost.
In this context, you'd have to send millions of identical physical letters until one gets through. How do you imagine going that? Getting a truck of blank letters, using an army of printers and robots to fill them in and pack and throw into mail boxes? You'd have to distribute your attack among thousands of geographically distributed post offices, otherwise you'd overwhelm the one, the mailbox would immediately overflow.
We're talking of physical reality. Brute force cracking attacks are mostly tied to the domain of virtual stuff unless you're talking about really short codes (like 2 digit code, or, in the case of e.g. suitcase locks, 3/4 digits). I doubt they make the codes so short here.
About getting one digit wrong - you can always make the code somewhat redundant, making use of error correction codes.
I don't get it - surely it shouldn't matter if someone gains access to the password verification routine, the salt and the encrypted passwords... unless the password hashing/encryption is easily reversible?
They've still got to try and brute force match the encrypted data with a dictionary attack - sure, having the salt makes it easier - but if you've got the salt and the encrypted passwords it doesn't matter what encryption algorithm is used, you've still got to use a brute force dictionary attack. Most encryption algorithms aren't easily reversible - and that's the whole point.
Did you RTFA?
The point is that typically used hash algorithms are designed for speed, which makes brute forcing much easier. For this task, a deliberately slow hash algorithm, like bcrypt, should be used, making the brute force attack much less (like 5 orders of magnitude) feasible.
The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has predicted the evolution of warfare we're observing today as far back as 1986:
The really interesting essay of the three, and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem's work, is the middle one, "The Upside-Down Evolution." Lem announces that, by unspecified means, he's gotten hold of "a military history of the twenty-first century," and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.
It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who. A country was able to e.g. form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.
Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem. And we're only at its beginning.
All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).
Better yet, make the prison a non-GSM zone, deinstalling BTS-es and/or screening/jamming the radio signals. Make the staff and inmates use landlines for phone communication.
Where's that edit history you're referring to?
I were looking for it in a number of places (and their own help has 0 articles for that keyword) all around the Wave UI, I just wanted to revert some deletions I've made to a document.
I couldn't find it and it was the major reason I've stopped playing with it - too easy to lose content.
The other reasons being lack of integration with Google Docs and GMail...
So, someone's invented ntp_time? That's only been around collecting time from time servers, many of which are atomic clock connected, since about 1985.
...
Seriously, could the editor that greenlighted this have done a google search or something?
Could you have done a google search yourself or something?
Then you might find this:
The RADclock project (formerly known under 'TSCclock') aims to provide a new system for network timing within two years. We are developing replacements for NTP clients and servers based on new principles, in particular the need to distinguish between difference clocks and absolute clocks. The term RADclock, 'Robust Absolute and Difference Clock', stems from this. The RADclock difference clock, for example, can measure RTTs to under a microsecond, even if connectively to the time server is lost for over a week!
I would guess that they list a half-life for lead-204 because it has one.
So, what substance does it decompose to?
AFAIR, a major problem before phase-change memory can become a flash memory replacement is its sensitivity to heat and the resulting modifications that producers would have to introduce to their manufacturing processes (e.g. putting data on the memory chips after, not before assembling).
Would this technology lift this requirement from them by lowering the tempeartures involved in the soldering process?
The polish SF writer Stanislaw Lem has predicted the evolution of warfare we're observing today as far back as 1986:
The really interesting essay of the three, and the one with the greatest connection to the rest of Lem's work, is the middle one, "The Upside-Down Evolution." Lem announces that, by unspecified means, he's gotten hold of "a military history of the twenty-first century," and proceeds to describe the advent and evolution of warfare by micro- and nano-robots.
It's been some time since I read it, but I recall him having envisioned evolution of war machinery as it became more and more miniaturized and swarm-like, until it was completely impossible to know if and who was attacking who. A country was able to e.g. form giant undetectable light-focusing lens overlaid in the upper layers of the atmosphere to influence agricultural yield of another country and affect its economy without needing to resort to direct contact and observable violence.
Very interesting to see the actual 21st century technology follow the exact path predicted by Stanislaw Lem. And we're only at its beginning.
All in all, a recommended read (like many other works by Lem).
Don't confuse this with Linden's right to dictate the terms of their service, which they of course have. The conflict with the GPL is not in their restrictions on the USAGE of a modified client, but in their imposing restrictions on the freedom to develop and distribute it.
The Third Party Viewer restrictions only apply to users of the service. If you never use Linden Labs' service, you aren't bound by them.
The GPL is no longer available to developers of Second Life clients, because Linden Lab has added new restrictions on a developer's freedom to develop and distribute,
They have done no such thing. The have restricted the freedoms of people who access the service under the TOS. If you never access their service, you aren't bound by the TPV restrictions.
You can easily see that in Section 8 of TPV: if you violate the Third Party Viewer policy, you don't lose the rights to the source code (which would be the GPL remedy), you lose the right to access the service.
5) Copy ALL important files to the USB drive (probably safest to copy your entire user directory, if your USB drive is big enough.
6) When done, re-format your hard drive and re-install XP.
7) Update your system completely.
8) Re-install all applications you need (office, etc.)
9) Copy your important files off of the USB drive.
I'd suggest "5a): send really-really-important files to yourself by e-mail". You know, just in case your USB drive dies somewhere between 5) and 9).
Or for impressing a geeky girl once could try to execute an injection attack. Just make sure you use a Trojan or you might spawn unwanted child processes.
Maybe she would prefer a man-in-the-middle...?
That's especially good as a part of a comprehensive penetration testing scenario...
Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.
