Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Liars, liars, pants on fire (Score 5, Insightful) 301

Especially when they quote bullshit for the reason, i.e. Britain faced one or more terrorist attack per year since 2000 and will continue to do so http://news.sky.com/story/1151954/mi5-boss-warns-of-growing-uk-terror-threat. Now that means that there have been 13-26 attacks according to his figures and we haven't heard of one of them? I remember when the UK really was under the threat of terrorist attacks from the IRA, and though a lot of things were kept secret for obvious reasons during that time, when the security forces scored a major victory or prevented an attack you knew about it. Are they seriously saying that 7/7/2005 was 'the one that got away', and they haven't told us about the others because of secrecy? Just one for an example?

Comment Re:What the effing fuck? (Score 1) 158

"This is a really big deal for the BBC and is set to make them millions from the sale of the DVDs."

Hopefully the BBC doesn't make a penny selling anything related to these episodes. The BBC didn't want them. They shouldn't have them.

fta

As the corporation still owns the copyright the shows could be digitally remastered and shown again. The prospect will delight millions of fans worldwide.

Why do they need to own the copyright to remaster them? Fucking tabloid bs.

Comment Re:A truly useful gaming appliance (Score 1) 271

Why though does it need to be a Steam Box if it's really just a PC with SteamOS on it? Could I set up a Steam Box shop myself, or would Valve only let licenced vendors sell em? My guess is it would be fine. Which reminds me, I better go play the Half life episodes which I never got round to playing. Half Life 3 must be just round the corner.

Comment Re:So the FBI hacked servers to find pedos? (Score 3) 292

Murderers have rights. Pedophiles have rights. Rapists have rights.

That's right, they do. They have the same rights as the rest of us, including the right to a speedy, fair, trial by jury, and the right to remain silent. What they don't have is the right to murder, molest children, and to rape. I don't know how people don't get that.

I don't see anyone here suggesting otherwise.

Comment Re:Lets give him Obama's Nobel Prize (Score 1) 212

You don't find it disturbing that a criminal is our greatest hero of the age, specifically because he's a criminal?

If you mean to say that he is a hero because he committed a criminal act then why don't we all go and worship our heros in prison? No, actually just you asking that question has clarified it in my mind. He is a hero because he sacrificed a comfortable life to reveal the crimes of the NSA and GCHQ.

Comment Re:More Tax Money Wasted (Score 1) 201

You think that Ministry of Sound is part of the UK government?

Meybe the Ministry of Truth should spend some tax money on basic education.

Unfortunately the Ministry of Truth gave their education budget to the Ministry of Silly Walks. Can't have too many educated people walking around questioning things.

Comment Re:"Brilliant"? Hardly (Score 1) 743

Sure, it sounds like they did .. and it also sounds like this super awesome system had a gaping hole that admin could become anybody else and then just read it, because that user has access

Not the way I read it, sounds to me like as soon as he had access to their user accounts he had access to all the files in plain text, no metion of breaking encryption anywhere.

And then that's going to be the failure point in your system -- all it takes is one guy who writes his password down, and the whole thing is screwed.

I'm not crypto expert, but let's do a thought experiment.

Let's say that I've got a bunch of people, and 3 levels of security.

So, if we want all of the people (all of whom have the lowest level of security for sake of argument) to have access, we get one of two scenarios. You have a single decryption key they all share, and the first person to accidentally leak it screws it up for everyone. Or, you have to build a crypto system which will allow the same information to be decrypted using multiple decryption keys -- and my first thought is the more different ways you can decrypt the more likely it is that someone can break into it by crafting a key which also works because it's no longer unique.

Same goes the other way ... does the decryption for the most secure level also open up all of the low-level stuff? In which case, you can narrow your targets down to just the ones with the most permissive key. Because those give you the keys for absolutely everything.

You could try to have a broker which authenticates you, and from there grabs the key it will need to decrypt and then use that .. but then your broker becomes the target because it's got access to everything.

And, you'll probably have corner cases in which generally someone is only allowed the lowest level of access, but for specific things you can get 'read in' on stuff that needs you to escalate your access -- but *only* for that and nothing else. You could also have cases where you have a second group of documents in the "highest access possible" category not accessible to everyone at that level -- say, the OPR at the FBI where you might be investigating the top people and need to keep that secret from them.

I'm sure there's been literally volumes written on this, by people who have far more qualifications than I on the topic. But in general, I think the whole problem of guaranteeing only authorized users can ever access something at a given time is a hard problem. Because the more permutations on what you're trying to do, and the more people involved in it, the more places where there could be gaps.

Any security system will have holes but it would have been a whole lot harder for Snowden to get hold of the information he did if he had to loiter around peoples offices which he probably had no business being in( read plausible excuse) searching below desks for handy post-its, that or find an accomplice that had the correct encrytion codes. So I agree that no system is completely secure, but they certainly can be more secure.

Comment Re:"Brilliant"? Hardly (Score 1) 743

The admin has access to all accounts for sure, that seems pretty clear, but could they not implement a system whereby sensitive files are encrypted and only accessable by authorised users(correct security clearance)? That would involve the users managing their own passwords on the encryption software in question, but surely the people employed by the NSA should be competent to do at least that?

Comment Re:Need Light For Security (Score 1) 130

but energy use drives progress and quality/length of life. we need a plan of producing increasing amounts of energy that is carbon neutral and with no lingering waste products (which advanced reactors can do).

All very good points, but wasted energy helps none of these things. Also sustainability is at least if not more important than carbon neutrality, I have a feeling that figures that are produced for carbon neutrality are so manipulated as to be useless IMO.

Comment Re:Need Light For Security (Score 1) 130

I understand where you're coming from, 55% of your local energy is nuclear, so that's one thing that makes a big difference to fossil fuels in your areas fuel mix. That however wasn't my point, my use of barrels of oil was an arbritary measure of energy use to make the point that 1.6% of world energy in not an insignificant figure. Without getting into the advantages and dissadvantages of nuclear, the real issue we face is reducing our power consumption altogether, not just hydrocarbons. Any sustainable energy solution is going to be made easier/possible by a reduction in worldwide energy use whether its nuclear,wind power or anything else. So, initiatives such as this one have my full support because it deals with two issues, light polution gets on my nerves (I too could drive for an hour to see the stars better, but where I grew up that wasn't the case, wouldn't it be nicer not to have to?), and a not insignificant reduction in energy use. Whats not to like?

Comment Re:Need Light For Security (Score 2) 130

Quite simply because there is never going to be just one thing that can make that big a difference all by its self. What's more likely, finding 20 measures that can make 1-2% difference each, or one thing that would make 20-40% difference? ( or whatever your threshold for worthwhile is). While you're thinking about it, why don't you leave all of your electrical appliances on all the time? It would be statistically insignificant and therefore affect no-one.

Slashdot Top Deals

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...