Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment If you love Windows, you'll love Surface (Score 0) 386

If you're really in love with Windows, then buy a Surface. It's basically Windows-to-go, and that slogan should be the core of the Surface marketing campaign.

If you love apps that don't quite work right, get an android tablet. Tier 1 apps work mostly as well as iOS apps. Everything else is sort of half-baked.

For everyone else there's the iPad, the only device that actually holds its value over time.

Comment Not really bad (Score 1) 85

One of the probably reasons they store the key on the box is because it's easier than having it on a remote server. A remote server can be taken out, unreachable, and you have the extra added problem of associating the decryption key with a specific box. That's a pain if the box isn't connected to the public network (i.e. it was infected through another vector).

If the key is local it's easier. You can even mail them a USB stick with the decryption application if you wanted to.

Comment Re:We're all fucked (Score 1) 303

If you have something else front-ending the SSL for your process on a compromised system, only that SSL process should be vulnerable. However, that still compromises your root cert and key, AFAIK, unless your SSL handler encrypts that stuff in-RAM.

Unfortunately, some people use SSL on tomcat or the app server directly, which means that whole app is vulnerable.

It's too late to mitigate now, but it's something to think about down the road.

Comment We're all fucked (Score 5, Interesting) 303

Any data kept in RAM on an open-ssl box has probably been compromised. It sounds like that includes private keys, root certs, passwords, etc.

This is why passwords etc should be encrypted in RAM. It's funny, there's a Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG) on that very item. It always sounded sort of ridiculous, but now I know why it was there.

Comment Re:Unfalsifiable does not mean untestable (Score 1) 470

Exactly. Something that's dismissed out of hand as ridiculous without any data may actually be an effect that nobody understands. The "unfalsifiable" poster is essentially a priori dismissing something which they believe to be false, even though that belief is really just as unscientific as the people who believe in whatever that phenomenon is.

It's actually really a hard problem to design tests for this sort of thing, and yeah, that would be what a lot of the classes would degenerate into. But it's a real life process that would make their lives better. It's like a backdoor way of introducing critical thinking, which almost guarantees it won't be part of any normal curriculum.

Comment Unfalsifiable does not mean untestable (Score 2) 470

The point of bringing these into the classroom is not to prove they are bogus - the point would be for kids to think how they would go about proving that the belief(s) in question are right or wrong.

What if you find that 98% of the people who buy magnetic bracelets feel better, and have a significant effect on back pain? If three double-blind studies said so, would you believe it, even if it makes no sense?

How would you test to see if ghosts exist? Magic? Gnomes? What would you actually test for? You could start getting into signatures, etc.

It's actually really entertaining to think about, and would be a great curriculum addition if you handle it right.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Working...