Good point. But a quick sip isn't exactly something I depend on, right? That was the real point. If one source of marginally interesting information flow gets ruined, there are plenty of other things to do. My mental well-being doesn't depend on 'consumption' of what Comcast/TWC might control. Maybe I'll just take the kayak down to the river and paddle around for a bit, take the dog for a walk or take the bike out for a spin. Comcast/TWC can DIAF.

Pattern recognition is an interesting way to put it.

We are predisposed to pattern recognition. Selection also likely accounts for the fortunate ones... whose patterns of recognition proved causal rather than corollary, such as this leaf cures that malady.

Pearl Harbor Survivor is not a licence(sic) plate HOLDER.

It is a state-issued alternative license plate.

Sadly, this is not the case. The evidence is that bad actors had this exploit for months: http://arstechnica.com/securit...

Important update (10th April 2014): Original content of this blog entry stated that one of our SeaCat server detected Heartbleed bug attack prior its actual disclosure. EFF correctly pointed out that there are other tools, that can produce the same pattern in the SeaCat server log (see http://blog.erratasec.com/2014... ). I don't have any hard data evidence to support or reject this statement. Since there is a risk that our finding is false positive, I have modified this entry to neutral tone, removing any conclusions. There are real honeypots in the Internet that should provide final evidence when Heartbleed has been broadly exploited for a first time.

While something tells me this exploit is somewhat overblown, what really ticks me off is that this is all the result of delegating memory management to C pointers and basically mmap. As far as I'm concerned, in this day and age, that amounts to spaghetti code and I can't say it endears me to the reliability of openssl.

Do you have an unlimited plan for your cell phone? Do you feel obligated to use it constantly and feel guilty about not using it? Probably not.

Do you have unlimited internet? Do you download large files constantly in order to maximize your usage? Probably not.

Do you go to all-you-can-eat buffets and eat as much as you possibly can and make yourself sick? Probably not.

And then came the kids, which make watching sports almost impossible anyway, because it isn't purple and doesn't sing or dance. Well, maybe the Ravens.

The paper doesn't tell you much about cryptography, but it does illustrate the failures of peer review.

Which is not going to happen because the authors haven't given any reason why anyone should care. We have lots of widely-deployed ciphers which are fast and secure. No one attacks modern cryptographic security systems by breaking the ciphers, they do it by exploiting peripheral flaws in implementation, key management, etc.

Not that I've actually done my own research, but what qualifications do these folks have to state the security of an encryption mechanism? Everybody who finds a new way to twist a message thinks it's secure.

Yes, which means either they're being realistic in the sense that basically all forms of cryptography fall into this category,

Wouldn't it make more sense to locate these labs in an incredibly isolated area like an island in the middle of the ocean or the Moon? Someplace that CAN be quarantined 100% in the event of a mishap?

Do you have any evidence that they are doing it anyway?