A list of recently purchased/downloaded or even new additions would cycle a larger group of useful apps to the app store audience.
New apps should be featured, not most popular or most sold. Right now there are an extremely limited number of ways to filter apps when you browse and this more than anything is hurting the smaller, startup app developers. I know, I've been one!
The key is to only ever run the services that are absolutely needed, carefully configure these and keep them up to date. If you follow that advice a firewall is an added level of security but not necessarily needed.
The main caveat or gotcha to that approach is the time between vulnerability discovery and patch. There are services that may also be a requisite to a mission critical service that have exposed ports without a firewall. These can create vulnerabilities without a firewall protecting them. Let's put it this way, there are A LOT more reasons to run a firewall than to not run one. It's always better to err on the side of caution/paranoia when it comes to net security.
As soon as they start handling credit card transactions, they will need to conform with PCI standards, which will mandate much much higher levels of protections. There are significant fines associated with non-compliance so you may want to forward them over information about this.
Very true and the changeover process for the required configuration is non-trivial as well. I remember when our organization met PCI compliance for CCs and it took months and lots of dollars to get all the systems that were processing credit cards up to spec. If they're going to do CC processing, even on an off chance, they should look into the requirements and do the setup that way NOW! It's more secure overall anyway so why not just do it from the ground up rather than trying to go through the Hell of modifying the setup for compliance later.
I've set up networks where the server infrastructure itself is on its own segment, so there's no need for firewalls between the servers themselves, but the whole subnet is firewalled by a border router.
Ask Target how well that scheme worked out from them.
It sounds a little like you're trying to just fling a firewall at the system and improve some sort of objective security metric.
What threats are you risks to mitigate with the firewall? What threats will it help guard against?
They don't come for free, and configuring them don't come for free.
What planet are you from? You don't setup a firewall to counter known threats. That's what software patches are for. You setup a firewall to prevent unknown threats on unused network ports. Just because you're not using a port doesn't mean there isn't a service attached to it that's vulnerable. That's why we have firewalls. And yes, firewalls do indeed come for free as part of most operating systems and network switch OSes and configuring them should take minutes for anyone with half a brain and some level of network admin competency. If in today's server admin world you take longer than a few minutes to setup the firewall as part of your config you've got a ridiculously complex set of services or you're in the wrong profession!
From its very beginning, quantum theory has been revealing extraordinary and counter-intuitive phenomena, such as wave-particle duality, Schrodinger cats and quantum non-locality. Another paradoxical phenomenon found within the framework of quantum mechanics is the ‘quantum Cheshire Cat’: if a quantum system is subject to a certain pre- and post-selection, it can behave as if a particle and its property are spatially separated. It has been suggested to employ weak measurements in order to explore the Cheshire Cat’s nature. Here we report an experiment in which we send neutrons through a perfect silicon crystal interferometer and perform weak measurements to probe the location of the particle and its magnetic moment. The experimental results suggest that the system behaves as if the neutrons go through one beam path, while their magnetic moment travels along the other.
That is what I don't understand about the previous replies. They make it sound like all the chips in a device store data.
Open the device, use Google to identify the storage chips and destroy those chips only, that still leaves 95% of the useful parts available for sale.
I don't just give this advice to wireheads like ourselves. Everyone needs to understand that their data doesn't go away with a "wipe" of NVRAM and the only way to be sure it's not readable is to destroy the electronics. Most people aren't interested in piecing out their prior electronic devices anyway, so saving certain bits is really bad advice for most people. The best advice is to crack it open, smash anything that even remotely looks like a piece of logic or memory and dump the dust into the trash. I'm sorry, but I don't support the guerilla market for replacement cellphone parts. If you're too cheap to buy a new phone or replace a component through the manufacturer then you probably shouldn't be using the device anyway because you cannot financially support its maintenance and upkeep. Or, you should pay the little bit extra and get the drop/damage insurance.
/. is a hipster site focused on Tesla, global climate change, and trendy-fad-du-jour.
Clearly someone who hasn't been on
Sometimes you can get the NSA to help you with this...
Uhhh, no, the NSA would rather you NOT do this, SMASH SMASH SMASH SMASH! They can't get the goods on you if you pulverise the chips.
Built-in storage is going to be an IC or two that are soldered to a PCB. If the device won't boot, the only really safe way to delete the data is to dismantle the unit and totally destroy the board and make sure all ICs are broken.
Bingo, give this man a cigar. With modern NVRAM the only way to be sure it's safe is to destroy it. Yes, really! So my advice to anyone parting with a personal electronic device is, "Pulverise it with a hammer on a concrete slab." Becuase the money you get back from its sale will not offset identity theft or whatever other havoc can be delivered from data left on the device in NVRAM. I still have ALL my old phones and other devices from the last twelve years and will eventually destroy them. Don't get on the recycle kick either. I know, there are some things in there that would be better recycled but any possible data on the device trumps environmental concerns. I don't go through a phone every year so it's not a lot of devices for me.
1. The Linux community has been elitist and abusive since it began. Why is Linus's "tirade" anything new, unexpected, or outside the norm of the community that has taken pride in its arrogance and mean, nasty treatment of anyone daring to ask a legitimate question about something related to Linux and its underpinnings?
2. Words exist for a reason, even the "abusive" ones. They convey meaning that cannot be properly conveyed by using other words; it's why they're in our lexicon to begin with! If you have to sugar coat things and dance around the issue then you are only beleaguring a point. Having said that do I believe that Linus was NOT out of bounds in this case
3. I think there was a comment above that said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I don't think anyone that does development work hasn't had a tirade like that, unless they're über pious or something. It's easy to armchair quarterback and snipe from the bushes on the Internet where no one knows your own prior workplace behavior for reference. Don't throw asteroids when you're standing in a glass cathedral! This is aimed at you SuperBanana...
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
