Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

+ - Privileged malware coming to a CPU near you?->

Submitted by ArmoredDragon
ArmoredDragon writes: For the past few years, Intel has been developing a new technology called Software Guard Extensions. The gist of it is that software can be protected from snooping or manipulation from untrusted higher privileged processes, or even from processes running outside of a VM. This sounds good in principle because it could protect your trusted software from malware, especially for cloud environments where IT security is paramount. The problem however is that it is very much a double edged sword. Malware, such as that found in a botnet, could easily hide itself from any kind of scanning software, or even a white-hat hacker trying to debug it. Or even worse, entities like the NSA could potentially issue an NSL to give themselves authority to create trusted applications that are allowed to spy on protected processes, while everybody who isn't whitelisted by Intel would be placed at a major disadvantage if they ever wanted to audit such software.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:This is not good... (Score 1) 254

by ArmoredDragon (#49541787) Attached to: Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

Even rotting food is nutritious ... or so I am told

That depends on the food and how exactly it rotted. Normal molecular decay can yield certain nutrients in some cases that your body doesn't produce on its own, but in most cases existing nourishments are broken down. Bacterial consumption (i.e. biodegrading) typically results in a reduction in nourishment as well, depending on how (i.e. aerobic vs anaerobic, such as fermentation.)

Comment: Re:This is not good... (Score 1) 254

by ArmoredDragon (#49540455) Attached to: Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

Unfortunately eating right isn't as easy as not smoking.

Did I say it was?

It is easy to eat nothing but McDonalds and KFC, but that isn't eating well.

It isn't not eating well either. The mistake most people tend to make at places like these is they consume too many calories (the worst part tends to come from the beverages and oversized burgers) and not enough nourishment. One of the staple menu items at KFC for example is sweet corn on a cob, which isn't at all bad for you. The salads at McDonalds are healthy provided you don't go overboard with the saturated fats found in the dressings. Having a normal sized burger twice a week won't kill you either.

To eat right, one must search for fresh and natural foods. Trust me, it isn't as simple as "not smoking".

This is purely a religious statement as it has zero basis in empirical evidence. If you had just said "to live right, one must search for Jesus" you'd sound every bit as credible and sane.

In fact, prior to the existence of agriculture, "natural" meant whatever you could pick up off of the ground that doesn't happen to smell like ass yet, which is exactly what humans have evolved to live with. Fresh might taste better, but unless it's outright rotten, it hasn't lost its nutritional value.

Eating right means your immune system is able to fend off everyday environmental hazards. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative (Starbucks n Krispie Kreame for every meal)

You could eat starbucks and krispy kreme as part of every meal so long as you included nourishment along with them, and then burned those calories off later with exercise, and it wouldn't negatively impact your immune system. The concern here is that the high quantity of sugar found in those donuts could lead to Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, which can lead to cirrosis, and the sugar could also raise your triglycerides and lower your HDL cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease, while the saturated fats would raise your LDL cholesterol.

However, your immune system would be fine.

And everything I said it based on empirical evidence, not superstition and guessing like the supposition you posted above.

Comment: Re:This is not good... (Score 1) 254

by ArmoredDragon (#49538489) Attached to: Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

You are absolutely wrong. Eating right does prevent some cancers, because eating right reduces the risk of cancer, thus can be said to prevent.

You're wrong at the worst, and splitting hairs at the best, and here's why: In order to increase your risk of cancer to begin with, you'd have to otherwise be doing something to put yourself at higher risk to it to begin with. What you said is tantamount to saying that not smoking prevents lung cancer. It's just a silly conclusion to draw.

Comment: Re:This is not good... (Score 4, Informative) 254

by ArmoredDragon (#49536935) Attached to: Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis

Maybe not cure cancer, but almost certainly eating right can prevent it.

Wrong. Very very incredibly wrong. Substantially more than half of all incidents of cancer are the result of random mutation. No amount of "eating right" will change that.


Honestly I'm tired of this stupid fucking "eating right means you never get sick" religion that seems to be going around (spread by some stupid celebrities like Bill Maher.) Eating wrong can cause problems (most common of which would be liver and heart disorders caused by eating too many sugars or too many electrolytes, followed by undernourishment from not consuming enough amino acid groups) but eating right isn't going to guarantee you'll never get sick.

Oh, and by the way, the actual store "Whole Foods" promotes some of these snake oil ideals:

- They sell very expensive homeopathic medicines which are proven to be worthless
- They maintain a list of banned foods that aren't harmful (glutamates, such as potassium glutamate) while including some foods that are known to kill some people (i.e. peanuts.)
- They sell a LOT of junk food that is VERY high in sugar, but claim to be a health food store.

Honestly the sooner this organic foods/whole foods religion dies, the better.

Comment: Re:Stripped down version (Score 1) 129

by ArmoredDragon (#49528817) Attached to: YouTube Going Dark On Older Devices

it does show the contempt manufacturers hold their customers in these days.

I really don't think that's what's going on here. You've got to remember that this is the iFlock generation where if the device doesn't resemble something trendy and heartsy enough for a Japanese school girl, few people will buy it. This is because most people aren't like the geek crowd found on slashdot; they basically have this mindset that if something isn't built in, then it isn't possible to do.

Let me give you an example: About six years ago I worked at Staples, and I recall having a customer come in who said he already had a network wired printer, but he wanted to buy a new wireless printer so he could print from his laptop. It just totally never occurred to him that *any* networked printer could be used via wifi because it's likely that you at least have a layer 3 connection to it. Being non-commissioned, I simply told him this and explained (for free, and briefly) how to do that and didn't sell him a printer that day. However most sales people aren't as nice as I was when I did sales, and that's especially true of Best Buy.

Anyways many customers don't simply put two and two together that smart TV functions that you pay probably a few extra hundred for are easily replaced by a single hundred roku. Because of that lack of education, customers end up coming to the store asking for TVs that also include a kitchen sink as standard. Thus even the manufacturers that might not want to do this will have to follow suit, because the majority of purchasers aren't educated.

Comment: Re:Here's a better idea (Score 1) 670

Um, rolling brown-outs? Not lately. We did have some of that early 2000's [wikipedia.org], because of a TEXAS business.

Don't confuse a blackout with a brownout.


A brownout is often unobservable to people, however computer equipment is known to fail faster if it has to endure too many. California has generally had them every few years or so, lasting different variations, with the last one happening in 2013 for about 4 hours.

Comment: Re:Here's a better idea (Score 2) 670

Either way California *could* stand to be a little more self sustaining. It doesn't seem California is able to supply their own anything. 25% of their electricity is purchased from Arizona, and even then they still have rolling brownouts because they can't meet the demand.

Comment: Re:there's a strange bias on slashdot (Score 2) 192

healthy capitalism is a strictly regulated market

I disagree, I think healthy capitalism is where the competition is so strong that regulations aren't needed. When the forces of supply and demand (aka free markets) regulate the market, things have a way of turning out much better.

For an example, look at the net neutrality situation. Sure, the government can regulate that Comcast be fair when it comes to peering disputes, they might even be able to one day regulate Comcasts prices, but one thing they'll never be able to regulate is the fact that Comcast are total assholes to their customers. Comcast will always be assholes unless they have a competitor taking customers away.

I remember how during the 80's, the local phone companies had really asshole policies (Need to reconnect a phone line after you suspended it because you were leaving the country for 6 months? That'll be $300 please, or $700 in 2015 dollars) and they were HEAVILY regulated, both in terms of price and service. It wasn't until just about everybody could finally offer phone service that adding a new phone line became dirt cheap, and long distance became basically free.

Comment: Re:Remember M$'s role on SCO? (Score 1) 192

Honestly show a sugar rich junk food commercial to a person on record suffering from type 2 diabetes and you should go to jail because you intent is to psychologically manipulate their choices to the point of self harm because GREED.

This is going to sound ad-hom, but I'll just be honest: You'd have to be incredibly stupid to believe that. In fact, the people who started that nonsense against McDonalds are incredibly stupid. It isn't greedy to, for example, sell lemonade, which is a very sugary drink that harms diabetics.

In fact, if we're going to start calling it greedy to sell any kind of food that harms any kind of person with any dietary restrictions, then we'll have to ban commercials that advertise the following foods, because in large quantities they cause problems with people who have any kind of kidney disease: (which includes a lot of people, especially diabetics, who often end up with kidney failure)

Beans of any kind
Melons of most varieties
Star fruit

In fact while we're at it, let's ban every commercial featuring food that there's a known fatal allergy for, like all varieties of seafood, eggs, all varieties of fruit, and all varieties of wheat, and also all foods containing high amounts of vitamin k because it harms people taking drugs designed to fight thrombosis, so that means most green vegetables are out too.

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann