Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:device boot up won't stop terrorists (Score 1) 184

by Beat The Odds (#48581469) Attached to: Are the TSA's New Electronic Device Screenings Necessary?

i have a postage sized mp3 player from china with a tf/sd card slot it boots up shows a menued screen and plays mp3s. a fake phone that has a plastic explosive bomb could easily use a 'fake' power on screen with menu and the menus would be browsable and possibly functional and also be a bomb.

so no this doesn't make airplanes safer.

It's just a little suspicious that your phone looks like this:

Comment: Re:Bogus argument (Score 1) 311

by Beat The Odds (#44065207) Attached to: Are You Sure This Is the Source Code?

"Exact binaries" is not the point of having the source code.

Uh, you must not have worked in a shop that does continuous integration automated builds? Do you really think QA should be handed binaries that you compile and have them trust them?

The problem is that GCC will always give you a different binary every time you compile from the same source. This makes it impossible that the binary you received comes from the source you claim to have used. You can get around this by never receiving binaries from anywhere but the automated build machine but it would still be useful to be able to test that a build that you received was built from the code you expect.

There were several reasons why Apple moved away from the GCC tool chain to LLVM and Clang but one of the abilities of the LLVM stack is that you can actually get identical binaries from the same source compiled on different machines at different times.

You confused my post and gotten it EXACTLY BACKWARDS. But thanks for playing....

The point that I was making is that source code does not always build "exact binaries". Now if someone is giving you both a binary and the source code and claiming that the source produced the binary, there is really no way to prove that one way or another. But at least you know that you can build a binary from the source code and know what is in THAT binary.

Comment: Re:Defective product. (Score 1) 185

by Beat The Odds (#42141865) Attached to: Microsoft Security Essentials Loses AV-Test Certificate

I would agree that 3/4 of AV success is avoiding "dodgy" sites. However, I have never had any problems with malware on any porn site. The sites I have had problems with malware on were like pics of celebrities on Google Images, and you get a redirect to a malware driveby site, or, you lick on an ad that promises things free that should not be ... that kind of thing. I Used to AVG 2012, but when it went to 2013 it refused to activate, so I switched to Avast, and have not looked back. Higher rated and better protection.

Well for crying out loud, stop licking on those ads. That'll get you every time.

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak