Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:All the data hasn't been released (Score 1) 392

slowly drive the spike through AM's heart.

Are you kidding? There are 1 girl for every 2200 guys or so, between that factoid and the media interest in this, I'd be a months pay they've gotten more subscribers in the last month than in the last year.

This is doing nothing but good for them, all they need to do is put up a reminder about pre-paid CCs when signing up.
2200:1 ratio is better than 0:1 ratio that most of these people actually have of meeting a girl that's willing to sleep with a married man.

If they had a greater than 0 chance without Ashley Madison, they'd never have used AM in the first place.

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 1, Insightful) 705

No, he could use common sense.

Common sense says you don't publish shit ON A PUBLIC NETOWRK, let alone on a fucking outlawed (in his country) social media site ...

And work to change your oppressive regime.

See the two things are only slightly related, you can in fact do either one without the other, or both, or none.

What you don't get is to pretend it wasn't your fault that people found your were a closeted homosexual because YOU POSTED IT ON THE FUCKING INTERNET.

Don't post public shit on the internet if you don't want the world to know, dumbass. It's his own fault, 100%. His direct actions led him to this dillema.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1, Interesting) 705

Considering that Ashley Madison as a whole is illegal in most jurisdictions I would be really surprised if those laws had no effect.

In NC, USA, the Ashley Madison website is in direct violation of several marriage statutes, namly around willful alienation of affection, which is punishable with jail time.

Affairs are probably illegal in most states in the U.S. If not all. Facilitating criminal conduct intentionally IS a crime in every state in the U.S.

Comment Not impressed (Score 1) 157

According to IW, for the last three-and-a-half years, Stenn said he's worked 100-plus hours a week answering emails, accepting patches, rewriting patches to work across multiple operating systems, piecing together new releases, and administering the NTP mailing list.

First off, bullshit. Well, bullshit or he sucks at his job or he doesn't want to do anything BUT his job.

If that was a problem, he could say 'I quit' and he would get help. But he doesn't. And he's not the maintainer of the protocol, just a daemon, arguably not even the best one at this point, especially based on his claims of how much work it takes to keep it going.

This whole thing wreaks of whiney little bitch syndrome.

If he wanted Apple to contribute to his lively hood he should have contracted like any more 60 year old person knows to do. Its not like he hasn't been doing software dev for a few years.

Comment Re:Insurance subsidy? (Score 1) 204

Not when everyone just stops showing moderation and gets trashed because they don't have to drive home, they can just get a cheap cab because its on their insurance.

And then I end up paying way more cause you can rest assured that Insurance companies aren't going to eat the cost.

Comment Re:Curious, how did they do that? (Score 2) 64

The TV receiver is a passive device, right.

No, not even a little bit.

It does not intentionally transmit signals. It is however filled with RF circuits designed to decode the incoming signal, the laws of physics ensure that these circuits also produce signals of their own. Ideally, these are shielded. Realistically, the shields aren't that useful and the sidebands that are being produced aren't being used by other nearby things that will be overwhelmed by the extra RF output of the TV.

FCC laws prohibit TVs from transmitting ... but the laws of nature still seem to overrule the FCC.

This applies to TV tuners as well as TiVo, you're car radio, cell phone or anything else that receives signals. Theres an oscillator in it thats helping to decode the signals, and at the same time, transmitting some things as a side effect. Even your computer monitor is transmitting signals and thats why you can actually read data from monitors you can't even see with the right equipment.

Doesn't work over very much range, but its pretty simple to detect and decode within short ranges (for varying definitions of short range)

Comment Re:A "phone" is already obsolete. (Score 1) 136

I call bullshit.

Your leaving a large amount of information out of your statement or you are flat out lying.

The cable run alone for a 25 mile patch is millions of dollars just to put it in the ground, not even the equipment required to make it work.

You're lying about the scenario you are in.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 4, Insightful) 294

So right off the top of my head, two examples of things you're missing:

An SSL handshake bug ... which we've seen before is still entirely possible. You don't need to send a HTTP protocol request for an SSL bug to fuck you over. Unless of course you think Firefox is flawless and bug free ... which we are 100% certain will never be the case.

Its also trivial to continue to leak information by setting up the connection to a particular host without sending the full request based on how the host link is configured.

Simply configure your spam email/site to point to individual IPs and port combos for every email you send, then when viewed in a browser, this presetting up of conditions can still be used for confirmation of email delievery as well as potentially exploiting bugs in the browser, which is a safe bet to exist based on the ignorance of this feature.

And this is why just because YOU don't understand why security works the way it does, doesn't mean you've thought of all the actual scenarios.

Lets see what else: TCP connects cost bandwidth, not much, but some, this is just another example of speculative wastefulness typical with modern programmers who have no consideration about what the costs are of the operation they are performing because it happens so fast in their dev environment they don't notice the cost. On the other hand, a very popular website will now notice a many more idle connections, which are not free, maybe not even cheap, because Firefox is being retarded and forgetting Internet Security 101.

Throw in using a custom DNS hostname for every URL thrown into an email or web page, and now you can easily track hovered over links of the user without them clicking a thing.

You don't go connecting to random machines on the Internet without specific instruction to do so, #InternetSecurity101

Comment Re:Are they actually seeing HTTP requests or just (Score 2) 294

The scenarios are entirely possible.

An SSL handshake bug ... which we've seen before is still entirely possible. You don't need to send a HTTP protocol request for an SSL bug to fuck you over.

Its also trivial to continue to leak information by setting up the connect to a particular host without sending the full request based on how the host link is configured.

Simply configure your spam email/site to point to individual IPs and port combos for every email you send, then when viewed in a browser, this presetting up of conditions can still be used for confirmation of email delievery as well as potentially exploiting bugs in the browser, which is a safe bet to exist based on the ignorance of this feature.

Comment Re:Webmail obvious security issue (Score 1) 294

Expand that scenario ...

What about the one where a Firefox bug is exploited because you just moved your mouse and during the process it hovered over a malicious link, which then Firefox tried to fetch and then was exploited in the process ...

Oh thats right, Mozilla completely and utterly forgot about the nature of writing a secure browser.

Firefox: Netscape Navigator 50.0 - Same crappy devs, same crappy management, same ignorant development that ran them out of business the first time ... new browser name. - End result, Firefox is just as shitty as Netscape was (and why it lost the browser war regardless of what you think bundling had to do with it) because Mozilla thinks they know more about whats good for me than I do ... or everyone with any clue about security.

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

Working...