Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:careless talk costs lives. (Score 1) 132

by CBravo (#49155229) Attached to: Vandalism In Arizona Shuts Down Internet and Phone Service
And here we have Schrodingers cat dilemma. If this comment is true, it has some worth to it. If it is false, it means that many Slashdotters' time is wasted over nothing. Maybe even surpassing the money-limit damage you just mentioned. The things a posting may trigger (pun intended).

+ - The EU proposes all companies share their encryption keys with the government->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Statewatch published a document revealing that Gilles de Kerchove, the EU counter terrorism coordinator, is advising the EU:

... to explore rules obliging internet and telecommunications companies operating in the EU to provide under certain conditions as set out in the relevant national laws and in full compliance with fundamental rights access of the relevant national authorities to communications (i.e. share encryption keys).

"

Link to Original Source

+ - Oracle Releases Massive Security Update->

Submitted by wiredmikey
wiredmikey (1824622) writes "Oracle has pushed out a massive security update, including critical fixes for Java SE and the Oracle Sun Systems Products Suite. Overall, the update contains nearly 170 new security vulnerability fixes, including 36 for Oracle Fusion Middleware. Twenty-eight of these may be remotely exploitable without authentication and can possibly be exploited over a network without the need for a username and password."
Link to Original Source

+ - How should email change to stop spam? 2

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Email has been on the internet for a long time and so has spam. Although anti-spam techniques are not losing the battle, it is not winning either.

Some background terms: Current smtp/email standars are RFC5321 and RFC5322. To avoid spam most people use DNSBLs and URIBLs for checking IP addresses and URLs. And there are some other content checks being done in spam-filters (e.g. by Spamassassin or non-free). Furthermore there are reputation-based systems such as SenderScore. There are some standards to avoid your domains being abused: SPF and DMARC. The large inbox-providers like Live.com and Gmail have additional filtering and throttling based on reputation and engagement (= is someone actually reading/clicking your company email).

And then there are some players in the field: ISPs send email for individuals and very small companies. ESPs (e.g. Constant Contact or MailChimp) send email for larger companies. Anti-spam organisations (such as Spamhaus, Spamcop or Sorbs) use spam information to create blocklists. Spamfilter companies (e.g. Proofpoint, Barracuda and SpamExperts) sell you a spamfilter-service and/or device. Furthermore there are a whole slew of email receivers: Large (such as Apple and Live.com/Gmail type) and smaller (companies and ISP/hosting companies). Then there are law-makers and regulatory bodies (who set and maintain laws) and I will include MAAWG here. And to not forget the spammers: Legitimate companies and criminal organisations (who spam for all sorts of reasons: marketing, selling, phishing, scamming, spear-phishing ...). I would define spam as all email that I would not expect to get (no opt-in, too long ago or inappropriate content given the relationship).

So my question is: Current anti-spam methods are not good enough. What should change in email so spam (of all sorts) is more effectivly countered?"

Comment: Re:Not new (Score 1) 145

by CBravo (#48683251) Attached to: Google and Apple Weaseling Out of "Do Not Track"
There could be a P2P-like-sharing of cookies from those sources. Got to watch out for special cases (login stuff or after viewing private content). You could swap out cookies after every page visit (given certain pages).

I am still wondering why my browser would care for cookies from those domains when being on a whole different site. Or limits their lifetimes better (sure google maps can set a cookie when visiting a website, but after closing the page it should be gone).

C for yourself.

Working...