Basically, tmux is a lot more flexible and easier to hack than screen. I've never bothered with tmux though, screen is good enough for me.
I think HD quality is overrated. Yes, I can tell the difference. Yes, I appreciate HD quality. But up until 2003 or so, I happily watched live sports in standard definition quality without feeling in the least bit cheated. So I see no reason why high quality is mandatory today.
The impact of this bug does not compare to the goto fail bug. Most Linux distributions use OpenSSL for TLS. Even if a program links to GnuTLS, it may not use GnuTLS for certificate validation, and if it doesn't, then it's not affected by this bug (one example is Google Chrome). It's not like iOS where everything is required (by App Store rules) to use SecureTransport.
There's a lot of GPL software in Ubuntu, starting with the Linux kernel. Does Tesla distribute the source code to Model S owners that ask?
The source disclosure requirements of the GPL are often misunderstood. To comply with the GPL, it is not enough to distribute the source code to Model S owners that ask.
The GPL provides three options for distributing binaries (Sections 3a, 3b, and 3c), and anybody distributing Linux source code must comply with at least one of these options. Tesla cannot use Section 3c, since Section 3c states that only non-commercial distributors can use Section 3c. Section 3a requires Tesla to distribute the source code to all Model S owners, not just those who ask. Section 3b requires Tesla to distribute the source code to anybody who asks, not just Model S owners who ask.
Therefore, Tesla is required to distribute the Linux source code that they use either:
- To every Model S owner, regardless of whether the owner asks or not, or
- To every legal entity that asks for the source code, regardless of whether the entity is a Model S owner or not.
Of the MITM attacks against SSL actually deployed in the wild, what proportion rely on stolen keys compared to compromised certs? Answer that question, and you'll see that my "most attacks" claim is fully valid.
It's possible, but useless, to implemet public-key TOFU in web browsers. Almost all web sites rotate keys too fast for the pin to be useful.
If you don't trust your CA chain then do cert pinning. Either way you need to know you're talking to the right server, pretending that's impossible so it's not worth trying is a cop out.
Certificate pinning is not possible in any real-world scenario. The problem is that certificates change too often. Certificate authorities are part of the problem: they encourage high turnover, because it increases their profits. Certificate pinning only works in situations where you have inside knowledge of a company's certificate policies. Google implements certificate pinning on their own Google properties in Chrome in this way. There is nothing in SSL that technically prevents certificate pinning, but the design of SSL has inevitably led to non-technical economic incentives that indirectly make certificate pinning impossible.
SSH essentially relies exclusively on key pinning (not certificate pinning) for authentication, and it works beautifully. SSH has no certificates, and yet has a higher market share in the shell connection market than SSL has in the http connection market. SSL should become more like SSH, but this is impossible to achieve, because CAs are already economically entrenched.
True MITMs are reasonably rare in large part because of SSL.
WRONG. Provably wrong.
There exists an extremely widely-used crypto protocol which uses no certificate validation and yet prevents almost all MITM attacks. It's called SSH. In fact SSH has done something that SSL will never do: it has completely replaced the corresponding unencrypted protocol, to the point where no one, I mean no one, uses telnet anymore.
How does this magic work? SSH performs key validation. It performs this validation without requiring certificates. The validation model is very simple: trust on first use (TOFU). Although TOFU on paper is theoretically inferior to CA validation in every way, real life does not take place on paper. In the real world, TOFU is far superior to CA validation. It prevents the kinds of attacks that actually matter, while ignoring the kinds of attacks that look great on paper but aren't really a big deal in practice.
I admit I made up the 1% figure, but I believe it is a reasonable estimate. Would you like to challenge the accuracy of the number? If anything, I am convinced that closer scrutiny would reveal it to be too high of an estimate. 2013 US GDP was 17 trillion dollars. Microsoft's 2013 revenue was 77 billion dollars, about 0.5% of GDP. Of course, Microsoft is not a pure software company; some portion of that revenue is hardware, services, and so on. There are other software companies, of course. I have never heard anyone reasonably justify a much higher cost than 1%.
It is true that the benefits of commercial software far exceed its costs, but from a public policy perspective that's completely irrelevant. The cost of producing this software is ~1% of the economy. If commercial software did not exist, the government or any public body could (provably) replicate the exact same benefits at the exact same cost. Government support for something on this scale is not a ridiculous idea; it's exactly how most basic research in science is actually done in the US. Hence 1% (or less, if I'm overestimating the cost) is the correct figure to use for policy prescrptions.
In a world lacking music, the human species can survive. In a world lacking free sharing of knowledge, the human species is doomed to die. Take your pick.
To take just one example, if not for copyright restrictions, Google Books would provably be willing to make available for free to every human on the planet the entire contents of the Library of Congress. You're telling me that the future potential growth from making this knowledge available isn't worth trading 1% of our economy on a one-time basis?
Restrictions on computing or copying are unacceptable. Full stop. This is not negotiable. Copying is as natural as breathing in the digital age. Everything else, without exception, has to start from this premise and work around it. Nothing else is compatible with technological progress. Nothing else is compatible with free society.
If artists cannot sustainably produce music under this constraint, then so be it. Better to have no music at all than no freedom of computing.