Given that most Macs can't run untrusted software, the mostly likely vector for malware is a trojan. Possibly attached to pirate versions of well known applications. Users of such pirate software would expect to have to explicitly give permission to untrusted software.
According to DuckDuckGo.
I do need to use a search engine, and I know for a fact that Google save searches, and I have a feeling that Bing and Yahoo do, though I haven't checked recently. So it's a pretty easy choice.
What search engine do YOU use?
1) fix the PAGEFILE. Go inot the settings and change ti to fixed size - 2x-3x size of ram - both of minimum and maximum size. Do not let WInodws manage it! [
Better still, move PAGEFILE.SYS off of C: entirely, preferably on to its own spindle if you can. That way the swapper isn't having a fight with every other application in the system for accessing system files; and PAGEFILE.SYS itself won't become fragmented.
Consider moving %TEMP% and %TMP% off of C: as well.
4) Dump the System Restore from time to time. This is just junk removal. [
Sadly, this appears to be an all-or-nothing affair -- on XP, you can either delete all restore points or none of them. It would be nice to delete those that are, say, more than a year old.
I accept that official definition. However governments, including the US government, misuse the term in practice.
DuckDuckGo's plugin isn't malware, and as a Mac user it isn't relevant to me. Even if it was there's no way of software being installed without my permission.
DuckDuckGo doesn't save search history, Google does. So it's a very easy choice.
Phones are sold with the latest OS version. Jailbreaks take months to come out for a particular OS version, if they come out at all.
For example there is no iOS 8 jailbreak. So no iPhone 6 or any iOS device running iOS 8 is jailbroken.
I can believe that a good proportion of pre-owned phones come with a jailbreak. But not new phones, even if they are grey market or intercepted by corrupt governments.
And the trojan is called Xsser?
Crazy isn't it. It's perfectly obvious that terrorism is acts that are designed to terrorise. After 9/11 plenty of people were scared to fly, use other forms of public transport, visit large cities, or go to any busy public place. That's what made it terrorism. The act itself was mass murder - it's that larger intent to use fear to change behaviour that makes it terrorism.
Governments, politicians and security services are obviously intelligent enough to know this. Which makes their misuse of the word nothing less than deliberate propaganda.
I'm on a long term quest to watch all available episodes of Horizon (a BBC science documentary series going since the 1960s).
One of them is called "How to commit a perfect murder". I'm glad I use duckduckgo as a search engine rather than Google when I was looking that one up.
Just one example of why it's a bad idea to to let governments or corporations profile people based on what they search for.
The discovery of this is proof that many eyes DO find problems
No it isn't. The chance that these two vulnerabilities that hung round for 1-2 decades are the only ones is vanishingly small. They are an illustration that even the most mainstream of OSS code that's been around a long time hasn't been code reviewed properly.
They are proof that that many uncoordinated and unrewarded eyes DON'T find problems. Because they don't even look.
Furthermore, this was a feature it wasn't entirely a security bug
Bullshit. The vulnerability it deminstrates has been demonstrated, it is not documented, and it doesn't make any sense that that's what it does. That's not a feature.
The possibility that some people are using it in software doesn't make it a feature either. The very definition of hacking is using technology in a way that is not intended. That's what those programs are doing. Indeed malware is software that deliberately uses vulnerabilities, and that doesn't make those vulnerabilities features.
With more people aware of this new attack vector, bash is going to get more attention--- MORE eyes again.
AFTER 20 years. Having to scramble to fix something 2 decades late is not in any way an endorsement of a development practice. It's a condemnation of it. And in any case it's no different from what commercial closed source software teams would do it they similarly found out they'd been negligent with a particular code base for 20 years.
"More eyes" is a myth. You have to be a blind zealot to still believe it.
Yes you could.
It has been fully tested and used in all the VA hospitals. BTW the problems in VA hospitals where not caused by software.
I know I would because I already do on trains, trams and busses. And those journeys are shorter.
Funny thing is his brand of "righteous living" is not all that different from common sense to day.
He was anti-smoking, anti-drunkenness, and pro child support.
What a terrible thing.
"He did seem to have a lifelong obsession with that, but it tended to be very much of the "if you'll all just live exactly the way I tell you you'll be better off" variety that doesn't necessarily deserve to be lionized"
So he was a democrat like Mayor Bloomberg?
Not quite but if they rebuilt the canals using concrete instead of sand it would retore part of the lake.
That is just it. The VA has already developed the software to do all this and it is in the Public domain.
All you have to do is state that if you take medicare you must use a system compatible with VistA.
It has been used for decades and has been updated as well. A lot of companies even use it as a base for their products.
I would love to see the US government move it from public domain to GPL but I doubt that is possible legally.