In theory, it could stop the Crashplan service, manually edit your backup set settings to have no versioning, and no deleted file keeping, restart the Crashplan service, and let it run through and prune all the files it thinks it should be pruning, then encrypt your files, let it back them up, and Crashplan dutifully prunes the old versions like the hijacked config file says to.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I can confirm it does not.
This works until you realize the ransomware could go into your Crashplan settings and turn off versioning and keeping deleted files.
As someone diagnosed with Aspergers/ASD, I would rather be rid of this disorder. It has not been kind to my life, and the disadvantages far outweigh any advantages. No soft skills means your other skills are much more difficult to use and made much less useful since you can't interact with others.
Obviously, vaccines don't cause autism, but I would like a cure to see what it's like to not have a meltdown every other social interaction. It is not a good way to live.
Maybe it's to give undercover agents in training some semi-real-world experience with giving false names with confidence?
You're in luck then, Debian is still way back in the days when GNOME 2 was new!
My guess is the file hash matched a known file that contained the offending material. Google does scan your email for virii, so it's not unthinkable that images, a possible threat vector, are also scanned and hashed, and can be compared to a database of offending image hashes as well as virii.
Er, wouldn't it be easier to put sugar pills in the bottles that have the appearance of pain medication? If a robber wises up and checks in the bottle before leaving and sees nothing, that pharmacist is going to be in trouble.
I agree with this. In addition, you can also backup to local folders, and have different backup sets so the really big stuff will be backed up online, but the smaller, more important things can be backed up both to a folder and online. That, and they let you control frequency of backups, and never delete anything unless you set it to remove deleted files after whatever period of time you say. Lord knows how many TB I have backed up there that is just deleted files and their daily versions.
Downside of using shared DNS servers is that some servers, like those for Sony's PSN, try to get you to download from servers based on your DNS server.
Why? I have no clue. However, it kills your connection speed until you reset it to your local ISP's DNS servers. Be wary.
If it behaves anything like Retroshare, it would have the users exchange keys, and not let them connect until each has the other's keys and allows the connection. Nintendo online players have been doing something similar for a while with friend codes, so I don't see why this needs to be so difficult.
The problem is his data may also info about legitimate foreign spying operations and info on the people involved. While there probably is still more evidence of wrongdoing in what he has, it's also likely he has his hands on something that could very well put a good deal of people's lives in danger. That data was stolen once, right out from under the NSA's noses. If the NSA couldn't stop it from being stolen, how can a single man ensure it won't be stolen from him as well? Remember, this data is very important, and he's as vulnerable as anyone to the $5 wrench decryption attack if he has it encrypted himself.
So the USA really should try to offer him this, and also offer official protection from other nations who may also be interested in some of the things he's learned. This, of course, all hinges on how many copies of the data he has, and if he's given copies to more than he's told us.
In any case, I see this deal falling through, and him possibly being forced to hand over a copy of the data to one or more third parties that are not the US, which can only end very, very badly if not handled correctly. Also, the more people handling it, the more likely it will fall into the wrong hands...
Oh, my mistake then. I was under the impression that the end users filled out forms on the website, and were missing some or incorrectly filling them out, leading to an error.
Strange, TFA as well as the summary seem to imply that the users are entering faulty information into the forms or failing to enter any information into some forms, and that is what is causing the problems.
So basically, end user error is now counted as the website's problem? When did this start becoming common practice?