Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
PLCs run autonomous and use a real time embedded proprietary OS and are not infected by Stuxnet directly, Stuxnet may upload and hide new code to the PLC, but it does not copy itself to, or run on, a PLC.
Anyway, a few good safety rules should of course protect you from the original Stuxnet variant. Not allowing USB ports is a good measure but most users will revolt. Disabling Mass Storage device drivers is a better way to go in most cases. Not allowing a PC on both Production AND Office/Internet LANs is, of course, another. But usually technicians get lazy.. or they want to continue to play Mincraft SMP while they debug the S7 controlling the reactor safety systems -_-);
The original was now much more than a glorified backdoor. It would install itself but did not contain any directly malicious payload. It would try to connect back to attacker, then the attacker could send and execute any payload they wanted.
It is likely the first payloads where used to identify priorities the attacked system (downloading source code etc). Then a malicious attack payload was specifically created to do the most harm and sent.
It was a glorified backdoor because it could propagate by itself and had the components to detect and connect to, upload and hide code to PLCs.
If it was installed by USB on a PC that was not connected to the internet then it would not have caused any direct harm since it wouldn't have been able to connect to the attacker.
Anyway, of course you can design a variant of Stuxnet that can try to damage any PLC without prior knowledge (contain a malicious payload), but i doubt it would be very effective. Without knowing what a PLC does / is supposed to do, the damage by simply changing values would likely be minimal and be immediately recognized.
The new E7 series incorporates the benefits of Sandy Bridge
is a bit misleading, i think.
As far as i understood it uses the older Westmere EX architecture. So while it may have added instructions also available in the Sandy Bridge architecture, clock for clock it will likely be slower in most cases and probably won't reach the the clock speeds of Sandy Bridge based chips.
You are right though in that the actual speed might be a lot less, this is usually true if you live in an older home that does not have twisted pair wiring but only parallel wiring (the twisting cancels noise, without it the signals of other surrounding lines get mixed in). Simply if you live in a 100 year old house (not uncommon in germany) it probably also has 100 year old phone wiring.
In any case, if you can get inet from any provider you can get it from all of them. Whoever told you otherwise was lying (wouldn't be surprised if t-com lied to you, they are not a very good company, sort of like AT&T
They pay more then i do, they only have one choice for broadband (SBC Global which is now AT&T) and their download speed is slower then my upload speed. And i don't mean 'stated', i mean actual.
They have 768kbit/s down stated and they do get that but they pay around $45/month. In Germany i pay 29.90 euro for 32Mbit/s stated of which i actually get 3.9MByte/s sustained so 31.2Mbit/s actual and 2Mbit/s upstream stated of which i get like 220kbyte/s so 1.8Mbit/s).
My brother lives in mountain view (near google) and used to live in menlo park. On both occasions he had only two choices (dsl and cable form one provider each).
Each was horribly slow and very expensive. And this is in the F*ING HEART OF SILICON VALLY!!!. At least now in mountain view he gets free google wifi (which he uses exclusively, thank you google!).
In Germany i have 8 different DSL providers, all tying to outbid each other (this is in a small rural town with maybe like 5000 inhabitants). Unfortunately with DSL the max they can provide is 16Mbit/s over twisted pair, that's why i went with cable, which for the speed is just as cheap and way cheaper then anything i ever saw in the US. Sure i heard of things like 'Fiber to the premises' but in the areas my parents, my brothers and i lived it was never even considered, and in the last 10 years the price of 'broadband' was actually raised 2x. Each time my parents would cancel or threaten to cancel to get the 'new user' prices again which would be what they payed before. But it's not really much of a choice, if they want broad band they have to pay what AT&T asks.
This article is either total BS or somehow every place i know in the US has been miraculously spared of any type of competition leaving horrible service, horrible speeds for extravagant prices.
Does anybody in the US have something like 32Mbit/s (uncapped) $40/moth? If so, where do you live and what is your ISP?
You don't need any plugins for that (no Flash etc) as each page is simply converted to an image server side. I would think that this is secure.
In any case i always disable all file format plugins in FireFox. It actually happened a few days ago that i was suddenly asked to save a PDF file even though i didn't click on any link, on examining adblock i found a hidden iframe that apparently tried to load what i am very certain was a malicious pdf in the background.
When i download my favorite Linux distro via BitTorrent i am NOT doing something illegal. Having used a File Sharing program does not mean i have ever used it for any illegal purpose.
136 people admitted using file sharing software, they did NOT admit to using it for illegal purposes!
Why have we allowed the assumption that File Sharing = Illegal to become so commonplace?
I am outraged this is not the first point of contention for this study.
I mean can you say 'conflict of interests'?
Leave it to the little guys that are better (specialized/core business) at it anyway.
And at least now we truly know where they stand.
and lower prices, so if the majority of the people living in the US without
broadband don't want cheaper/better performing internet then something must
be really really wrong.
I would be guessing the lack of competition, throttling, being treated like dirt
and then spending a (comparatively) huge amount of money for the privilege
has probably scared those people off.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source