Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I own all the DVDs, a couple years ago I rewatched them. I may come off as a rabid fan at times but the background music was atrociously horrid. Also the story arc plot became overly convoluted and impossible to explain at times. That said, one of the most convoluted characters (Krycek) was my favorite. Aside from several minor valid criticisms like that, I really think it's a great platform for modern storytelling.
I do have to ask myself, at times, if there is some level of insane conspiracy theory today that we owe at least in part to those people watching X-Files when younger. I have to admit that the 9/11 inside job truthers movement claims could have been ripped from the pages of an X-Files script.
My biggest concern, of course, is whether or not it could still be fresh. With recent high quality additions to television canon, we'd have to be prepared for Chris Carter coming back at us with a 90's angle when episodes like Home really aren't as shocking anymore. The bar has been raised (thankfully).
Right now, The X-Files is going to occupy a contextual place in television history like The Twilight Zone. A revival could very well tarnish that. On the other hand, I've never felt like I really received closure on the whole story arc
It seems he told his GF, who later broke up with him and told her friends... one of whom posted on his Facebook page: "I’m sure the authorities would be interested in your drug-running site". http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
Some alternatives sound nice but fail horrificly when the come in contact with people, especially the ones that let any people within a group grant access to others with zero oversight.
An access control system where everyone (with access?) can grant access to others sounds bad. However, I don't think that's the only alternative to me-us-everyone rwx. In fact, I don't know that such a system that exists at all. You usually needs to be the owner of a resource (or in the "owners" group) to grant privileges in a DAC system. Some systems also allows owners to grant specific rights on the security attributes to non-owners - i.e. the right to grant access.
Within a short period of time with such a "everyone can grant or deny access" scheme you end up with almost everything wide open
How about a system where only owners or designated security administrators can grant/deny access? The issue here was that a developer *wanted* access to a file from a non-owner and non-group member account. Lacking finer grained ACLs, that leaves only "everyone".
It sounds like you believe that discretionary access control (DAC) is the alternative to Unix filesystem permissions. It's not. Unix filesystem permissions is itself a DAC system, albeit a very limited one. DAC only means that the owner of a resource (or a designated security administrator of a resource) can grant access to others. Because the creator of a file is often considered the owner, creators can often grant access to whom they choose.
However, if a user has been granted "read" access to a resource he can usually not grant it to someone else, unless he is the owner. Do you know of a system where, by default, you can grant the same permissions that you have been granted?
This kind of exploit, a local privilege escalation exploit, used to be very significant, but is significant in a declining number of cases, as old-style Unix multiuser systems are a smaller and smaller proportion of systems.
An attacker who has exploited a Firefox vulnerability (there are still many found and patched each month) is running as a *local user* on your machine. Trying to explain these types of vulnerabilities away is disingenuous, if not downright complacent.
Unix/Linuxs permission system is 70-era bit-saving stupid. There is no other way to put it.
While this is clearly a mistake by someone packaging the distro, they were certainly not helped by a system where you cannot adequately express permissions. ACLs are available, but they are still kludges and they fell like a bolt-on with many tools still not recognizing them.
When a developer meets the limit of what can be expressed with a single-group me-us-everybody, he will often look for the path of least resistance. Unfortunately that is often relaxing permissions along the coarse-grained me-us-everyone, often ending up with everyone as in this case.
Link to Original Source
If you can suggest references (preferably in English) I would be most appreciative. I know of only one book and it seems to be a singular point of view.
Incremental is the worst system for restoring. Needing the last full and *all* backups since the last full. Differential is better in that you need the last full and *one* differential. What I think you really mean is versioned backups (not over-written). You can restore from Tuesday's backup (whether full, differential, or incremental is irrelevant), and Tuesday's won't be wiped when Wednesday's is written.
Windows Image backup does *reverse* incremental: An image of the disk is stored as a vhd (virtual hard drive) along with reverse increments so that previous versions can be created. You can attach the vhd and use the "previous versions" feature to go back in time.
What's far more likely is that they'd be using one of the multitudes of locations that allows spoofed IP addresses, and then requesting a 50x amplified DNS dump from you back to a spoofed address - and that address it the real target. Plus they'd be hitting up 100 other DNS servers at the same time.
Collectively, that spoofed IP address can be made to cop a 100gbps attack with virtually no effort and then those poor bastards basically can't do a thing about it. They can throttle or firewall anything they like but unless their router and pipe can handle 100gbps - and chances are it can't - they're screwed.
What can you do about it to protect yourself? Stuff all, I am afraid. At the end of the day, if you cop a 100gbps attack on a 100mbps pipe, it's game over, no matter what you try to pull. All you can do is beg for help upstream, where someone can handle that traffic.
If you're talking about websites, I guess CloudFlare would help - and it's basically free (and no, I don't work for them or have any association with them) but that pretty much only works for websites, I think - not other services.