It's probably one of the details that makes security experts doubt its veracity. Because that's an improbable and kind of stupid system.
Do you have a justification for trying to spy on every person on the planet?
Sure. It's their job and it's effective. For everyone who's not a US citizen, you're transmitting data right through our networks willingly and there's no law that says we can't. For US citizens, "we're not intentionally targeting you, we're using your data as a tool to target foreigners". It's an asshole justification, but it's pretty clear-cut.
Do you have a justification for a system that's more about corporate espionage than stopping terrorism?
Say what you will about the NSA, corporate espionage isn't their thing. That's other countries. Show some evidence to the contrary if you have it.
A lot of S and TS information is protected by Suite A cryptography instead, rather than Suite B (like AES). Still, there's a lot of classified material protected by AES and, yes, knowing about serious vulnerabilities in AES would be directly counter to one of NSAs major goals, since they've certified AES as being appropriate for use in securing lots of sensitive material.
Law enforcement doesn't know, they only suspect. Hopefully they have a reasonable suspicion (and hopefully a judge holds them to it).
When you go to trial, the judge doesn't know your intent, either. He's there to decide on matters of law. Your intent is a matter of fact. The job of deciding it is up to the people in the jury box.
Look into "gliadin" if you do not already know.
Gliadin, one of the two major proteins in wheat (along with glutenin)? It's been around since wheat was wheat, at least. A bit longer than 1976.
It depends on what you mean by "cloud", which is sort of a catchall term. As you've pointed out, on SaaS clouds you're going to have no guarantee of consistency, even if no time passes -- you don't know that the cloud environment is homogeneous. For (P/I)aaS clouds, you can hopefully hold constant what software is running. For example, if you have your Ubuntu 12.04 VM that runs your software, when you fire up that VM five years from now, its software hasn't changed one bit. You of course have to worry about whether or not the form you have the VM in is even usable in five years. You would hope that, even with inevitable hardware changes, if none of the software stack changes, then you'll get the same results. I'd guess that if they're running all on hardware that really correctly implements IEEE floating-point numbers, than you will in fact get consistent results. But I wouldn't bet on it.
What you really need, unfortunately, is a library that abstracts away and quantifies the uncertainty induced by hardware limitations. There are a variety of options for these, since they're popular in scientific computing, but the overall point is that using such techniques, you can get consistent results within the stated accuracy of the library.
If you don't care about safety and error checking, multithreading, Atom SoCs, or C++11... what sort of new features are you really expecting in a compiler. That touches pretty much all the major functionality of a compiler.
Disturbingly, with data URIs, a URI can contain an image. Probably not what was meant in this case, though.
It depends. From a technical standpoint, it's only reasonable to create MD5 collisions, and even then, it requires engineering both files. So, in many contexts, even MD5 collisions can be considered non-issues. A lot of P2P systems use SHA1 or SHA2, which alleviate even that problem.
Realistically, most jurisdictions don't actually trust that as evidence. A defense lawyer will ask exactly what you're asking, and then you'll be forced into the situation of explaining shadowy technical magic, which juries never like. Usually they find P2P-shared files by hash matches and then either download the files to confirm or pick the guy up and analyze his computers (which presumably contain the material). All of the evidence may not end up being presented in trial or in motions, though, depending on what's actually needed.
Adblock is on the Chrome Web Store.
No shit. I saw this article and wondered how much this technology was and how soon I could have it -- if the lower insurance came even close to the cost of a driverless car, it's a no-brainer: I can spend my trips doing something better than driving!
There's another major difference, for large password-database leaks. Salted hashes can't be computed for all leaked passwords at the same time, they need to be computed once per salt. That means that cracking the whole password database at once is, computationally, just as hard as cracking each password individually. With unsalted hashes, cracking the whole password database is as hard as cracking a single password. With this password database, that's a difficulty difference of a factor of 30 million, which is pretty substantial.
The buzzword laden title
Don't forget: that's the title of the ScienceBlog article.
The title of the paper? Parameter Space Compression Underlies Emergent Theories and Predictive Models
I can't speak of the article because it's paywalled
How do people not know about arXiv?
So then don't. There's a ton of useful and interesting work in cybersecurity where the risk of that is basically zero.