Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Very good idea. (Score 2) 246

"The Russian government is allegedly looking to ban Microsoft's Windows operating system"

Aaaand... that's an extremely good idea. There is an enormous problem and it's called 'Restricted level networks' in governments everywhere; combined, they provide an attacker an enormous treasure trove of information, and they are installed, configured and used by morons^Hnot very apt computer users. To expose yourself additionally to an American company that can just open the floodgates at a simple request out of Washington, is folly.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 246

The fact that we want your marks at the end of the year to be somewhat objective. In the same way that you can 'bribe' your spouse to do something in the house that you don't like doing, but you're not allowed to bribe your professor. Granted, this should be a private issue, not a legal one.

Comment Re:can't the state do something about this? (Score 1) 218

So, information that was going to be public (press talking points) was somehow classified? I don't know anything about the case, but I do know about working with classified information and for all I know, they are talking about the release mechanisms that they have at their disposal at that point in time. And that the tech isn't cooperating.

Comment Re:What? (Score 2) 72

Just thinking out loud: *maybe* what he means is that current 'disk'-like encryption mechanisms suck (like XTS, which they don't have to do, but which in practice they do). Or maybe he wants a proper encryption scheme, based on asymmetric cryptography (so that I can properly package a file just for you), which can be done (PKCS#1, ECIES, etc) - but there you basically package a symmetric key under a single stroke of asymmetric encryption, and follow up with the symmetric ecryption of the payload itself, which admittedly feels like a bit of a hack (mixing up crypto means you may be more vulnerable).

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 72

- He wants a block cipher that works on 1 kByte blocks (and on 4, 16, 64 kByte blocks, which is implicated by the first requirement). Current block ciphers do 16 bytes at a time, so they imply the 1 kByte requirement.
- He says current block ciphers suck. Why? It doesn't really become clear from the discussion, which seems to be between two people who have heard a little bit about cryptography, and are trying to outdo each other in what little knowledge they have.

In reality, a block cipher is perfectly transferable to a stream cipher, and the 32 byte key space and 16 byte block size is not something that is going to be broken any time soon. So, I'm not getting the motivation. At all.

Comment Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score 1) 832

The point is not whether Trump gets to say whatever he wants - the point is that Twitter is hypocritical. Surely everyone is free to use or not use their services, and surely Twitter is free to can the one user for the same reason they're keeping the other. But individuals (and companies) *can* be told that they are hypocritical. It is not a nice character trait to display.

Comment Yeah, it's very difficult (Score 0) 308

I got modded 0, flamebait for suggesting exactly this about Ian Murdock: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

So yeah, even though the signs are written all over the friggin' wall, people don't like to hear about it. They think you're being mean, not realizing, or not wanting to know, that not talking about it is actually the mean thing to do.

Comment I still don't get parts of IPv6 (Score 1) 294

It doesn't specify a checksum for the header, which means that it relies on some elements of it (the address fields) to be checksummed by a higher layer (which indeed TCP and UDP do). But which also means that some elements of the header (quality of service, hop limit) are left out of the checksum, which means that (for instance) you can get router loops. But it's probably because the designers of IPv6 thought that the whole packet would be authenticated at layer 2. But then - why require an ICMP checksum when you've just completely redesigned ICMP (and why require the TCP and UDP checksums to still use a pseudo header)? I mean, calculating checksums costs time. Either specify that it happens at layer 2 and be done with it, or do it properly.

Comment Ok, what I make of it (Score 0, Flamebait) 464

He dove into a psychotic episode, went raving to the neighbor's house, who called the cops on him, who handled him like they would. But instead of institutionalizing him, they left him at his house, perhaps going/waiting for backup. Then they were called on him again, or they returned and they manhandled him again. Like they would. Then, still in his paranoid, psychotic mindstate, he committed suicide. And it all could have been prevented with the proper application of a straitjacket, a padded room, a nurse, some intravenous medication, and a bit of time and sleep.

Slashdot Top Deals

The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.