Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


+ - Popular WiFi thermostat full of security holes->

Submitted by cybergibbons
cybergibbons (554352) writes "Heatmiser, a U.K.-based manufacturer of digital thermostats, is contacting its customers today about a series of security issues that could expose a Wi-Fi-connected version of its product to takeover.

Andrew Tierney, a “reverse-engineer by night,” whose specialty is digging up bugs in embedded systems wrote on his blog, that he initially read about vulnerabilities in another one of the company’s products, NetMonitor, and decided to poke around its product line further.

This led him to discover a slew of issues in the company’s Wi-Fi-enabled thermostats running firmware version 1.2. The issues range from simple security missteps to critical oversights."

Link to Original Source

Computers Key To Air France Crash 911

Posted by kdawson
from the who-or-what-do-you-trust dept.
Michael_Curator writes "It's no secret that commercial airplanes are heavily computerized, but as the mystery of Air France Flight 447 unfolds, we need to come to grips with the fact that in many cases, airline pilots' hands are tied when it comes to responding effectively to an emergency situation. Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not. It's not a design flaw — it's a philosophical divide. It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information. It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer."

Comment: Re:Need sailors to vette sea stories (Score 1) 210

by cybergibbons (#27583295) Attached to: Computer-Controlled Cargo Sailing Vessels Go Slow, Frugal
I used to work on container ships. Every vessel I was on could achieve at least 25kts, and some 26kts during sea trials. The engine was being loaded more than the design limits though, so the maximum we could achieve day to day was 24-24.5kts. We frequently did do this and could sustain it for a Pacific or Atlantic crossing. There were no real reliability problems, but fuel and cylinder oil lubrication went up massively. The planners clearly thought it was worth it though. Warships can do much higher speeds - like you say, 30+kts isn't uncommon. However, the warships I have looked at have their already quite poor range halved by changing from 20kts to 30kts. We could circumnavigate the globe at full speed without refuelling. Also because of the gas turbines warships use, they need to run on marine diesel oil, rather than the heavy fuel oil that slow speed diesel engines run on. MDO is about 4 times as expensive as HFO. So warships cost more to run. So, we frequently found ourselves making journeys faster than warships. I'm not saying they couldn't have caught up if they wanted to, but they didn't.

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin