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


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).


Comment: Case of government being overzelous? (Score 3, Interesting) 68

by dog77 (#49351149) Attached to: PayPal To Pay $7.7 Million For Sanctions Violations
There was a total of only $50,000 in transactions that were in violation, and from the article it appears that Paypal failure was that their screening system did not work very well, but they eventually fixed it. Should that warrant $7,000,000 fine? It seems excessive to me.

Comment: Re:Are the CAs that do this revoked? (Score 1) 133

by dog77 (#49332721) Attached to: Chinese CA Issues Certificates To Impersonate Google
If the self signed idea is combined with trust authorities (not signers), that verifiy this certificate is actually a valid one, and is say verified to be valid by several trust authorities (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Ubuntu, US.gov, etc) who you do have certificates for then I think it is a good alternative or supplemental approach to what we currently have.

Comment: Re:Are the CAs that do this revoked? (Score 1) 133

by dog77 (#49332467) Attached to: Chinese CA Issues Certificates To Impersonate Google
I think the idea is on the right track, and that properly implemented could simplify life for everyone, including your Grandma. A good authentication standard, akin to SSL, so that we all only had to carry and manage one key manager, for all of the the items we secure: house, car, hotel room, bank account, web site, safe. No more remembering or coming up with passwords. One method to interface and manage authentication.

Comment: Re:Are the CAs that do this revoked? (Score 1) 133

by dog77 (#49332367) Attached to: Chinese CA Issues Certificates To Impersonate Google
I second this, and add that we should start using trusted authorities to get, verify, and monitor all of the self signed public certificates, similar to how PGP works. We generally trust a few reputable companies and organizations and so these entities could setup the registries for the self signed certificates, and could monitor and establish mechanisms for generating creditibilty ratings for certificates. They can monitor for complaints, fraud, abuse, impersonations, etc. Your browser and operating system (which you already trust) would have a base line list of entities to establish the reliability of a given certificate, and you could modify that list if it suited you.

Along with your 2 way authentication proposal, establish an authentication protocol with acceptance level similar to SSL that allows the authentication to be done securely between key manager on the client side (away from any trojans or keyloggers) and a user/key database on the server side (away from any hackers). This way way we can keep the most sensitive information (the keys), in a simple isolated device or server, that does one thing, manage keys, thus drastically reducing risk of being compromised. Also, a well established authentication protocol standard, is needed if we want to rid ourselves of using passwords (not just for browsers, but also applications).

Comment: Re:Careful, they might shoot back (Score 1) 332

The Islamic state is the antithesis of libertarianism. The Islamic state wants extreme control over an indivduals behavior, which directly conflicts with the libertarian philosophy of maximizing individual freedom.

I think what you are trying to say is that a society without laws and strong government (a perfect libertarian society?) allows for extreme groups to rise and take over. So maybe you should have said "What happens in a perfect libertarian society. Rand Paul eat your heart out!". However that would be very misleading, because Rand Paul is a strong believer in the constitution and does not beleive in a lawless society.

Comment: Re:Hardware is trusted (Score 1) 83

by dog77 (#49313739) Attached to: LightEater Malware Attack Places Millions of Unpatched BIOSes At Risk
Or make the bios completely independant of the operating system, where it runs in its own flash and memory so that it can update itself, but can not be updated by an external component. Do the same for the kernel, security key and password manager, and virus protection. Trully isolate the sensitive components in the system.

Comment: Re:But We Didn't (Score 1) 341

by dog77 (#49155669) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.
It was not comic book reading politicians that participated in the decision to test near civilians, but the actual scientists who understood nuclear physics better than anyone else int the world:

The idea of testing the implosion device was brought up in discussions at Los Alamos in January 1944, and attracted enough support for Oppenheimer to approach Groves.

Comment: Re:Need a Hardware Wall (Score 1) 549

by dog77 (#48136725) Attached to: Password Security: Why the Horse Battery Staple Is Not Correct
A secure device solution is what I want too, but before it can be effective, an open standard for authentication needs to be established. An open authentication standard that allows authentication to be securily proxied to the dedicated security device (or whatever security manager you want to use). Without a secure authentication protocol, the authentication material will still be vulnerable to a corrupt application getting at the authentication material.

You could go as far as proxying the entire secure connection through the security device, but I would still securily tunnel the authentication protocol inside the encrypted TLS/SSL connection rather than combine them in a pure TLS/SSL solution for various reasons.

Comment: username/password is a bigger problem (Score 1) 185

by dog77 (#48007289) Attached to: Security Collapse In the HTTPS Market
A bigger problem is securing our username and password that we use to login over the SSL connection.

The username and password are vulnerable because:
1) They are typically exposed on the same system that handles the connection, which makes them vulernalble to trojans, key loggers, hackers, etc.
2) They must be managed by humans or vulnerable password managers.
3) They don't authenticate the server, making the user completely reliable on SSL certificate mechanism for authenticating the server, which as we are aware has a number of weaknesses including most browsers allow a user to ignore a bad certificate and bad certifcates can be trusted through accident or malicious intent.

Having a well designed protocol underneath SSL to authenticate between the client and the server that:
1) is key based
2) has bidirectional authentciation
3) allows authentication to be done on an isolated computer or dedicated security device

Would go a long ways towards improving security.

Maybe there is an existing protocol that provides some of this, but I don't believe OAuth on its own does.

Comment: Re:What else can they do? (Score 1) 191

by dog77 (#47771311) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste
Don't forget Bill Clinton and the Democratic controlled congress killed funding for the successful IFR nuclear reactor 3 years before it would have been completed. The IFR uses most of the energy content of Uranium and is orders of magnitude more efficient.


From http://www.sustainablenuclear....
The one-sided fight was on. The President's budget, submitted to Congress, contained no funding for the IFR. There is no funding source to tide over a National Laboratory when funding is cut offthe program is dead and that is that. Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives were nothing new, and in themselves they were not especially alarming to the IFR people. During the previous ten years the votes on IFR funding in the House had always been close, and although a majority of the Democrats always opposed, enough of them were in support that IFR development squeaked through each year. The Senate votes on the IFR, sometimes with Republican majorities, sometimes without, as a rule went easier. But this was a very different year: the Administration had gone from weak support of the IFR program to active opposition.

Comment: Re:This will die in the senate (Score 1) 148

by dog77 (#47471811) Attached to: US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes
Please explain how social security is not a Ponzi scheme?

The first generation that received social security was paid by the working generation (2nd generation). The 2nd generation is paid for by the 3rd generation and so on. It only works as long as the next generation (new investors) grows fast enough to pay for the current generation. This is classic Ponzi scheme, the first investers get paid off right away (and well), and the second investers pay for them and they get paid less well, and then the 3rd generation get paid even less, and so on, and you can only sustain it if you get more investors or you actually generate income. Unless I am mistaken, the only income social security gets is from the current investors.

Social security now takes more than it gives: http://business.time.com/2012/...

Comment: Re:Having lived through the period in question (Score 1) 1037

by dog77 (#46676719) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

in spite of the fact that the right wing party promotes ideas that are often in direct conflict with the religious- ideas and attitudes about caring about the poor, sick, etc.

And Democrats are quick to paint distorted pictures of Republicans, because it serves their political gain.

I doubt there is a big difference between the compassion of Republicans versus Democrats. The evidence that Republicans have compassion is easy to find, look at their donations to charity. Painting a picture that Republicans promote ideas that are in direct conflict with religious ideas of caring is a misunderstanding on your part. On a whole Republicans believe government should be limited, and should not promote social causes good or bad as a matter or principle, and this has little to do with their level of compassion. I submit that you fall in the same bit of crowd driven thinking we all do, you listen to those who align with the views you want to believe (a little like those religious people you call nutty) ignoring the actual evidence to the contrary because it does not fit with your belief.

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce