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: Actually... (Score 3, Insightful) 705

by jwietelmann (#34646172) Attached to: Is Net Neutrality Really Needed?
In a truly "free market", private companies would have to own the telephone poles on which they run their lines, and to own the telephone poles, they'd probably have to own the sidewalks. So then they'd snap up sidewalks in walled-off shapes that keep anyone else from putting up poles or running wires into their fiefdom.

Or the government would have to lease the right to run data lines on public property to anyone who asked. But then that government would have to set a price, which means the government is now in the internet business whether they like it or not.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a "free market" for broadband cannot and will never exist.

Comment: Why do they need to do traffic shaping? (Score 5, Insightful) 705

by jwietelmann (#34645300) Attached to: Is Net Neutrality Really Needed?
If they were willing to either A) deliver all of us the kind of bandwidth promised in their Unlimited*** plans, or B) charge by the megabyte instead of by the month, this should be moot. I paid for that bandwidth, and I'll use it as I see fit. If I need to prioritize my own traffic, I'll do so with my router. That way my streaming video doesn't interfere with my VOIP calls.

But they're not talking about that, are they? They don't want my streaming video to interfere with their other customers' VOIP calls... which would seem to suggest that they don't actually have the capacity to deliver their Unlimited****** (up to) 10Mbps** that they sold to everyone in my neighborhood.

We have this fundamental problem where these companies have oversold the bandwidth, and the only solution they're willing to consider is to invent rules that will give you less of what you paid for. Because any other solution would force them to abandon an already-misleading marketing gimmick.

Comment: Personal info (Score 1) 277

by jwietelmann (#34641508) Attached to: Passwords Are the Weakest Link In Online Security
You mean the Facebook info and pictures that I can get you to voluntarily give me by:
  1. Creating a fake Facebook account.
  2. Using a picture of an attractive female in your age range.
  3. Locating your friends.
  4. Carpet-bombing them with friend requests. (Surely someone will bite.)
  5. Sending you a friend request. (I'm a friend of a friend, so we've probably met, and you've just forgotten.)
  6. Reading everything about you.

It doesn't matter what your privacy settings are. I would bet money that you could get access to 99% of Facebook targets' info by following that pattern. Social networks are practically designed for social engineering hacks.

Comment: Re:Use md5 (or something) over the wire (Score 4, Informative) 185

by jwietelmann (#34011920) Attached to: Firefox Extension Makes Social-Network ID Spoofing Trivial

Hash = 1-way crypto

The only way to "un-md5" anything is to crack it. Also, I'm not sure you actually put any real thought into this.

Since it's best practice to store only password hashes (and not the passwords themselves) in your database (or whatever), your process is apparently:

  1. Client md5's the password, sends it to server
  2. Server "un-md5"s the password (let's say for argument's sake that this makes perfect sense)
  3. Server md5's the un-md5'd password
  4. Server checks hash against user's hash in the database

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.