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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Submission + - SourceForge assumes ownership of GIMP For Win, wraps installer in adware->

An anonymous reader writes: It appears that SourceForge is assuming control of all projects that appear "abandoned." In a blog update on their site, they responded saying in part "There has recently been some report that the GIMP-Win project on SourceForge has been hijacked; this project was actually abandoned over 18 months ago, and SourceForge has stepped-in to keep this project current. "

SourceForge is now offering "to establish a program to enable users and developers to help us remove misleading and confusing ads."

Link to Original Source

Comment This needs to go live. (Score 1) 11

More so than slashdot beta, crud like this is going to sink these once famous brands.

SlashdotMedia needs to post this, include a link to their lame-duck response if need be, and let the discussion go where it may.

It's one thing to keep these brands and sites going past their prime, it's another to *actively* tarnish the brands to extract what ad dollars they have left.

Submission + - Sourceforge staff takes over a user's account and wraps their software installer-> 11

An anonymous reader writes: Sourceforge staff took over the account of the GIMP-for-Windows maintainer claiming it was abandoned and used this opportunity to wrap the installer in crapware. Quoting Ars:

SourceForge, the code repository site owned by Slashdot Media, has apparently seized control of the account hosting GIMP for Windows on the service, according to e-mails and discussions amongst members of the GIMP community—locking out GIMP's lead Windows developer. And now anyone downloading the Windows version of the open source image editing tool from SourceForge gets the software wrapped in an installer replete with advertisements.


Link to Original Source

Comment How do buy it now? (Score 1) 63

It seems that LORD is in a weird copyright state.

http://lord.lordlegacy.com/new...

Original developer sold the rights, but the company that holds those rights seems to have gone MIA. It seems he's tried reaching out to them, but they're not responding to him or anyone else, or even new sales. He still has the sources, but legally cannot release them.

All it would take is these guys:

http://www.gameport.com/contac...

to grant permission, and LORD *COULD* be ported to more modern systems, rather than trying to figure out bizzare ways to emulate a 16bit systems and expose them to the public internet.

(or waiting 70+ years)

Comment Have you tried spamhaus? (Score 1) 405

Check here:

http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/

I've operated my own mail server on a VPS for years. Rackspace voluntarily lists their IP spaces to prevent spammers from just buying a vps for a few hrs, sending out spam and then trashing it. Occasionally I need to remove my IP from the blacklist.

Comment Re:Replaceable computer (Score 1) 317

This is not an insurmountable problem -- so long as the 'head' is user-upgradeable, and offers all and any 'modern' connections.

The Interface to the car's electronics has largely been stable. IIRC the CAN/ODB/ODB2 bus are extensible. RS232 has been around since 1962. It would not take much effort to define a simple, *OPEN*, and extensible monitoring + control protocol over any of these connectors, but they seem to not want to.

Comment Re:Cell phones are usually tied to a person (Score 2) 445

Grandstream is good for "cheap" phones of acceptable quality. They just recently announced this:

http://www.grandstream.com/index.php/products/ip-voice-telephony/enterprise-ip-phones/gxp2200

Although it might sound nice to have the whole interface be a touch screen, I think that the hard-keys for dedicated functions end up improving the usability of the device.

Comment Re:I'd love to ! (Score 1) 601

If I could, I totally would.

This argument doesn't make sense though. Even in public traditionally, there's always been a fairly reasonable expectation of privacy, (despite what the law says) because you expect you can only be heard within earshot of your chat. Only recently that technology is affording the law a means to observe + record these interactions " in public " are we starting to push right up against that definition.

Keep in mind a single email won't be sensitive, but a bunch of emails in aggregate can potentially be. And besides; if you encrypt just that 1 sensitive message in a mass of unencrypted 'less sensitive' messages --- it's going to stick out like a sore thumb, and an attacker (be it lawful or unlawful) will focus all their resources on that 1 message.

I think you're just not paranoid enough.

Comment I'd love to ! (Score 4, Informative) 601

My sig (since 2002/2001) on /. has been "Why arn't you encrypting your email?".

The answer is simple -- there was never a critical mass of people exchanging keys nor was there an easy-to-explain web of trust, nor was there a simple, free reliable certificate authority.

In 2002, Outlook Express offered integrated s/mime encryption + digital signatures. Once you installed your certificate (which, was simply double clicking a .p12 file, and entering your import password), you could encrypt or sign email going out, with a single click. It verified signatures in inbound email too, all in an integrated UI.

No one I knew used it.

Even today; Windows Live mail + Thunderbird offer integrated s/mime encryption. Maybe 1 or 2 of my technically literate friends use it. And of those 2, i think only one persists using it to this day.

Back then, when all I had was my Palm Pilot IIIxe, I thought "Whoa. I hold in my hand a portable computer that I can use to exchange digital signatures with". I even kept my pgp key in a note I could beam to someone, given the chance. Never happened.

Nowadays, even AGP on Android doesn't let me exchange keys with someone meet on the street, on the off change they happen to use it. Secure key exchange would be a trivial problem for today's smart phones (provided the carrier isn't using carrieriq to swipe your data....), but there still is no critical mass to make this worthwhile.

And, with most folks using webmail, You'd have to come up with a hackish way to encrypt mail client side (pgp copy/paste to the clipboard? w/ Rich text? attachments?), or just hand your keys to your provider. Doing the encryption server side would make the service provider an easy target for legal and hacking threats.

It's a tough nugget to crack, and it's not going to be solved until mail encryption is as easy to use as Facebook.

Comment Re:No, that's not a solution (Score 2) 548

Remote attestation will verify the trust all the way to the root platform key, be it Microsoft's or another vendor.

The power to install my *OWN* key, means *I* have the power to trust that *my* server, with *my* software has not been compromised. This is kind of a big deal, and helps protect against all sorts of rootkits.

A toggle that is simply "Use MS's Key" and "Use no key at all" is not an acceptable option.

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Working...