Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: Ok fine FLOSS you! (Score 1) 400

by ramriot (#49138297) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data

This is all fine and dandy. Make sure US companies encryption products have an extra front door. This can probably even be made reasonably secure by use of a gov' public key to add an extra header to all encrypted data from said products.

But how exactly are you going to make Open Source products comply with these regulations. All it will do internationally is make US encryption products unpalatable to anyone who guards their privacy weather they be criminal or not. Perhaps via international treaty, the US could like it has with copyright, force nations to criminalize large portions of their populace.

You know, I say go ahead, we all know where this ends and the vox-populi is not something Mr Director you would want to be lined up against the wall to answer.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Comment: Jurisdiction? (Score 1) 51

If a granted warrant is out of the jurisdiction of one appointed legal entity what are the chances that it will be inside the jurisdiction of another. I would say the chances are 100%. So lets say a judge grants such a thing to the FBI, location unknown. They then go off and gather evidence, remotely. Only later when using that evidence to present an international arrest warrant do they expose the location.

The defence teem would I guess have a field day, presenting the FBI with their own arrest warrant accusing the FBI of a Cyber-crime across international boarders. Supported by new anti-cyber-crime laws that the US via the MPAA/RIAA fought long and hard to put into place by international treaty.

Comment: Would we even know, after! (Score 1) 576

All the assumes that an invader would be perhaps biological and probably macroscopic. Assuming for the moment no faster than light travel and no magical energy sources. This means that travelling between stars will take a long time and need lots of energy. So mass and biological lifespans are a huge factor, the smaller the mass and the longer the passenger lives, the faster it can be pushed with less energy, relativistically speaking...

Today in the near earth environment we can track things larger than a baseball travelling at orbital velocities with existing NORAD space tracking. But anything smaller or faster or further away, forget it. Therefore I wonder if we would even know should the invader consisted of a cloud of nano-machines released from a micro-probe that had travelled here at near light speed.

Once the invader was here, floating down from the stratosphere scanning for useful biological machines with large enough brains we would not even be aware. Save perhaps for a spectacular sunset or two. The first sign that we had been invaded would be perhaps a sudden breakout or global cooperation and perhaps the appearance of apparently physic abilities and heightened regenerative abilities in infected subjects. It would only be much-much later that any remaining uninfected individuals would see the real purpose, when a new international space plan is put into place to send AI nano-machines as avatars for ourselves to the nearest stars.

Comment: Hmm? Consider the wider picture. (Score 2) 175

by ramriot (#49018553) Attached to: Hobbyists Selling Tesla Coil Kits To Fund Drone Flight Over North Korea

Putting aside for a moment that this KS is probably a scam, what are the ramifications of an act such as this.

In the current climate, what would he US call it if citizens of another nation started drone flights of unknown purpose over US soil. I would suggest the T word would be used and as soon as the launch point is identified all extra-judicial efforts will be made to ensure the perpetrators are removed from the gene-pool.

Would a state like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" consider doing less if it were in their interest.

Other states have done similar to citizens of other countries, located outside of their boarders for reasons of National Security, see:-

Comment: Additional headers? (Score 1) 111

by ramriot (#48946353) Attached to: Fixing Verizon's Supercookie

Has anyone tried adding multiples of their own version of this header to outgoing traffic upstream of verizons gateway, to see what happens?
Not having Verizon here in Canada I cannot try this, but it would be interesting to see if doing so with a true random nonce would defeat their tracking by adding confusion, as to which header was the real verizon one and which the customers.

Also F*** verizon, go full VPN on all your mobile traffic from now on.

Comment: And if gas does not work, try water... (Score 1) 378

by ramriot (#48931349) Attached to: Why ATM Bombs May Be Coming Soon To the United States

Seems Jamie and Adam got there way ahead of all of us (New myth to test):
If you allow for the fact that in their case the had to burn a small hole in the top which set fire to the contents first before filling the enclosure with water, which in the case of an ATM you don't have to, than its a reasonable idea.

Comment: Old news and still needs pwned access (Score 3, Interesting) 86

by ramriot (#48931295) Attached to: Georgia Institute of Technology Researchers Bridge the Airgap

Firstly this is old news,
Secondly almost the first thing said in the video is that they had to install a driver on the target to force it to emit signals they could pull out of the noise. So its a nice idea that if you have access to put software on the PC you can later get it to emit information, but it you are going to do that then why not use what else is there because how often is all the targets other wireless interfaces fully disabled. I suspect unless your name is Snowden, not very often. Further, if you are that worried about leaking information that you go fully air gapped you would not be trusting a malleable OS to run from, much better to run from a live CD.

Comment: Quantifying risk? (Score 1) 236

by ramriot (#48915753) Attached to: White House Drone Incident Exposes Key Security Gap

So the drones "like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm."

That predisposes that you know what the mass limits are for all dangerous things to be carried. Exactly what is the minimum mass of biological agent and aerosolizing device that can expose an area upwind of the target such that natural air currents will cause multiple exposures?

Also what is the upper limit of small drones that you can stop, per second, at the fence with 100% effectiveness.

You can plan to stop larger intrusions but, stopping small drones and their miniature payloads is not the solution. The thing to do is look at where a small drone can get in and what it can carry and put in place automated defences that deal with the result, before people get hurt. Say, automated bulletproof, airtight windows and a guy in a hazmat suit with a spray bottle of bleach.

Comment: timeframe? (Score 3, Informative) 219

by ramriot (#48764479) Attached to: FBI: North Korean Hackers "Got Sloppy", Leaked IP Addresses

This information leaked by Clapper and Comey while not exactly a lie is misleading at best. Without the exact timeframe of the "got Sloppy" IP's it is not possible to determine if this is actually NK actioning an attack or GOP making it look like NK after the fact.

It all comes down to the fact that the NK / The Interview connection was not voiced by GOP until after the press had latched on to that link to point the finger at NK because of Sony pictures being the producer of The Interview. Now if the sloppy tradecraft (very unlikely) leaking a NK IP ( –, – take your pick) prior to any mention of NK being responsible in the press then that would lend strong credence to that assertion. Otherwise it may point to GOP being unconnected with NK apart from PWNing either a machine within NK or via a BGP poisoning attack of a China Telecom router. Which neither China Telecom or NK are going to openly admit because of loosing face. Remember also that most of the machines in China & NK that run commercial OS's do so outside the ULA and are thus unable to keep patched and are thus open to being attacked by many known zero-day issues.

In the end it all comes down to this, governments are very bad at doing business and whoever GOP owes their allegiance or funding to, the attack on Sony was a covert criminal act conducted possibly across international boundaries and thus it needs to be treated as such. So If and when their is conclusive proof of someone who is responsible then legal recompense needs to be sought. Unfortunately international law and covert actions being what it is, it seems unlikely that even given the first the second will reach some resolution. FWIW this is a teachable moment for all large corporations, so start listening to their CISOs and give them the funds and manpower to properly secure their networks in the current climate.

Comment: NOT RFID! (Score 2) 110

by ramriot (#48624461) Attached to: RFID-Blocking Blazer and Jeans Could Stop Wireless Identity Theft

Every time this come up, its RFID ePassport this and RFID credit card that. None of these use RFID at all, the technology used is NFC. As for the RFID blocking jacked, pants, wallet etc. I have tried a number of these and yes they are good at blocking RFID access tags, but do only a little to reduce the range of NFC.

Comment: Interference / public? (Score 0) 515

by ramriot (#48581355) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

My thought here is, if anyone is performing an act in public that is perceived as illegal they should be expect to be recorded or even obstructed by a well meaning member of the public if not a police officer. Also, recording anything in a public place (excluding where that contravenes wiretap laws) is not in itself illegal, being a good citizen though means that if asked kindly to stop by anyone you need to stop unless you have a social imperative that impels you to continue.

But, it is all about perception, what you see as illegal might well not be. But the act of recording, if that is perceived to obstruct justice will open you up to legal proceedings.

Not sure in this case but openly and belligerently recording an officer will get you noticed and annoy them, which interferes with their duties and will open you up to closer scrutiny.

That said, and repeating myself, If ANYONE is committing an illegal act in public they should be expected to be recorded for evidence. But if you feel impelled to record anyone in such a situation make sure you do not also endanger your own safety by making it clear to the perp that you are collecting evidence against them.

Comment: Tricky! (Score 2) 436

by ramriot (#48491967) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

This is a tricky one.

The old adage is that you have free speech only in so far as that is not used intentionally to cause harm i.e. Willfully shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre is well known. The key aspect here is willful speech, just shouting something like FIRE without willful intent is not enough and has occurred in differing circumstances because of illness or being miss-heard.

In this case the perpetrator has posted in a semi-public forum speech that could be construed as a manifesto of illegal action. If there were evidence that the actions were being planned or that there were a conspiracy in progress then that would be a convictable charge. But, the act of speaking of an illegal action you wish to do (especially in public) even if there is intention is still protected, but only in so far as that society may take that intention into account in restricting your movements by legal torte.

In Summary, you can declare you full and willful intention to 'Kill' your enemy. But if you do, don't be surprised if they are forewarned and take restrictive legal action against you. Conversely, any reasonable person would not do such if they did intend to perform the act as speaking out would mark them clearly as the perpetrator. Unless they feared no prosecution.

Comment: Who is the victim? (Score 1) 622

by ramriot (#48137313) Attached to: The Correct Response To Photo Hack Victim-Blamers

One question I always ask myself when I read of the publication of any private matter from a public person. What if that happened to me or any other private person I know? What would I want others to do?

Clearly I would want responsibility and respectfulness, perhaps a kind admonishment for not taking enough care (if that is due) with a note that they also have done dumb things in their life. I would also expect recognition that the perpetrator could have struck them and support in making sure this does not happen again.

In this case though that is rarely what happened, everyone seemed to become polarized either in support of these public people against the haters or were themselves haters. What seems never to be mentioned is that the hack involved was probably not a targeted one and that the perpetrator is probably sitting on Giga Bytes of private data from a wide swath of individuals, both public and private. If it were not though for their ego in publishing the salacious images of those people already in the public eye we would never have known and would have gone on blindly with our weekass passwords.

So think on this, next time to upload anything potentially useful to an adversary. Next time it could be YOU!

So pick your passwords with care, employ strong second factor authentication and if you just have to send a naked selfy to your significant other learn how to use end-to-end encryption. Because believe me, we really don't what to have to look at your naked self above the fold over breakfast tomorrow.

Comment: No just payment! (Score 4, Informative) 336

by ramriot (#47935203) Attached to: Apple Locks iPhone 6/6+ NFC To Apple Pay Only

If Apple proceeds with locking away the NFC API from developers they will be making a Huge mistake. NFC is not just for payments, it is a use agnostic technology, and as such can be used anywhere you need short (1-2") data communications i.e.
# Door locks / home security
# Wifi tap to secure.
# Bluetooth Pairing
# End to end encrypted messaging tap to exchange / sign public keys
# Second factor online authentication
etc etc.
On Android all these uses are available because the API is open.

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.