I'm not really talking about automakers or the vulnerabilities of cars. I'm only saying that Valasek and Miller were irresponsible security researchers for conducting a dangerous test on public road. This is the kind of thing that will give all security research a bad name or at least bring it under heavy scrutiny.
As I felt with their first video, these "security researchers" play with the steering on a car moving 40mph on a public road. Now they've gone and done this. Playing with the driving controls on a 2 ton vehicle moving at 70 mph on a busy road.
In this video they said "it wouldn't be anything life threatening" which shows that they don't have a clear view of reality in the situation. A seat belt won't
you have a 70mph head on collision with a semi. The driver wasn't informed beforehand that he could bail out of the test by restarting the car, they waiting
until he was panicing to try to tell him that.
What if they made a mistake and turned the car into oncoming traffic? What if their computers were remotely controlled?
Is the situation with car's vulnerabilities serious? Yes of course.
Will this video help to drive home the problem to the public? Maybe, but probably not.
Should they have done this demo on a public road? Absolutely not.
Bottom line, when you are doing a test where there is physical risk, you need to be in control of the environment and not putting the public in harms way.
This isn't your home computer and your email account. This is real life.
The article is titled:
"IBM produces 500GHz silicon-germanium CPU"
What if they give you one of those cool keys that rolls open the top?
The recent OpenSSL vulnerability got the internet all hyped up for a security issue that, in the end, turned out to have a very limited impact.
Oh right, just like the hype around Y2K turned out to be nothing right? The point is that some big problems would have resulted if the problem hadn't been hyped and fixed beforehand or in the early hours of the problem being exposed. Whenever I hear someone say "That Y2K thing turned out to be nothing" I just shake my head. Why is this concept of prevention so hard for the general public to understand?
It wasn't a CPU in the sense that you could actually process things with it and make it the central design element of a computer.
That's funny I thought CPU meant Central Processing Unit. Unless you can provide some reference to backup your claim I'm more inclined to believe the article I referenced. Back in the mid 90s there was a Scientific American article talking about how IBM was trying to use gallium arsenide and other materials to make higher frequency CPUs. I would think they would already have a transistor that fast back then, so it makes sense that after 10 years they may have some basic general purpose CPU. So the timeline makes sense, which raises the question, where are the 100GHz CPUs for consumers?
No they didn't. They developed a 350 GHz room temperature transistor.
According to this article it was a CPU:
Maybe the article is wrong?
In 2006 they developed a 350GHz room temperature capable silicon gallium CPU. Where is that?
I remember throughout the 90s seeing various textbooks or articles saying that the human eye could only distinguish 16.7 million colors. *rolls 24-bit eyes*
Just like you can Google a fact to end an argument
Obviously the author has never been in an argument on
In an online class I recently took the instructor said something like "If you go in with the facts, nobody can argue with you".
Sure they can.
I once used an Atari palmtop to rip off an ATM machine. Oh wait, maybe that didn't really happen.
What's amazing to me is that Diablo I & II (1996 and 2000 respectively) still are selling at $20 (half retail game prices) in places like Target, Gamestop and they are apparently still selling according to employees. I mean they are great games, but obviously they have an unprecedented staying power in the game industry that no other game has had.
No security is perfect, that's why you have need to have a good incident response plan.
They want their headline back. Mary Schweitzer already made the same discovery in 1993, and she's been fighting for more than 2 decades to get her findings past the "consensus" that such long preservation was impossible. It seemed like she had gotten her findings verified again by 2000 but I guess it's still only now becoming generally accepted. Really unfortunate it can still take that long for a major discovery to become accepted.
The only reason this is news now is because of the Jurassic World release. Note that 1993 was when Jurassic Park was released.
Exactly. If there wasn't a mega-summer blockbuster in the queue for release, this wouldn't be news.