Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Can someone ship such games to our 'allies'? (Score 2) 124 124

In the war on ISIS, we've been on the losing end b'cos the Iraqi cowards have fled leaving US given weapons to ISIS, who are even better armed than before, despite the loss of their ability to sell Syrian oil.

So how about this idea - instead of our weaponry, sell or give such VR games to the Iraqis (and Syrians) on the newer frontlines. They will flee, leaving those toys in the hands of ISIS. ISIS volunteers will play those games just out of curiousity or b'cos they want to, and drop dead! In fact, w/ some luck, such success could even spread to other Islamic groups, such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, et al

Comment: Re:Terrifying. (Score 2) 64 64

This is the most terrifying and ridiculous thing I've seen in my entire life.

If only the people who want to take on challenges like this put their skills to something actually useful....... There has GOT to be a better use of your knowledge and skills.

It is one of the first things people do in programming - building games. My son is on the verge of learning computing, and he wishes to build a few games. Once these simpler things are achieved, more complex things are easier to do by more people.

Comment: Re:if that's true, (Score 1) 479 479

The Slashdot summary is pure FUD. In the article itself you can see an image of the settings, with a large checkbox to enable/disable sharing with Outlook, Skype and Facebook independently and it also has a large slider above those where you can disable it entirely.

Did you read the box?

Save on mobile data usage with Wifi Sense. Join in and get connected to WiFi. By using WiFi Sense, you agree that it can use your location.

Who doesn't want to save on mobile data usage!? How many people will opt-out? Where does it say that by opting in that they are sharing their Wifi passphrase with everyone they share to? It may be obvious to you, but not to 99% of the people that will run Windows 10.

They are not changing the passphrase. The contacts would get Internet access, but would not get to see the passphrase. It says so clearly in Settings, under 'Network & Internet':

You select the Wi-Fi networks you want to share with these contacts. They get internet access if they use Wi-Fi Sense, but they don't get to see the shared passwords. You'll also get Internet access through the networks they share

Comment: Re:if that's true, (Score 1) 479 479

The Slashdot summary is pure FUD. In the article itself you can see an image of the settings, with a large checkbox to enable/disable sharing with Outlook, Skype and Facebook independently and it also has a large slider above those where you can disable it entirely.

I tried it out right now. In Windows 10, when you go into Settings and then 'Network & Internet' then under the list of WiFi WAPs, just under Properties, there is 'Manage Wi-Fi settings'. When you go there, there are 2 switches:

  1. 1. Connect to Wi-Fi hotspots
  2. 2. Exchange Wi-Fi network access with my contacts

You can disable the second item. Below it, there is a description that says 'You select the Wi-Fi networks you want to share with these contacts. They get internet access if they use Wi-Fi Sense, but they don't get to see the shared passwords. You'll also get Internet access through the networks they share

Regardless, I did a couple of things. So far, I had not been using the Guest network on the router, but I renamed it, gave it another password and enabled it. Most of my toys - my tablets, phones and this PC-BSD laptop that I am using are on my main WiFi network. I've put my Windows laptop and Winbook tablet on the guest network, and disabled the WiFi network access option. From now on, any guests I have would get access to the latter SSID, but I still am not sharing the network contents on my laptop. So I now have 2 networks - one for my Windows boxes, and the main one for everything else.

FWIW, Windows 8.1 too has the option of sharing network access, and they too make all the devices on that network visible on your computer.

If only people would see what the OS actually does, instead of spreading FUD just b'cos they loathe Microsoft (which today is a shadow of its former self)

Comment: Re:if that's true, (Score 3, Interesting) 479 479

I think that you are mis-reading the FAQ, I found this in it

When you share Wi-Fi network access with Facebook friends, Outlook.com contacts, or Skype contacts, they'll be connected to the password-protected Wi-Fi networks that you choose to share and get Internet access when they're in range of the networks (if they use Wi-Fi Sense).

What is even more interesting is that it apparently automatically accepts any terms of use and provides passwords to web-based WiFi access logins, which could create some interesting legal situations (did you really accept the terms, and are you logging in with someone else's username/password)?

'You choose to share' is key here, so the headline is definitely misleading. I could choose to share my primary SSID, or I could choose to share just my guest SSID. If I did the latter, there shouldn't be a problem

Comment: Re:ipv6 incompetence is nothing new. (Score 2) 65 65

It's still very much an issue, since even NAT is running this, and we need to get into 2 layers of NAT, such as NAT 444. That sort of networking won't be much different from SPX/IPX networking that we once had from Novell, where the communications were layer 2 rather than layer 3. IPv6 by contrast enables pure layer 3 communications

Comment: Re:ipv6 incompetence is nothing new. (Score 2) 65 65

Problem is if you tried to redefine everything within the 127. space that's not 127.0.0.1 as public unicast space, you'd have to fiddle w/ the IPv4 protocol of every router, and then you'd have 2 versions of IPv4 in supposedly IPv4 compatible equipment. That would pretty much end IPv4 communications as we know it. Even today, there is IPv4 equipment that's unaware of CIDR or subnet masks or even NAT.

You are right about the wastage, but you're forgetting something: IPv4 was never designed for global use. It was designed by the DoD purely for use by the Pentagon and everybody they worked w/. They were never going to get anywhere even close to 4 billion users, and given the scope of what they were, it was the right fit. Now IPv4 went viral, became a part of TCP/IP and caught on, and once the scope became the whole world, it was woefully inadequate for the job. The IETF recognized that, and set on working on a successor. Since any new protocol would have broken compatibility, since the address header would no longer be 32 bits, they made the new protocol address header 128 bits, so that it was unlikely to be ever changed. Of course, that meant breaking compatibility w/ every piece of Layer 3 equipment, which is why they went for the clean room approach. Some of the concepts they tried to lock in - such as autoconfiguration - was IMO overkill, and ended up potentially restricting this protocol as well, but I think that we could in future get to a point where we could use /96 subnets instead of /64.

Comment: Re:ipv6 incompetence is nothing new. (Score 1) 65 65

But they can inter-operate. There are so many transport mechanisms for them - Dual Stack, Dual Stack-Lite, Teredo, CGNAT, et al.

Compatibility is an irrelevant term here: the correct concept would be 'inter-operable'. It's like the comparison b/w a freeway and a surface street. I could get from Santa Clara to San Mateo via El Camino Real, or I could get there via the I-280. It would be stupid to suggest that I-280 should have been built right next to El Camino Real so that people would use the former in preference to the latter. Or that I-280 gets less traffic b'cos it's not compatible w/ El Camino Real. Truth is that some cars could use the freeway, while those not familiar w/ the I-280 could continue to use ECR. People who use the latter would be those who don't know how to take the 280 from Santa Clara to get to the 92 exit.

Comment: Re:"IPv6 Leakage"??? Give me a break. (Score 2) 65 65

It looks like the issue here is that since IPv6 addresses are freely assigned to any node in a network devoid of DHCPv6, nodes that shouldn't belong in that network get IP addresses, and thereby access to all traffic within the network. In IPv4, if DHCPv4 weren't there, a node has to be manually configured, or else, it doesn't get an address. In IPv6, if DHCPv6 ain't there, a node still gets an address courtesy the combination of SLAAC, ND and DAD.

The solution to this would be to mandate DHCPv6, but networks that choose to avoid it allow the free assignment of addresses to any node within the range of the network, such as tablets or phones that see the SSID. Routers see that thing within the network, and assume that it needs to be assigned one of the addresses from their range. If that node happens to be a hostile spying node, it gets the access and then automatic entry into the VPN, thereby defeating its purpose. With DHCP, one could define which nodes get IP addresses and which don't.

Comment: Re:"IPv6 Leakage"??? Give me a break. (Score 2) 65 65

If this is the model that any VPN service uses, it's really stupid, for 2 reasons:

  • - It combines the weakness of IPv4 tunnels i.e. overlapping private address ranges, and the weakness of IPv6 gateways - proactively assigning node addresses if DHCPv6 ain't supported
  • - It ignores one of the greatest strengths of IPv6 - better connectivity for VPNs

In IPv6, there would be 3 ways to natively support a VPN:

  • - Use Unique Local Addresses (fd00::/8) which would ensure a good likelihood of non-overlapping address ranges
  • - Make a VLAN of Global Unicast Addresses from the 2 networks in question, adding only the nodes that need to be in it
  • - Assign addresses from one of the networks to nodes in the other, and set up a proxy connection b/w the two

Simply extending IPv4 concepts to IPv6 is likely to break things, given the changes in how the networks are built: in IPv4, nodes have to request addresses, whereas in IPv6, nodes are automatically assigned addresses. So when constructing VPNs, network admins would have to account for those differences while defining their networks.

Frankly, I don't see how a VPN could be constructed if the IPv6 networks in question don't have DHCPv6 support. That's the minimum that needs to be there, otherwise every node in the networks would be a part of a VPN, regardless of whether they need to be or not. A few days ago, we were discussing DHCPv6 support in Android: this is one of the cases where SLAAC + DAD/ND is inadequate, and where you need to have a well defined address assignment policy

VMS must die!

Working...