Once the information is stored on the global database, you don’t need to scan the files again and again, the antivirus program would automatically retrieve information from Whitelist database. You can be sure about your files before installing or taking the risk of running them.
If you are a developer, then you may want to submit your apps to Kaspersky Whitelist, so that your users can assure themselves about the security of your application and it would also give you the program usage data.
Does this alleviate the need for signatures?
Does this stop 0-day exploits quicker?
If Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov has his way, the human lifespan will soon no longer depend on the limitations of the human body. Itskov, a Russian tycoon and former media mogul, is the founder of the 2045 Project — a venture that seeks to replace flesh-and-blood bodies with robotic avatars, each one uploaded with the contents of a human brain. The goal: to extend human lives by hundreds or thousands of years, if not indefinitely.
The bill comes in the aftermath of the National Security Agency leak scandal that revealed some pieces of the agency’s massive domestic surveillance program, including the collection of call data on millions of Verizon customers. The leaks also revealed the existence of a program called PRISM through which the NSA gets data on users from companies such as Google, Yahoo, Apple and Microsoft. Some of the key sponsors of the bill, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have been vocal critics of the extent of government surveillance as well as the secrecy surrounding its interpretations of the Patriot Act.
Under the terms of the proposed law, the Justice Department would be required to declassify major FISC opinions as a way to give Americans a view into how the federal government is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Patriot Act. If the attorney general determines that a specific ruling can’t be declassified without endangering national security, he can declassify a summary of it. If even that isn’t possible, then the AG would need to explain specifically why the opinion needs to be kept secret.
Texting a friend verbally while behind the wheel caused a “large” amount of mental distraction compared with “moderate/significant” for holding a phone conversation or talking with a passenger and “small” when listening to music or an audio book, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found in a report released today.
Automakers have promoted voice-based messaging as a safer alternative to taking hands off the wheel to place a call and talk on a handheld phone. About 9 million infotainment systems will be shipped this year in cars sold worldwide, with that number projected to rise to more than 62 million by 2018, according to a March report by London-based ABI Research.
“As we push towards these hands-free systems, we may be solving one problem while creating another,” said Joel Cooper, a University of Utah assistant research professor who worked on the study. “Tread lightly. There’s a lot of rush to develop these systems.”
The findings from the largest U.S. motorist group bolster National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman’s call to ban all phone conversations behind the wheel, even with hands-free devices.
All of these criticisms could be valid. Technology firms may not have given intelligence agencies unfettered and unchecked access to their users' data. Edward Snowden may be, as the New York Times's David Brooks suggests, one of those 20-something-men leading a "life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society." All those critiques may be true without undermining the larger truth of Snowden's revelation: in an age of global, networked communications and interactions, we are all a lot less free than we thought we were.
I say this because nobody has seriously challenged the basic truth of Snowden's leak: that many of the world's leading telecommunications and technology firms are regularly divulging information about their users' activities and communications to law enforcement and intelligence agencies based on warrantless requests and court reviews that are hidden from public scrutiny.
It hasn't always been so. In 1877, the U.S. Supreme Court, weighing the government's ability to inspect the content of letters sent via the postal service, found that "No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution." That's why all of us understand that exercising the convenience of dropping a letter in the corner post office box doesn't mean that we also consent to the government ripping open that letter and read its contents.
Sadly, we've been steadily conditioned to think differently about our electronic communications. We've been asked by both private sector firms and our government to accept a false choice: that there must be some bargain – a tradeoff between privacy and convenience.
But the challenge arises when you (possibly rightfully so) perceive that your government is not able do so, and you demand to be allowed to “hack back”.
Unfortunately, getting it to work on Chromium browsers on Linux is not as easy as it should.
Here's a detailed step-by-step tutorial to start playing with this marvellous tools on your favourite operating system.