Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I fail to see the problem here (Score 4, Informative) 93

The FBI requested chat logs; that doesn't mean that Microsoft actually has them. Having seen subpoenas and such (guess the "and such") to ISPs/telcos before, they always request everything they can think of, but that's just the request. It is perfectly legal to reply with "the requested data is not available."

Comment Re:What do their friends play on? (Score 4, Insightful) 375

This. My gaming friends and I are not hard-core gamers, so we went with consoles. A couple of them have been on Xbox Live since the original Xbox first came out, so we went with 360s years ago and are now moving to XbOnes.

If you are going with a gaming setup to play solo, look at what supports the most games you are interested in (since there are exclusives on PC, Xbox, and Playstation). If you are gaming with friends, see what they're getting.

Comment Re:No one is surprised (Score 2) 217

That's like saying "IP sucks because it allows telnet!". TLS supports cipher negotiation; there is nothing that says you have to configure your server and/or browser to allow MD5, RC4, 1024-bit RSA, SHA-1, etc.; in fact, those are have been/are being deprecated by browser vendors (and have already been removed from most secure server configs).

Comment Re:No one is surprised (Score 4, Informative) 217

There's no need for a new protocol; TLS allows you to configure servers and clients to restrict the available ciphers. That's why the browser vendors have been able to push out MD5 (and moving on SHA-1), RC4, RSA 2048 bit, etc. No protocol changes were necessary; just remove ciphers from the supported list used to negotiate the connection.

BTW: research indicates that AES256 may in fact be slightly weaker than AES128, in some use cases. Both are still have no practical attacks, even for nation-state level attacks; at this time, there is no evidence that AES256 would be "more secure" in practical terms (i.e. billions of years to break one encrypted message) than AES128. Given that, there is no reason to replace AES128 with AES256, now or in the foreseeable future. Odds are that if some attack vector against AES is found, it will be time to move to a new algorithm, not just more bits/rounds.

Comment Re:Wrong choice (Score 3, Insightful) 282

I suggest you look up how SDN switches and Juniper routers work. In neither case is the commodity OS used in the forwarding path; it is just a control-plane OS, and the performance of the control-plane OS's network stack has no bearing on traffic performance. Whether FreeBSD's network stack is "better" than Linux's is debatable (I thought all the BSD-heads "knew" that OpenBSD's network stack was the best, not FreeBSD), but it has no relevance here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.

Working...