Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment this isn't an external brute force attack (Score 4, Informative) 66

This attack is still done on device. It just clones the NAND back to "0 strikes" after each 6 attempts.

This attack doesn't extract the memory and doesn't decode externally. It just copies NANDs.

Why is this significant? Because it means you can't do extraction in parallel, you still have to go through all the codes sequentially on the device.

It defeats the significant portions of the backoff. It defeats the erase after n failures. It's a very significant attack.

But no one said this type of attack was impossible. I personally read about variants on this attack while the controversy was going on. I even posited it myself. I believe Apple even addressed it claiming that this attack wasn't possible on later iPhones due to a change in how the failure count is stored.


Stanford Engineers Propose A Technology To Break The Net Neutrality Deadlock ( 199

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Stanford engineers have invented a technology that would allow an internet user to tell network providers and online publishers when and if they want content or services to be given preferential delivery, an advance that could transform the network neutrality debate. Net neutrality, as it's often called, is the proposition that internet providers should allow equal access to all content rather than give certain applications favored status or block others. But the Stanford engineers -- Professor Nick McKeown, Associate Professor Sachin Katti and electrical engineering PhD Yiannis Yiakoumis -- say their new technology, called Network Cookies, makes it possible to have preferential delivery and an open internet. Network Cookies allow users to choose which home or mobile traffic should get favored delivery, while putting network operators and content providers on a level playing field in catering to such user-signaled preferences. "So far, net neutrality has been promoted as the best possible defense for users," Katti said. "But treating all traffic the same isn't necessarily the best way to protect users. It often restricts their options and this is why so-called exceptions from neutrality often come up. We think the best way to ensure that ISPs and content providers don't make decisions that conflict with the interests of users is to let users decide how to configure their own traffic." McKeown said Network Cookies implement user-directed preferences in ways that are consistent with the principles of net neutrality. "First, they're simple to use and powerful," McKeown said. "They enable you to fast-lane or zero-rate traffic from any application or website you want, not just the few, very popular applications. This is particularly important for smaller content providers -- and their users -- who can't afford to establish relationships with ISPs. Second, they're practical to deploy. They don't overwhelm the user or bog down user devices and network operators and they function with a variety of protocols. Finally, they can be a very practical tool for regulators, as they can help them design simple and clear policies and then audit how well different parties adhere to them." The researchers presented a technical paper on their approach at a conference in Brazil.

Comment okay Netflix, then why do you have stream limits? (Score 1) 160

Why does Netflix have a limit of concurrent streams and they charge more for more streams? If Netflix is serious about having various levels of service at different prices is unacceptable Netflix should lead the way by going to a single fixed price for all customers.

4K or not, any number of concurrent streams, etc. It all could be the same price.

The reason why it isn't is the same reason ISPs don't charge everyone the same price. You can make more money by offering differentiated services at different prices.

Comment their upsell system sucks (Score 1) 341

This happens over and over at companies who incentivize their customer service people to push services and accounts. If you ever go to Wells Fargo they always try to shift you into a new kind of account or something. And so I'm sure if not enough people walk in they just resort to making up fake people or changing account signups for people who didn't even show up.

Creating this kind of structure is bad business and leads to dumb things like this.. Companies shouldn't be so stupid as to make this mistake over and over.

Comment VCs didn't get rich sharing money (Score 0) 43

They don't get rich by sharing their returns with non-investors.

He likely has either been diluted or owns a class of shares which will be diluted.

They didn't give out those shares because they actually wanted to make someone rich, but as a promotional effort. Once the promotion was accomplished they immediately had plenty of reason to begin cutting the guy out of the deal.

It's weird that the original (fusion) article switches between saying they are options and they are shares.

Comment Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best (Score 1) 64

> False. This fix does not substantially affect mileage.

What fix? This is not a fix. It doesn't actually bring the car into compliance. If gas cars were allowed to exceed emissions then they also would be more efficient.

> Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel.

That's only true of direct injected gas engines. This is why I said "depending on the car you compare to". Either way, gas cars, even DI ones, are within the legal limits. These Diesels are not, even after the fix.

> Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel

This isn't true anymore. Diesel is a highly refined product now also. Clean emissions requires clean and homogeneous input fuel and that means more processing.

> Gasoline engines are shit for the environment.

As are Diesels.

> You know that battery electrolyte isn't recycled, right? It's just disposed of and then replaced.

When? Look at the study on 15 year old Priuses, they virtually all have their original batteries. The battery isn't highly recyclable (yet), but the savings on fuel more than makes up for it. You're barking up the wrong tree here. Hybrids are a net win, even with the material of the battery accounted for.

> But I live in the boonies, so I would still have to do most of my driving on liquid fuel. And they are also quite expensive, to boot.

Not everyone is you. And in the US (which this article is about) Diesels aren't cheap either. Oh yeah, and they've been cheating too. They're not going to get cheaper when they add the equipment needed to conform to emissions regulations.

> My prior car was a 300SD, which was a bit better on mileage and which ran on a more environmentally-friendly fuel.

That car is a rolling smog bank and you are trying to talk about how your input fuel was renewable? Seriously, have you looked at the emissions standards it was required to conform? They were a joke in the US and a double joke in Europe. It's far filthier than its contemporary gas cars and really bad compares to any modern car of any sort.

Comment the CO2 improvements are minor at best (Score 1) 64

Diesel engines emit 15-20% more CO2 per unit volume (liter/gallon) of fuel burned because the fuel contains more energy/carbon.

And once the companies stop cheating, the fuel economy of the Diesel just isn't all that much better than a turbo gas engine.

Why put up with extra NOx and particulates (depending on the car you compare to) to save such a small amount of CO2? Just get a gas hybrid and do better all around. Or a plug-in hybrid like the Volt where you can do most of your driving burning no liquid fuel at all?

Slashdot Top Deals

A successful [software] tool is one that was used to do something undreamed of by its author. -- S. C. Johnson