Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:There are 900 .com registrars (Score 1) 76

There are 900 registrars handling .com, any of which can issue a transfer and change the root DNS servers for any .com domain.

So they don't keep track of which registrars are responsible for which domains? That does seem a bit messed up, if true. My impression was that there was a formal process registrars had to go through to transfer control over a domain name—or does that only restrict domain owners, and not registrars? If the control over .com domains is really as chaotic as you say then that is a separate issue that ought to be addressed independent of DANE or DNSSEC.

Even so, DANE still gives you the benefit of domain validation without the need to deal with a traditional CA as well as your DNSSEC trust chain. You also have the option of choosing a TLD with saner access controls than simply granting 900 separate entities global write access.

Comment Re:"Signed all the way". That's just a different C (Score 1) 76

You still have CA, you've just decided that the CA needs to be the same people who run DNS, because ... well no good reason that I can think of. What does that gain you?

First, this is for Domain Validation certificates only. The normal CA process would still apply if you wanted an EV certificate—though you could restrict your domain to a specific EV certificate for additional security.

If someone has control over your domain records they can already obtain a DV certificate for your domain from just about any CA by redirecting the domain to their own servers. What DANE buys you is all the security you would get with Domain Validation minus the need to deal with two different CAs, one for DNSSEC and another for TLS.

As a bonus, with DANE records for a site "" there are only three entities you need to trust: the domain administrator for "", the registrar for "com.", and the root authority. In the traditional CA system any CA can issue a certificate for any domain, so you're forced to trust dozens (if not hundreds) of CAs both to maintain the security of their signing keys and to refrain from issuing an unauthorized certificate for your domain. A breach at any one of those CAs can compromise the security of your site.

Comment Re:Here's the actual problem, (Score 1) 191

I've lived as an immigrant and guest worker for much of my life, and I've always understood that immigration is a privilege, that as an immigrant I do not have most of the rights of citizens, and that until I become a citizen, I can be asked to leave at any time.

You're selling yourself short. Your rights are not defined by the government's whims. You have just as much right to be here as anyone born within the geopolitical boundaries of the United States. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise (including the U.S. government) is infringing on your natural rights as a sentient being.

Comment Sounds a lot like USB-Câ power delivery (Score 2) 68

My eyes kind of glazed over reading the description but none of this sounded like anything you can't already do with USB-C power delivery mode. You can already run a 1080p display off of your cell phone, both power and data on the same cable. If you hook it up to a capable hub you can plug in your mouse and keyboard too

Submission + - Wikileaks Releases "NightSkies 1.2": Proof CIA Bugs "Factory Fresh" iPhones (

anonieuweling writes: Meet the CIA's "NightSkies 1.2" project, a "beacon/loader/implant tool" for the Apple iPhone "expressly designed to be physically installed onto factory fresh iPhones. i.e the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets since at least 2008."
So yes, Is the deep state of the USA evil?

Submission + - WikiLeaks: CIA Has Been Infecting iPhones At the Factory Since 2008 (

An anonymous reader writes: Just when you thought the hole couldn't get any deeper:

Today, March 23rd 2017, WikiLeaks releases Vault 7 “Dark Matter”, which contains documentation for several CIA projects that infect Apple Mac Computer firmware (meaning the infection persists even if the operating system is re-installed) developed by the CIA’s Embedded Development Branch (EDB). These documents explain the techniques used by CIA to gain ‘persistence’ on Apple Mac devices, including Macs and iPhones and demonstrate their use of EFI/UEFI and firmware malware.

Comment Re:It won't matter (Score 1) 242

After I switched out the cartridges, I shipped the empty cartridge back in the same box as I got the new cartridge, print out a shipping label and drop it off at the post office. Hence, I "rented" the cartridge and kept the ink.

You're not renting the cartridge; it belongs to you. You may or may not get a credit towards the purchase of a new cartridge if you return your old one for recycling, but there is no penalty for simply keeping it. If you were renting the cartridge you would be obligated to return it eventually, whether or not you wanted a new one.

There are cases where the container for a consumable really is rented; for example, if you need a small quantity of liquid nitrogen you'll generally want to rent a dewar to carry it rather than buying your own. (Liquid nitrogen is relatively cheap, on its own, but the dewars start at several hundred dollars.)

Comment Re:Liability (Score 1) 497

And then just at the moment BigCorp starts to loose [sic], they settle out of court.

Settlements are voluntary and must be accepted by both sides. If the plaintiff doesn't want to settle there isn't anything BigCorp can do about it.

To me, out of court settlements should not mean that the case should be dropped.

What else would it mean? A settlement is nothing more or less than an agreement to drop the case in exchange for some compensation. You could prohibit settlements entirely, but it makes no sense to have an out-of-court settlement where the court continues to hear the case. Even prohibiting settlement would be somewhat problematic since the court relies on the plaintiff to argue their side of the case convincingly—it doesn't really make sense to punish a plaintiff for withdrawing their claims in response to a better offer by the defendant, and the enforcement necessary to prevent the plaintiff from deliberately losing would be difficult at best. Ultimately the court is there to see to it that disagreements are resolved, not to create new ones. If the plaintiff and defendant can resolve their issues on their own with an out-of-court settlement, why should the court interfere?

Comment This happened to my friend (he's now a Vet) (Score 3, Informative) 181

This happened to my buddy. He got in a car accident or something. This was shortly after he graduated from high school, and his father had just died. He ended up on pain meds, ended up getting addicted after a couple of months. When his prescription ran out, he called up our mutual friend who was in to drugs and got more. This went on for about 18 months before he decided he wanted to become a veterinarian, somehow his friends and family weaned him off pills, and after two years was accepted in to vet school. Through no small miracle he made it through grad school and graduated, he's now pretty successful.
I grew up in a pretty rich suburb, we had time to help him and his family through the addiction, and he had a strong goal to strive for. Many people don't have the opportunities or strong safety net that he did.

Comment Re:This is bullcrap (Score 1) 518

The password (like a key to a safe) ...

I think you mean "like a combination to a safe". Passwords aren't like physical keys—they're something you know, not something you have. And unlike physical keys, which can be seized with a warrant, there is no precedent for requiring a suspect to divulge the code to a combination lock.

Comment Re:Destroy code? (Score 1) 518

I doubt that would work in this case as I'm sure LEO images the media and tries to decrypt the images.

You don't wipe the drive itself, you wipe the key stored in the TPM or equivalent (which is tamper-resistant and not easily cloneable). Even with the master password, no one can decrypt the contents of the drive without the active participation of the original TPM. An image of the encrypted drive will not help at all if the TPM can be persuaded to delete the sole copy of the decryption key, for example by providing it with a duress password.

Comment Re:A conundrum for small government (Score 1) 164

But: you are agreeing with me. The thing which is preventing local municipalities from proliferating regulations is state government telling the municipalities what they can and can't do.

But the state is not telling individuals what they can and cannot do. A higher level of government overruling a meddlesome lower level is not a problem for "small-governmenters" provided the net effect is that decision-making becomes more local—in this case, moving from municipalities down to the level of individual property owners. A government that does nothing but prevent all other levels of government (and non-government criminals—an arguably lesser threat) from interfering in the rightful actions of the individuals within their domain is pretty much the small-government ideal.

There is a big difference between regulating the free exercise of property rights by individuals and restricting the powers local governments hold over the individuals within their jurisdiction. The former interferes with the actions of individuals, the latter prevents interference.

Comment Re: sorry, no (Score 1) 448

To be fair the overall company is turning a profit on every one of those phones sold in NZ. They just aren't showing the profit in NZ by hiding it with high license fees.

If that is the problem then there is a very simple solution: just do away with IP. No more IP means no more writing off licensing of foreign IP on tax returns. As long as IP exists as a legal concept this scheme of transferring profits to a foreign IP-holding company will be impossible to eradicate. As far as the law is concerned, those licensing fees must be considered true costs of doing business, and they do indeed result in zero net taxable income to the licensee. The only sound way to prevent such profit-transfers would be to stop allowing IP licensing fees to be deducted as business expenses, but if you did that and failed to eliminate the requirement to license IP in the first place then every major business would instantly spiral into bankruptcy—their profit margins could not support the increased tax burden.

Comment Re:Careful what you wish for... (Score 1) 448

Apple does not pay VAT. It merely collects it. End users pay VAT.

A technicality. Either way, the VAT is coming out of Apple's profit margin. You don't think the end-user price would be any lower if there were no VAT, do you? In a competitive commodity market, perhaps, but Apple has a natural monopoly on Apple-branded products—given their customer's well-known brand loyalty, they aren't really competing on price against non-Apple devices. The end-user price will be set at whatever the market will bear, independent of VAT.

Comment Re:Preventing Ludited (Score 1) 164

In a Hotel the quality of the rooms, the safety of the Hotel, and the honesty of your hosts are all regulated so they are at least at a minimal level

That acceptable "minimal level" is for the guests to decide, not for the government to set by fiat.

Generally it will not lower property values but raise them, as people who cannot afford the house on their incoming supplement it with AirBnB pricing you out of the market ....

If having AirBnB available increases the property value, that just means that the residence would have been underutilized without AirBnB—an economic waste. The house is worth what buyers are willing to pay for it with that AirBnB supplement. If you payed less for the same property because AirBnB was prohibited then your profit came at someone else's expense.

Slashdot Top Deals

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.