Sounds like he's talking about md5 collisions. But that's not the cause of AV false flags.
The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders
Reports say that Meyer ordered underlings to not buy the resources to prevent and then not report the security breaches at Yahoo! That cost shareholders more than $1B in valuation on the Verizon deal.
That's one heck of a negative RoI. She had the wrong instincts, she did the wrong thing, and her owners paid dearly for it.
speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive
No, all her competitors invest in security and are not punished by the market for doing so. This is comparing her to the field, not some ubermensch ideal.
That Batman is the #1 superhero indicates that a very large majority of the public recognizes that the State is limited in ability, resources, effectiveness, and competence.
Imagine you're at a shopping mall, some nut comes in and starts throwing knives at passersby, taking out one shopper every five to ten seconds. There's a grandpa there packing a 9mm under his coat. Do you:
a) want the grandpa to take out the knife-attacker
b) call 911 and wait for the police to arrive
Statists will generally sacrifice all the people's lives in scenario b) because they value group power over individual life, liberty, and property. Non-statists believe in self-defense and third-party defense as a right and even a societal obligation and will go with a) and save all those lives. The Statists will then show up to call grandpa a 'vigilante'.
Fortunately, the Internet is inherently Stateless so the third-party defense doctrine applies. As far as motive - we just heard a couple days ago about the teens on moral crusades, and then there's the possibility that people (at Dyn?) lost their jobs over the recent high-profile Mirai attacks and would want to see that botnet brought down.
the one that will extract the most profit from consumers' wallets
Oh, dear, an article by a Marxist still living in 1860. They love them class warfare vocabulary.
The online shopping sites are not trying to get the highest price they can for every product. They are trying to get the optimal price for every product.
Often times the optimal price can be the lowest price, or close to it. One only needs to look at Walmart's position at #1 on the Fortune 500 to understand this is true.
The optimal price is one that enables the highest overall profit for the company. Keeping customers coming back is absolutely one requirement for maximizing profit. Low prices directly benefit consumers and producers in many markets.
What Marxists fail to understand is that profit is the information signal that is sent through the economy from consumers to producers to indicate that they approve of what they are doing. A 'Like button' in the parlance of our times.
Profit is a very good thing, and it benefits consumers by constantly refining the goods available on the market and the prices of those goods.
Granted, Marx didn't have the benefit of game theory or information theory to work with, but modern writers have no excuse for ignoring modern learning (that's already 60-80 years old). Here's a recent Freakonomics episode on price elasticity that might help some aspiring writers (or even economists) who don't even want to take the time to read.
Would be even better if there was a practical way to plug other vehicles into the network.
I kinda doubt the Tesla superchargers suck at what they do. Tesla has the biggest infrastructure to date and has opened its patents to other manufacturers to use. There is very little benefit to the owner of a Volt or Leaf to not being able to use the supercharger network. There may be benefit to the other vehicles' manufacturers to make their systems proprietary (maybe GM is delusional about "owning all the gas stations of the future" or some silly thing like that).
Y'know, some manufacturer had to first develop the standard gasoline filler spout and gauge, and the other manufacturers' have done pretty well by cooperating on those, keeping diesel out of gas engines, etc. Perhaps at the time Studebaker thought they'd own all the gas stations of the future. Coopetition needs to be described to the boardrooms often times, though.
And, there, you have a car analogy for your car problem. Yo, dog.
People are trying to minimize the money you get constantly while trying to maximize what they take from you.
Don't take the money from yourself. I pay $36-something for 4G Verizon MVNO / 5GB through Walmart and the ability to access data on the road saves me more than $36 a month (Gas Buddy, kids-eat-free deals, GPS navigation, Prime audio books, etc.). It would harm me economically to get a cheaper plan.
Given how bad this article's headline is for a tech crowd, if
and for many people that address was the one they got from their ISP.
I'm curious how many people are still using their first ISP. Anybody have percentages?
I'm more concerned when the smartTV can be remotely turned into a listening device.
Since this trove was taken it's been shown that most of these devices phone home over plain HTTP, they don't authenticate TLS, or they don't validate payload signatures (and usually more than one of these). And the software that uses those resources doesn't do any error checking.
I'll gladly bet five bucks that simple interception, SSID spoofing, and in-line splicing are all being used for remote exploitation by now either with these or similar devices.
we aren't going to travel between the stars until we figure out something a whole lot better than chemical rockets
If only somebody would put some serious effort into solar sail trajectories!
and probably FTL drive... Everything else is just fantasy...
If users have their devices bricked, they may simply buy another vulnerable IoT device to replace it, perhaps from the same manufacturer.
Are you suggesting there are people who will keep buying the same type of e.g. WiFi lightbulbs that work for a couple hours and then stop working, without returning them?
A return usually costs more than the profit on a device; it's an economically valid feedback mechanism assuming that kind of person isn't actually common. It seems unlikely to me that it is the typical behavior pattern.
It is unfortunate that retribution type attacks are not considered "appropriate".
Self-defense is not retribution. Third-party defense is always considered valid when a threat is imminent.
All the data we have shows that devices that are vulnerable to Mirai, et. al. will become Mirai bots in a short amount of time, and will begin attacking third-party Internet infrastructure.
If somebody can show the above claim to be false, please do so, showing reason and evidence.
If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.
Remember: use logout to logout.