Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: Hell no (Score 1) 381

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” - commonly attributed to Edsger Dijkstra, but disputed.

I have sometimes compared those who have studied computer science (as opposed to learning how to program) with those who have studied music. You can be a very successful programmer without any computer science just as you can be a very successful musician without music theory. Mastery of the advanced studies of your discipline will make you a better than merely someone who can just get the job done.

Comment Re:cost and benifit (Score 2) 74

Passive AV software is about eliminating malware AFTER it has taken root on a system. Active AV injects itself into critical checkpoints. Microsoft, to their credit, has taken proactive steps to close the exploits that malware have used enter a system. Steps like including Flash player updates with Windows updates. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's gone a long way to the point of making AV software the "low hanging fruit" of attack surfaces.
I'll also echo what many have said - WSE and SPI Firewalls (Stateful Packet Inspection is the prerequisite of NAT is what actually protects you) have been the only thing I've been using for years.

Comment Re:pfsense (Score 2) 403

The worry isn't the new processes. It's the systemd process itself. I'll grant that having systemd pre-reducing privileges is better than expecting the daemon process to reduce privileges on its own. At what point will running systemd without networking be essentially non-optional due to widespread community adoption? I feel many of the worries of the parent of your post are still valid.

Comment Re:Again... (Score 1) 278

Let's not forget that the Snowden documents are now a year and a half old. A year and a half ago, everyone thought the ciphers and protocols were good enough. Fast forward to the eve of 2015 and we know better. We have a new sense of what is state of the art. We know not to use ciphers with static keys that could be subject to subpoena requests and so on a so forth. I'm not so naïeve to believe that new ciphers will stop them in their tracks. The still have incredible resources to draw upon. We just have new speed bumps.

Comment Re:If only PJ was still running groklaw! (Score 1) 173

I suspected it was last straw. She was looking for an excuse.

That said, however, lawyers in good standing enjoy a legal privilege of being able to discuss matters with clients in confidence and be able to withhold those discussion from the government. If you can't communicate privately the privilege is eviscerated.

Perhaps she wasn't so much worried about herself than the confidential sources she used?

Comment Re:Embedded Systems (Score 1) 641

And don't forget to ask what language was that high level language written in?
Ruby - written in C
Erlang - written in C
Node.js - written in C with a few x86 and ARM assembler bits
Perl - written in C
Python - written in C

And the truly mind-numbing one: GNU C compiler - written in C.

Comment Re:Locking USB... (Score 4, Informative) 97

Lock Switch? Then you don't understand the problem. The problem is that in many USB Flash are two chips: a computer and memory. The host PC communicates with the USB controller and the controller talks to the memory. Most controllers are just a version of the 8051 CPU with USB logic bolted on. The lock switch would be a high-level function that returns an error on a generic block device write command. Hacking the USB device isn't hacking the flash memory, it's hacking the firmware on the 8051. The Device Firmware Update function of USB that allowed that 8051 computer to be reprogrammed should be disabled.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford