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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: Will Internet Voting Endanger The Secret Ballo (Score 2) 219

I think that countries need to switch to an open ballot because of the conflicts between the secret ballot and hybrid direct/representative democratic systems and electronic voting (which thanks to advances in cryptography becomes more viable every day). However the only reason the US didn't have huge trouble with an open ballot was the decreased motive for vote buying, since all voters in that time were white males - and usually from the upper classes at that (during much of that period, the white males also had to own land and/or pass an "intelligence test" and travel in ways that weren't practical for the working class in order to vote). In short, the country club crowd had no reason to pay or coerce each other to vote the way they all wanted. The fledgling democracy would've been clearly identified as an oligopoly by today's standards.

An open ballot being shoehorned into today's world would cause corruption and vote fraud to skyrocket. A switch to an open ballot system, which again I think is a worthwhile pursuit, will need to be accompanied with very strong technical and legal countermeasures to prevent this.

Comment Re:Time to update firewalls. (Score 1) 87

How has the CA that sold the cert to the wifi company not been blacklisted? I assume they've legally cleared themselves by putting notification of this in the wifi portal EULA, but that is ethically wrong as hell. The CA sold a cert for use in what is effectively a blackhat SSL MITM appliance that is supposedly being used with the best of intentions.

Ethically the right thing to do would be to spell out how the airline wifi works on the portal page and include instructions on how to accept a self-signed MITM cert for those who wish to continue.

Comment Re:Time to update firewalls. (Score 1) 87

I think Firefox handles self-signed certs that same way as most other browsers, so you should be able to permanently trust the cert at the first use. It sounds like you might be using temporary profiles or private browsing sessions.

That said, the usual system of handling self-signed certs is a stupid one. Self-signed certs should be treated exactly the same as unencrypted traffic. There should be no "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!" warning when one is encountered. A self-signed cert is in no way less secure than a plaintext connection. The user should have the option to store and permanently trust a self-signed cert at any time.

Comment Re: Time to update firewalls. (Score 1) 87

That's not inspecting the traffic content, that's a NIDS that builds a profile of "normal operation" based on traffic patterns and checks against it. It would stop all your file shares from being uploaded at full speed over HTTPS to a novel server for example, but nothing much less blatant than that. It wouldn't do anything about a user passing malware back and forth all day long over their usual SSL'ed webmail or web chat service for example.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 2) 285

If I were Putin, and I had dirt on Clinton, I'd hang on to it until she were President. Much more leverage that way.

Why? Then you have someone with a head on their shoulders running your rival country and all you can do is try to get leverage on them after the fact with dirt on someone who is already covered in it (both candidates are well-covered, in fact). If you release the dirt before the election, you might get a fawning fanboy of yours who thinks like a 12-year-old boy running the US instead, giving you far more leverage overall than threatening Hillary with yet another skeleton for her cavernous walk-in wardrobe full of them.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin

Working...