
This article could be interesting if it included references to who said what and in which context. Just saying "[[tech]] is a toy." without further developing or even including at least a reference is pointless - one could come up with just about any tech as an example whenever real or not.
This article is unfortunately nothing more than a waste of time
I don't really get your comment. Of course you need to trust the signer's key which is what I mean by a "known valid version of the signer's key", and the basis for that is not another user's trust unless you really trust that user as well.
However you can look at multiple sources for the key before giving it some trust (mail archives, wayback machine, which key signed previous versions, etc). Best is to actually verify the signature in person, but that's not always possible.
Note that in any case it can't be worse that relying *only* on the checksum - without a valid signature, the checksum serves only for integrity verification, and if all you need is to check transfer integrity you really don't need anything better than MD5 as although insecure the chances of collisions is way too small for one to occur accidentally.
So no one checks the SHA256 sum then its signature against a known valid version of the signer's public key?
I feel all alone on my small isle.
That thing - coLinux - was the best thing I've ever used in terms of Linux over Windows... I was really sad they couldn't get it running on 64bit hardware.
Just to days short and CNBC would have make fool of itself on April Fool's day!
After researcher on Valve, season is starting early this year.
I have a problem! somebody all my fleshcoins! the whole thing!
Well that sounds like the solution to http://xkcd.com/792/ 's problems...
On a serious note though, I won't shed a tear for CryptoRush.in. Using the same password on a small, no-reputation mining pool as the admin access to a currency exchange!?! That's a huge fail even by the lowest security standards, and these guys should know better.
Then what about getting coins stolen from the hot wallet and not even flagging the loss? What's even the point of an offline wallet when you don't reconcile the hot wallet before adding funds to it?? Another huge neglect on their part.
I actually it's probably a good thing they're now out of business because with that level of laxity, if not now there's no doubt it would have happened later, likely with more users and bigger balances... It's just sad for those who lost their coins in the process.
So they figured they always end up botching every other release, so why not throw away Windows 9 before development even started and go straight to Windows 10?
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.