Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Unauthorized? (Score 1) 60

Yeah, that activity was authorized. You're using "unauthorized" as if it means "unwelcome" I think, which puts you in confused banker territory.

You keep using that word in the narrow terms of a computer programmer who just finished a training course where they drilled in the technical meanings of "authorization" vs "authentication".

However, a news article for the general public is not constrained by that context. The dictionary says that "authorization" in general is permission to do something. If you prompt an AI to do one thing with your bank account, then you didn't give it permission to do something else entirely, even if it got the logon credentials to do so. It wasn't authorized by you to do the other thing.

Here's another example: It's wartime and you got drafted. Usually you're not allowed to kill people, but the government handed you a gun and you're now authorized to kill enemy soldiers. That doesn't mean that you can just shoot your comrade next to you in the trench. And you certainly can't make the claim "But I was authorized to shoot Corporal Smith. You gave me a gun, after all!"

Comment Re:Unauthorized? (Score 5, Insightful) 60

If they're "operating inside" user's accounts, they're authorized. Does someone need to explain to banks what authorized means?

Consider a human analogy: In many cases, people give financial advisors access to one or more of their accounts so that the advisor can make trades or other transactions for the benefit of their clients. However, if an advisor suddenly starts making transactions that do not benefit the clients or are contrary to their agreed instructions, then that activity is unauthorized, even if they have login credentials.

Comment Re:Bezos doing atomics (Score 5, Funny) 86

****1/2 "Customers say that this is a great small modular nuclear reactor. They like the compact size and the fact that it's not too much power for a data center or industrial site. They especially appreciate the ease of setup and that the ultimate waste disposal question has been deferred yet again so that they don't have to worry about it. However, some customers report problems with cost overruns, vaporware, and availability of suitable fuel. Some customers note a larger terrorist attack surface per megawatt relative to full-sized reactors and question the security arrangements. There are also reports of real-world reliability problems with the novel design, with one customer reporting a catastrophic meltdown in their urban installation."

Comment Re:hmm (Score 1) 35

ResiP apps are highly problematic. While the premise of having easy access to a nearly infinite number of residential IPs for super cheap is appealing for all sorts of reasons and may even have some legitimate uses such as for anti-circumvention campaigns that would route traffic from activists in democracy challenged environments through residential IP exit points thus mitigating the abuse penalty incurred by commercial or Tor gateways, abuse of ResiP systems is rife, likely dominant.

Servers used to see script kiddies attack via abuse tolerant VPNs or colo/virtual host tenant farms and so were easily managed by detecting a pattern of malicious attacks coming from a finite number of IPs or C-classes or domains and against this reactive intrusion detection tools and IPBLs have been useful. Someone attempting credential stuffing might get a few guesses down the most common password/account list combos before being locked out and then move on to the next target in their list. Now logs are filled with the same sort of attacks: password:toor@server.com, pasSSword:toor@... etc but each sequential try comes from a different IP, often a different country. Dynamic block lists exploded from dozens (my Fail2Ban list ran 50-200 or so IPs) to thousands of IPs (today 8,065 IPs and 514 C-classes, most listed for one obviously malicious connection attempt).

Tor exit nodes do carry some of the same issues and running one will result in reputational consequences for your IP, just as running a ResIP app will for every connection you pair with.

A difference in practical implementations that matters is that setting up a Tor exit node isn't trivial and the consequences are well documented; the people capable of doing so generally also competent to comprehend those consequences. ResiP apps require no particular competence and are often marketed in deceptive ways. Further, the "exit point" moves with the user-device. Everywhere they go, they spew malicious traffic and criminal activities over whatever end point they connect with: home, friends, LTE, coffee shops. Every hotspot the device pairs with becomes a victim of the crimes enabled by the app.

ISPs need to look for indicators of ResiP exit nodes (if you block the command and control domains, you'll see traffic move to direct DNS across all commercial DNS providers, block those and traffic moves to DoT and then DoH, at which point the ISP should blacklist the client until they clean up their proxyware infection.

Comment Re:How did they measure nutrients from the 1960s? (Score 2) 130

Is the measurement methodology the same? Was the equipment equally sensitive? Could the difference be attributed to the differences in technology from the past 60 years?

I think so. I was but a tyke in that era, but I clearly remember my uncle bitterly complaining at the time: "We can put a man on the moon, but we still can't measure the nutrient levels in vegetables with sufficient accuracy!"

Life is so much better now.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Today's robots are very primitive, capable of understanding only a few simple instructions such as 'go left', 'go right', and 'build car'." --John Sladek

Working...